Foreman vs Lyle (early 1930s style)

Yes he is .Is Carnera? Did Froch need the assistance of crooked fights to get to the top? He had big balls, a big punch, a top chin and a decent jab to set it up.He lost one fight, to a P4P great.Carnera lost fights to journeymen.

 

No - I think the key words here are "crude" but "effective". Froch was an awkward-looking scrapper, with balls of solid rock, who could get the job done.

I sure wasn't looking to make a direct analogy between Froch and Carnera. Just stating that such cases exist, where appearances can be deceiving.

Clearly - as an example - Carnera getting knocked from pillar to post against Baer, himself considered crude by many, is a case of appearances being just what is happening in front of one's eyes.

 

Yup.
And once you see it, you can't unsee it.

 

I answered the question.
I don't think one single person would agree with you that Joe Louis wouldn't look much better with modern cameras. Like a 4 year old would know that.

 

I've named Pascal and Froch in an earlier thread as modern guys that have had success without having a particularly text book technique. And as I have said in this thread, you can be successful without being textbook and you can be textbook and not that successful.

But the thing is, NO ONE WOULD PUT FROCH AND PASCAL FORTH AS EXCELLENT TECHNICAL FIGHTERS and then get indignant and talk about bias when others don't agree. That's what bugs me with the old school gang.

If someone would say that if Foreman could have the success he did in the 70's then surely Baer could have some as well, then I would see where that person came from. But using Foreman-Lyle as an example of a 70's HW fight fought on a high technical level... That's just twilight zone stuff. And I would be similarly baffled if someone said that Baer-Carnera was on similar technical level to Schmeling-Louis.

I just get annoyed by posters accusing me of bias because they don't have a clue about what good boxing technique is. You don't have to have it to be successful, but it damn sure doesn't hurt.

 

No one called carnera an excellent techncal fighter as far as i know all they said was that he was underrated, I dont think he was good i think he looks bad, awkward(which on its own isnt necessarily a bad thing) and just unskilled. The camera doesnt really have anything to do with that. But for a guy like Marciano, im sure his fights would look more brutal and his relentless style more effective if you could really see the sweat flying etc.
Im not sure how the cameras would have anything to do with thinking a fighter looks good skill wise or not(In a boxing match). There are alot of fighters from back then that still look very skilled in B&W. But the Brawling in Holmes Norton looks less breathtaking in B&W and I think if Froch Pascal was B&W it would be less exhilerating and therefore we would be more likely to start pointing out how Froch or Pascal arent keeping their hands up sometimes

 

Stylish work KC . Always great to see something that is original and
offers a different perspective.

 

Yes Mongoose you do that ! No more accusations of pa*dophilia coming from you and no more f*ck all your family remarks! There's A Good boy!
Now you keep on the straight and narrow and I'll be more than happy to confine myself to the subject of boxing and leave your sorry self alone.

 

The underlined is the crux of the whole argument!

 

Why doesnt someone try to make a Bowe fight(Maybe even one where he doesnt look particularily skilled) into that 30s style so we can see how much worse in terms of skills he would actually look. And if he then looks closer in skill to Carnera

 

I see, I apologise if I was a bit "in your face".I seem to have been sparring with just about everyone on here these last few days.
Baer of course had get out of jail power to make up for his lack of technique, but he knew enough to get his chin tucked into his shoulder when the real artillery began to fly.