[GIF] Max Baer showing skill and reflexes with a triple jab, followed by a sharp combo, and a slip

Yeah, but I think the point is, no one would conclude that the heavyweights of Vitali's era were especially primitive and unskilled based on a ton of footage that we might find where heavyweights of that era were doing things we can pick holes in.
I might be wrong but I think there's an agenda to portray the 1930s fighters as cavemen or pathetic amateurs.

 

If someone put up clips of Vitaly to show how technically skilled he was, I bet my house that there would be people objecting. I can do that since I would be one of them.

 

It depends how technically skilled they are claiming he was.
If they put up a clip and said "look, here's Vitali using his skills" and the clip showed that, then there's nothing to object to.

I don't always agree with reznick and what he says he sees in the clips he posts, but there doesn't seem to be much to object to here with this Baer thread.
"Baer showing skills and reflexes with a triple jab followed by a sharp combo and a a slip" seems a fair description.

 

Concerning this whole "agenda" thing. If someone frequently put up clips of old timers to show how bad they were - yes - then you could perhaps start talking about an agenda. We have had posters like Il Duce here who almost exclusively posted negative things about Ali. Often conspiracy related with unclear or sources. Some posters here lauded his "research", but to me he was perhaps the worst example of agenda driven and hateful poster we've had on this forum.

I've seen nothing remotely similar about someone posting clips of old timers to put them down. Rather, I've seen lots of clips that purpotes to show how misunderstood their tecnical skills were, and some have disagreed that these clips show a lot of technical skill. That's just normal discussion to me and something you have to expect.

If I start thread about how Ali really was technically perfect, I should not only tolerate but also expect differing opinions. I certainly shouldn't refer to it as an "agenda".

 

If you don't think the actions are very sharply executed and that the slip isn't a slip but rather a lean back (which are quite different things in terms of boxing technique) you should say so and the differing opinion should be accepted, although not necissarily agreed with. Otherwise we're into "safe zone" territory.

As for Vitaly, I think he did some fundamental things wrong from a technical perspective and would probably object to most attempts to show him as an example of good technique.

 

I get the feeling some posters are talking about particular old-timers and specific fights to make broad and damning claims about a whole era, rather than the particular fighter.

If that's not been happening then I'm wrong in my conclusions.

I can tolerate all opinions and all agendas. I don't want to ban or stigmatize "agendas". I'm just saying there seems to be wider agendas (on both sides) about "eras" rather than the particular fighters in question. I think there's a danger of a lot of narrow-mindedness involved in pursuing such beliefs.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But Max Baer is definitely boxing there, and boxing well enough for anyone reasonable to say "yes, he had some decent boxing ability and skill".

 

There will always be differing opinions about what's right and wrong and what's particularily biased or not. But all that aside, perhaps the basic concept of a forum like this is that if you start a thread with a specific claim you have to be prepared to meet countering opinions. That's more or less the idea with it.

 

That's true.
I'd go further and say most people who start threads with specific claims are actively seeking countering opinions.

I don't have a problem with any of it. But if I think someone is saying the world is flat I'll probably object and give them a chance to retract or rephrase that line of argument.

 

You mean it isn't? They got to you too, I see.

 

The problem is two fold though, the clip posted doesn't alleviate the criticisms of Baer, or at the very least, don't counterbalance the criticisms very well. Plus, they are also coming from a position of trying to "find" clips to disprove a point. When you need to work hard to "find" proof, doesn't that pretty much say all that needs to be said?

I think the main point is, and it's a valid one, that Baer got the job done one way or another. I think his physical advantages aided him in this regard more than skill, but he still got the job done in the end. However, let's just say that, let's not try and pretend that he wasn't what he was and overwhelmed guys with skill or technique.

 

I think it's a nice query to try and show that Baer wouldn't have been good, but on it's face, I don't even know how that is logically possible. If he was better adept and slipping and countering, working off the jab to set up his big right hand, using a variety of punches with his power (thrown with better technique); how on earth could that ever mean he would've ended up with worth results. I'm not sure how that would be possible. We're obviously still assuming he has his power and physical attributes, only now with more technique, I'm not sure how that could ever mean he'd do worse. I get what you are trying to illustrate, I just don't agree it illustrates, in fact I believe it still illustrates he could've been a lot more than he was.

 

That would totally contradict what you claim your goal to be. If you're about spreading knowledge and showcasing many aspects of boxing that go unappreciated or already are, wouldn't the best place to do that be a place that you feel doesn't appreciate them or appreciate them enough? I don't feel like this place doesn't, but you're insinuating that to some degree your work goes for not and it's toxic. Okay, but then isn't that the perfect place to do it? Often times if you're trying to do a service to a particular thing, the best place to be is where there isn't a whole bunch of yes people who already see and appreciate it. That makes for a good circle jerk party, but not real critical discussion that can lead to an actual change in views. Not to get religious here, but as an example, Jesus didn't believe the only people he needed to preach to were the people who already believed and led good "Christian lives". In fact he thought it was more important to preach to the people opposite of that. Just my opinion.