And Ortiz came very close to knocking Wilder out, despite being an old man. Of course youth, size, explosiveness, and power were served, but they almost weren’t. I don’t think Wilder looks nearly as bad as the Perry’s of the world make him out to be though, and I’d pick him over a lot of champions from 50+ years ago, based on what I see on film. Btw, I thought the consensus had been that Ortiz was diminishing with age, and therefore less likely to beat Wilder than he would have been in the past?
See, I might be the minority view in this forum but I would pick those guys to best Glaento in a heartbeat. For all their flaws, I think they’re still better schooled/more skilled and far more physically imposing than he is. But if refs let Tony get away with serial thumbing and low blows, it could get interesting.
Although, in defense of Whyte and Parker, they are free to thumb and low-blow Galento right back. (Assuming they're as good at these "techniques" as Galento.)
And I agree with that, especially at heavyweight. But I think you and I probably disagree somewhat on the importance of "mental strength" or "fighting heart" and other intangibles relative to physical talent and boxing skills. I think that Galento's fighting spirit and will to win don't get him nearly as far in an era full of tough 230lb+ men who are more skilled, more agile, faster, and probably mostly stronger and more powerful than him.
1) Nominate a way to tell how strong an era is: When Unification of titles occur often. 2) Only ONE nomination per post. 1960s. 3) If you want to nominate multiple ways of evaluating era strength, do it in multiple posts. I had (6) example but I just ****ed up and cut and it didnt paste, damn. A. Inghamar Johnson, Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, Clay-Ali, Dick Tiger, Bob Foster, Emille Griffith, Nino Benveutti, Carlos Hernandez, Carlos Ortiz, Eder Joefre were fighters who held 2 belts at a time where there weren't 4 or 5.
What do you see wrong with Jarell Miller fundamentally? Why do you see him lacking in skills? He is no crude, wild swinging, face first fighter like Galento. Miller keeps a good pace, throws a lot of punches, fights aggressively, has correct, effective footwork, throws short punches. He looks well schooled, plus he is big, strong, and apparently has excellent stamina.
I think he's far more skilled and better technically than Galento. But from the little of Miller that I've seen, it seems like his form breaks down and he ends up getting lackadaisical defensively and a bit sloppy with some of his punches. It's all relative though.
I included your post in the reply by accident. You had not commented on Miller, my mistake. I'm waiting to see Miller vs. Fury, Wilder, or Joshua. I've been impressed by Miller's performances against Duhaupas, and Washington and I'm waiting to see if he is just good at his current level or if he might be the heavyweight of the future. 6-4, 300+, good stamina, strong, busy, and aggressive, unless somebody can hurt him and make him tentative, it's going to be hard to beat him. A once in a career challenge for all of his opponents. He is also from what I've read, a "gym rat." Lifts weights and works out even when he is not fighting. It's interesting. If Miller stays successful, the paradigms about what a boxer looks like, and conditioning for boxing are going to change.
One way the mid 90's were strong is because everyone knew you needed to have a jab. I think Larry Holmes isnt given enough credit for not only having an atg jab, but for shifting the mind set of trainers when teaching new fighters. Originally the boxer-puncher stance was considered the ideal but Holmes made outside fighting, being smart, and pacing yourself well vert popular. I dont think its a coincidence you suddenly had a bunch of athletic guys in the 90's with good jabs like Lennox Lewis, Ray mercer, Holyfield, Bowe, etc. Even Razor Ruddock was praised for his jab early on in his career before he became obsessed with his smash punch. It reminds me of how basketball changed in the late 80's when for years the big man and center/power forward types like magic, kareem, chamberlaim types were considered the ideal and then jordan changed everything using speed and explosiveness to drive in and make guys look silly with crossovers and steals.
This. Louis beat guys six ways past Sunday whether they were fast crafty guys like Conn or giants like Buddy Baer or Carnera. Marciano would just wear guys down and beat them into submission. Marciano completely ruined great fighters.
The "Dark Period" resulted with no top dog because the belt kept getting sold to the highest bidder. Way too much bribery and deception to form a real clear opinion about it. Ali is arguable but I think a top of his game Frazier takes Ali out any how. If Frazier didn't get fed to Ali before 1971 I'd pick that Frazier to beat Ali anyway. Louis also put serious beatings on almost every former champ before 1937 though.
Is there any bribery other than supposedly the Meggs-Stevens fight, and Corcoran-darts. I know Boxiana claimed Corcoran-Sellars, but I don't think think there's any truth to it, the news report said Sellers ripped part of Corcoran's face off. I think Corcoran-Darts was dodgy, but I'm not sure that's how Corcoran even got the title. And is there any evidence for the first being fixed other than Lemoine's claims? There's also Duggan, that might have been a fix, but I need to look into that more, and that lineage didn't really go anywhere
Actually I probably need to look into the claim Corcoran-Darts was a fix too, I've not seen enough to confirm it.
I'm willing to overlook a certain amount of crudity if other factors are obviously compensating. I can't do that with Galento, however. There's just too much working against him.
