If there is an agenda against old time fighters and against Marciano, what is the Motivation?

Just checking if you're still around.

I've been a bit confused by some of your posts lately. They seemed almost ... dare I say it ... normal?

New meds?

 

Yes, there is an agenda. The peculiar thing is Marciano is the name most often mentioned. What applies to him should also apply to 200 or below pound heavyweights such as Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, and Joe Louis.

I would say Rocky had the most proven chin of the bunch, and the best style, work rate, and power to overcome his lack of size.

Marciano is also the champion who essentially ended the color line, by fighting the best out there as champion, whether they were black or white.

Something Johnson and Dempsey did not do as champion. Johnson never fought Langford ( Though he had a signed contract to do so ), Jeannette or McVey. Dempsey, of course, did not fight Willis.

Louis did fight two African Americans in his title matches, but he had 26 title matches. I'm not sure how highly Lewis or Walcott was ranked when he fought them.

 

He doesn't want to address this obvious question ,though I've asked him to several times on the 1930's thread!

 

If you sign to fight challengers and post a $10,000 forfeit I think it can be deduced that you intend to fight them.Johnson signed to fight all three of his premier black challengers Langford twice,Jeannette twice, McVey once. The fights with the exception of the first Langford challenge were cancelled due to circumstances outside Johnson's control.
The first time he signed to fight Langford he was just another challenger for the title and he signed to fight him in London for $5000 the fight to take place in Feb1909. After Johnson defeated Burns for the title in Dec1908 , receiving just $5000, or one 6th of Burns purse of $30,000,Johnson announced that as Champion his price was now $30,000,the same as Burns had got for defending against him. That's the whole thing there.

Dempsey was not the only one not to defend against black challengers, neither did Sullivan,Corbett, Fitzsimmons,Jeffries or Hart .Charles defended his title against both black and white challengers.
Back to the thread please!

 

I think this is the 5th time I explain this?

Some guys were so technically good, that you can still see it through really old camera technology.
However, they don't look nearly as good as they would with modern equipment.

On the other hand, there are tons of good, very effective boxers, that aren't technical wizards. These guys' reputations as boxers suffer more through bad production, because not every effective boxer is aesthetically pleasing or looks great.

Older production is more forgiving to the technical wizards, but still plays a major role in their perceive abilities.

A beautiful landscape might look good on an iPhone 1. But it won't compare to how good it looks on an iPhone 7.

Is there still confusion about my point here? Anything that isn't clear?

 

It's a case where if you aren't down 100% with The Cause, then you are the enemy. No shades of gray here. No nuance. All or nothing.

 

Joe Louis is easily the best documented fighter from the 30s. And if you asked this question in 2007, people would not be so positive.

The poor quality stuff available of the Walcott and Conn fights that was in heavy rotation back then, had people on this board and others calling him a lumbering slow plodder overrated by his contemporaries.

Same goes for Moore.

Sugar Ray Robinson is a fighter so etched into boxing lore, if no footage existed, he would still be in high esteem.

 

@Bukkake
@mcvey @Contro

Do you guys think a 1930's camera would make a modern fighter look worse?
Do you think it would make him look better?
Or do you think it it wouldn't affect him at all?

 

I've gotten hundreds of comments from people saying they didn't realize _____ was so good until they saw him in clear footage.

And yes, the last 5 years or so have been very kind to Louis in respect to the quality of his fights compared to his peers. We have most of his fights on film, and we have many of them in tip top quality for 30's/40's films.

I remember 7 years ago, if you wanted to watch Louis on YouTube, you were watching lots of bad grainy footage.

 

I think that rap against Marciano is that he's not a fans idea of what a fighter...or a Heavyweight Champion is supposed to look like. He's not sleek....good footwork...not the ideal boxer. When you're 5'11...weigh appox. 189lbs
...have the shortest reach of any champ...footwork is average at best...fans tend to dismiss...(especially newer ones)...Rocky and his style. Show me a fighter...(I know you'll mention some)...who made it to the top with what he had...and stayed at the top until he left on his own terms...before his powers had diminished. One writer said the Marciano was "crude"...another said," he's crude...the atom bomb was crude...but it got the job done!!!"
He showed heart...guts...stamina...beat everybody they put in front of him...(which is all you can do)...and ended up at 49-0 with 43 KO's. As someone said:"Marciano cannot be judged merely by what we can see!!!"

 

Those that are not with me must,of necessity be against me.

 

This endorses Seamus' post 100%!!!

 

I remember watching both Louis and Moore over 50 years ago and marvelling at their abilities!
How astonishingly prescient must I have been!lol

 

If you just want to argue, I don't doubt your ability to find a way.

But what you're taking about is not remotely the same as what I'm talking about.