jack johnson vs shavers and lyle....

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1Du1z8R_f8&feature=related[/ame]​

 

Lyle is grossly underrated here by many, especially as a puncher, but he had nightmares against boxers as Young proved ... Lyle would have fits landing on Johnson in my opinion. Earnie hadf a bit more game technically but he's not doing the job either.

 

Come on Bummy. How do you throw in the Willard remark and expect the answer to be taken seriously ? If anything the Willard fight shows how a prime Johnson would make both Shavers and Lyle look like clowns ..

I may be a party of one but I'm of the opinion Johnson took a dive v.s. Ketchel for the films ... the knockdown by that looping right looks staged no matter how many time I watch it in slow motion, frame by frame, whatever ..

 

There is a lot of fight newspaper coverage that exists on McVey and it states he was actually an excellent boxer with a strong left jab ... read Clay's terrific book as well on Langford . It give much coverage to McVey. As the recently emerged film of Langford and Jeannette proves they actually knew how to fight back them and the myth that all fought with curved wrists with knuckles pointed to their own chins is false ...

 

I'll have to look back at Clay's book cuz I thought Langford said McVey was one-dimensional and rather retreating.

 

I'm pouring whiskey into said head to avoid the inanities hereforth proposed affecting me.

Sorry, I know it is absolute sedition and blasphemy in these parts, but McVey looks like **** on film, like an absolute amateur. If this indicative of the times, there is a giant correction in order for the assumed skill level of those fighters, McVey, Jeanette, Jeffries (who also looks like ****), Johnson (who looks better than the rest) and the unfilmed masses so adored in these parts.

 

Shavers and Lyle had far more skill than any filmed Johnson opponent. What makes you so sure they don't land? On film Johnson has a low guard, is somewhat stationary, liked to lean back ( which worked against guys much shorter than he was ), and liked to clinch.

 

I have a few rounds of Sam McVey on film vs Jim Battling Johnson. McVey has a one dimensional attack. A clubbing type of left hook. You won't see much of a jab or a right hand. A very predictable fighter. Sam Langford said McVey could not throw a jab because he was bow armed.

While Mcvey did have an impressive build, I was surprised at how easily he retreated. On news reads you can read McVey complaining to the ref in some fights about things.

In the context of the top black heavyweights from 1890-1920, I would rate McVey last behind Langford, Jackson, Wills, and Jeanette.

 

Yeah I had seen this a while back actually, I just meant nothing of real substance, I am unable to get much from what I see here on film.. I would love to see film of some of the memorable fights in McVey's career.. If Mcvey is as basic a fighter as you claim (which I am not totally disputing) I wonder why he gets so much love? I remember reading another article on him a while back in which they were comparing him to Mike Tyson claiming he was the "Tyson" of his day..

 

People feel the need to build mythic heroes because it makes good copy.

McVey was good for his era but that era of heavies just can't be compared to those that followed it. It's not fair to anyone involved.

 

Possibly correct Seamus but that was against a prime heavyweight Sam Langford ... McVey fought even aor better against every other man he fought in his prime ... when you talk Langford you talk another thing all together ...