Jeffries on of the most misunderstood ..

To be fair to you many contemporary observers did describe Sharkey as crude, though some qualified it by saying that he refined his technique later in his career.

At the end of the day he was a swarmer, a style of fighter that relies on a comparativley narrow range of skills. He does seem to have been verry effective against technical boxers due to his pressure. It is worth noting that he took a lot more rounds against Corbett than Fitzsimmons or Jeffries.

 

Call it what you want. When you call the era before "modern" the era post it is "post-modern". Quite logic to me.

 

Morrison had a ton of flaws. Chin was only one of them. He also had questionable stamina, and average defense.

 

The further back you go, the more research you need to do to understand the fighters.

Sharkey was a bit like Marciano in style, except I tend to think he had more speed. Sharkey style of relentless attack was too much for quick boxers like Choynski, Corbett, and McCoy.

If Sharkey was a plodder, he doesn't catch up to these guys.

 

he grant, i havent read the newspaper reports that were written in a time where sensationalism was even worse than it is today. But i have seen Patterson fight and i have seen the limited fight footage on Jeffries and Fitz. And based on that i have a hunch that Floyd Patterson would KO Jeffries, Fitz, Corbett and Sharkey one after the other in the same night

 

If Sony Liston had fought in that era and was represented by film of similar quality you would probably be predicting that Floyd Patterson would KO him easily.

 

If by unrelenting attach you mean hitting after the bell, headbutting, elbowing, throwing out of the ring... well, then maybe you have a point.

 

The quality of the original Jeffries Sharkey footage, is thought to have been much better than the film that survives today, which is based on a single badly decayed copy.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-whJCy5J6qg&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

so you take the shittiest most boring moments of the most non-event fight of the modern era and they still manage to look better than these supposed world beaters...

 

I was just teasing. I'm sorry if you took it seriously. I have just never heard the term "post-modern" used regarding boxing, only in longhair books.



**Just my own take about the term "post-modern"--I don't think there can be such a thing because then what you are calling "modern" is no longer modern or there wouldn't be anything coming after it. But what do I know? I have certainly seen it used for Art, Music, Painting, etc, etc.

 

What are longhair books?

I took it half-serious. But good to hear I´m a pioneer like Kolumbus

Well, you are right here. That´s why I used it. I know it from Music and just transferred it.