Jim Corbett v Ken Norton15rds

Oh because you keep mentioning size and weight. Okay so Louis was a revelation. What about Max Schmeling who beat a prime Louis?

Also a revelation, or did Louis lose to someone with outdated boxing skills?

 

And you're saying the explanation of Louis doing worse against Conn is because he "didn't want to appear a bully," and trimmed weight so he didn't feel good?

Ok. How about 180lb Bob Pastor who went 10+ rounds with Louis twice? How did Louis slay 250 6'7 giants with more ease than a 180lb man with 5'11 height?

If Pastor never fought Louis, honestly, how long would you predict that fight to last?

 

norton

 

As in similar posts, my first impulse is to go with the modern fighter, maybe more in this one because Norton seemed to be at his best against fighters who relied on boxing skills, rather than sluggers. I'm not a big fan of Norton though. It was the Ledoux fight that made me doubt him. Scott had below average skills and not a big punch, yet he decked Ken and had him dangling helplessly over the ropes. But I'll go with Norton, reluctantly, in this one because of styles and size. Reluctantly and not confidently.

 

So you are serious?


Corbett looks brilliant, that's for sure. Didn't they basically grab Courtney from the street to get beat up by Jim for 6 rounds? He must've been bottom of the barrel stuff. His courage extends beyond his skills!

 

Other people here know the history better than me but my understanding is that he was basically a crude (even relative to the standards of his day) brawler who got by on fighting instincts, fouls, toughness, and possible fixes, among other shenanigans. Built up much of his record fighting stumblebums and other unskilled sailors. Some of his official wins allegedly weren't actual wins (some allegedly weren't even official fights!). To say that Norton knew far more about how to box than he did doesn't strike me as remotely ignorant.

 

I read somewhere that his trainer intentionally chose not to teach him boxing skills because he thought that Sharkey was so hopelessly crude that it might undermine his confidence.

Though guys like Janitor like to pretend to be agnostic about these things, the talent pool and skill level of "heavyweight" pro boxers at the turn of the 20th century were far, far, far inferior to those of the 1960s and 70s.

 

^ Doesn't this sound like a description of Dempsey from his detractors?

I know that in Fitzsimmons training book, he spoke of Sharkey with respect and reverence. Jack Dempsey rated Sharkey in his top 10, and I think that was during the 40's.

Plus all that aside, Sharkey fought in at a world class level of the sport. A far cry away from someone who knew less about boxing than Norton forgot.

 

Being somewhat crude myself, I can relate. For instance, I don't like turning over my jab, because it forces me to take more time to set up my left. (I'm southpaw). I'd rather jab vertically, which liberates my left to do more than just straight punches. So far it's been a constant give and take with the trainers at the gym. They let me get away with certain things because they believe that I make it work.

Now, I'm still a noob, a nobody, a nothing. I haven't fought anybody yet. In fact I haven't been to the gym in a month because of a bad ankle injury from soccer. I can't sit here and say how effective I am. But what I can say is that these world class trainers do let me deviate.

I'm personally a believer in Dundee's training philosophy. He lets his fighters discover their own style, and then he helps refine them.

 

Dempsey's detractors don't have anything to do with this. You should read up on Sharkey if you (ironically?) insist on interpreting criticisms of him as signs of ignorance. He sounds exactly like someone who might know less about boxing than Norton has forgot (accepting that the phrase is obviously a figurative colloquialism).

 

Again, you're arguing by ****ogy, out of ignorance about Sharkey's career, background, and attributes. Your trainer and your experiences have absolutely nothing to do with Sharkey and his trainers.

 

Actually it's an extremely similar example of a great fighter who is often described the exact same way as Sharkey. In life we often use similar example in situations to help predict outcomes. If that's not a connection you can make, that's your fault.

Dempseys detractors use the exact same language to describe him. Yet it's not a balanced outlook. So it is a great indicator of how to weigh certain criticisms of a man who fought at a world class level, who was rated top 10 of all time by Dempsey himself.

 

If you knew more (anything, really) about Sharkey, you would understand why the ****ogy to Dempsey doesn't work at all. It's a shame that you insist on defending fighters (and other things) that you know next to nothing about. Makes you come across as a blind cheerleader/hero worshipper and further undermines your credibility. Can't believe that you had the gall to accuse Mcvey of being ignorant when you are so consistently shameless about your own ignorance.

 

What do you mean? You kinda sound dumb. You used an example, and I compared it to another real life example. This is how humans communicate.

Debates on things as subjective as this topic require some common ground to make progress in learning more. But if you're going to give up every time it become inconvenient to you argue a point, then ok, we'll get nowhere. Maybe you're not interested in learning, as much as you are reinforcing your own beliefs for this particular topic. I get that.

You don't have many arguments about tangible things in real life do you? Like work stuff? Where you have to use personal experiences and examples to inform major decisions in the face of unknown outcomes and incomplete information? Experiences, and comparing them, has been a driving force for the growth of our species for thousands of years.

 

Here's my opinion on what we've been discussing so far.

I believe that the characterization of Sharkeys style doesn't reflect his ability as a boxer. (My point about Marciano and Dempsey often being called crude.)

Jack Dempsey rated Sharkey in his top 10. Sharkey was a world class fighter, who faced some of the best in his time. He was respected and revered by some of the best boxers in his time, and shortly after. Can any amount of information I don't posses change that fact? No.

Because of these reasons, I think it's highly inaccurate to portray him as a novice compared to Norton.

If you want to argue any of those point, great. But honestly, I think I've been more than fair and patient in answering your sarcastic, snobbish remarks. I try to find common ground with you, and argue on points of substance. In turn, you question the very foundation of human to human communication. I mean....you can't even get past someone making a freaking comparison!

It's obvious your disdain towards me has overpowered your thirst and passion for learning about boxing and boxing history.

Sad.