Jim Corbett v Ken Norton15rds

Being crude in boxing doesn't necessarily equal bad in boxing. It's all about being effective and building a game around what you do best.

I have seen plenty of crude and fast fighters do well.

I've seen plenty of crude and powerful fighters do well.

As long as you pull your jab back quickly enough in position, who cares if you don't turn it over properly when you throw it.

You're probably better off using the other hand after the jab, not two lefts in a row unless your fast handed.

Unless you're making bad defensive mistakes, I agree with Dundee's philosophy in general.

 

Yeah man I definitely agree.

The crude fighters get flak for night fighting scientifically, but at their most refined, they are sharp.

And that's kinda been my entire point this thread, that an unorthodox brawler doesn't mean they don't know boxing. They know it just well, since they also fight scientific boxers, and have succeeded in winning.

For some reason I got chastised because I don't know Sharkeys entire story.

 

Sharkey as in Tom? Well, he was a brawler type, with power in both hands and a huge heart for battle. No much for defense, his opponents need that to avoid his rushes and charges.

Tom Sharkey rates as a top puncher. He could be floored on occasion due to lack of footwork or defense, but often got up and was tough to stop.

Historians view him as the Rocky Marciano of his times. He could fight dirty too.

I think Sharkey could have beaten John L Sullivan if they were the same age, as he was tested and beat better-gloved fighters, and rates better than Burns or Hart, even though he never won a lineal championship.

Read fighters I meet, by Tom Sharkey. It's not very long, but it's packed with detail and action

Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of film on Tom Sharkey, and what's left was via a bootleg variety in his second fight vs. Jeffries and a short clip of the action in a movie the night they raided Minsky's where Sharkey charges in like a bull and throws a hook that starts at his waist and ends up in the rafters. Jeffries ducks it.

Sharkey vs Corbett was filmed, but I never heard anyone boast about seeing it, let alone owning it.

 

atsch

 

You're a bozo

"No you cant talk about Sharkey until you read more about him!"

 

"I know damn near absolutely nothing about this fighter but you are ignorant for saying that he knows much less about boxing than Ken Norton!!"

...


:-( You really are a clown.

 

It looks like I knew enough that Dempsey rated him in his top 10. And that Fitzsimmons respected him highly. And that Sharkey was a world class fighter. I used awesome reasoning for by argument, including why his style characterization doesn't reflect his boxing ability as Mcvey implied. And instead replying on the merits of any of my points, you aim at my credibility. And ask me how many books I've read? How big of a **** would I be if I told you not to talk about Ali just because I know way more about him than you? I would kick my own ass.

Also, do you realize that you're arguing with me on a figure of speech? A FIGURE OF SPEECH atsch

Every smart person I've ever met answers questions sincerely, whether a wise elder asks, or a young child.

I've seen posters like Perry and Janitor who've been more than patient in answering your one sided, loaded questions with well thought out answers.

You use media clips as propaganda to character assassinate some of the greatest boxers of the sport, like Rocky Marciano.

Fools work so hard. Shout out to Louis.

You're toxic.

 

Also Kevin, how does not having read a book about Sharkey mean I don't know anything about him?

Stop putting words in my mouth. and do something useful.

 

And I have one more thing. Why do you keep calling me a fanboy of boxing?

How long have you been here? How many posts have you made? Why are you here if you're not a fan of boxing or boxers?

Toxic weirdo.

 

Show me where I ever called you a fanboy of boxing. We're all fans of boxing or we wouldn't be here. You can't possibly believe that anyone has accused you of that.

Your problem is that you mindlessly jock and worship particular old fighters including, apparently, some you know next to nothing about. You've shown an extreme unwillingness to think critically about them or to take seriously opposing views about their flaws and limitations. Part of the problem is that, as you've shown time and time again, you just don't understand or appreciate some of the basic principles of boxing technique.

PS - And you still refuse to admit how ridiculous it was for you to try to argue with people and call them names in discussing a fighter who you know so little about. Weird.

 

I could've sworn you said it in this thread. Maybe you used a different word? Or maybe it was in one of the numerous edits you made to all your posts this morning?

I understand flaws. Better, I know how to weigh them against strengths. You seem blind when it comes to that.

When have I shown a lack of appreciation for boxing technique? That just sounds ridiculous.

 

Stfu man. Mcvey and I call each other names all the time. Stop white knighting him and trying to gain allies on your ridiculous crusade against me. Stop acting like disagreeing with McVey is sacred ground

You're saying until I read a book about Tom Sharkey, I cannot discuss him with anyone? We need prerequisite required reading to talk about boxers? Wtf

Honestly, can you get off my nuts? I'm here for boxing, not you.

 

Nope.

Sure you do.

All the time. I'm not the only person who's pointed this out.

Anyway... :hi: