but after rewatching JMM/Pac 2 and Walcott/Marciano 1 I noticed a lot of similarities from a technical boxing standpoint on how they both outboxed their hard punching opponents for long stretches. This isn't about how JMM was robbed just that he shows a lot of the same brilliance (ie: beautiful timing, luring in the opponent with feints, etc)that Jersey Joe did back against Marciano. Thoughts?
Walcott was very unorthodox, even for his era, due to the angles he gave, the punches he threw, and because, quite simply, he was a cutie. Charles didn't fight this way, neither did Moore or any of the other top fighters of his era. Trust me, I've seen the fighters of that era fight, and that was a modern era, unlike in prior years(pre 30's and 40's) when the standard stance was essentially a more primitive one. Walcott was a very crafty, tricky fighter, who's stance and unorthodox style were a large part of his success. Get your eras straight, the era he fought in was a modern one, you're confusin it with earlier, more primitive times. Anyone that is willing to argue that the stance Marquez implies is unorthodox or less effective than the older, more primitive stance is someone who doesn't understand boxing. Then again, you're the same guy who chose Sugar Ray Robinson over Mike Tyson in an actual matchup.:nut
Again, says the guy who chose Welterweight Ray Robinson over Heavyweight Mike Tyson in a literal matchup. You're exposing yourself here son, back off now while you still can.
