Joe Choynski's Opinion of modern fighters

This pretty much always seems to be the case. A fighter speaking highly of his own time whilst seeming unimpressed with the current era.

 

Interesting read. Wills had a similar take on 30's boxing. He said it was an easy ear devoid of feinting. Wills also said the fighters before him were tough, and he would not consider entering the ring with such equipment.

 

True. Same old, same old. Good find though this article. There's truth to what he says about Firpo and Carpentier. This rings true even today:

"Hair on the chest, tattoo marks, bulging muscles do not make a fighter."

What he says about Jimmy Barry is also interesting.

 

No fighters come along and "revolutionized" the boxing style.
That's just hyperbole attached to certain fighters whose style and exploits catches the spirit of the times, or contrasts well with their peers.
If developments and progress are made, such evolution happens in increments.

Nice article, BTW. :good

 

Or maybe it's just blind nostalgia. For every Choynski and Johnson there was a Sullivan stating the exact opposite.

 

Many people here might agree with choynski's criticisms of Firpo and Carpintier in hindsight.

Whetehr his criticisms of Dempsey and Tunney would stand up to test by practical experiment, is another matter.

 

Has anyone got the article from the 20's about the best MW's ever? I seem to remember it being written by a fighter or a well known journalist but can't remember, not at home so I can't check.

I remember it saying Greb wasn't quite up to scratch yet and wasn't as good as previous middleweights.

 

Sullivan himself said there was a tremendous gap in quality between the bruisers of his day and the scientific minds that were beginning to make themselves apparent in the time of Jeffries and co. He stated quite plainly that Jeffries was on an entirely different level to himself and the men of his era.

More than that, the footage completely contradicts what they say. Sorry, but Corbett was not half as good as Tunney based on what we've seen. He may've idolised him, but that doesn't mean he was his inferior. On the contrary I'd say he studied and expanded on what Corbett brought to the table.

And I don't really think it's logical to assume the talent pool (a few standouts aside) was already as strong in the infant stage of gloved boxing as it would become.

 

Old timers of Sullivan's time said he'd get destroyed by the bare knuckle greats of their yesteryear. Its just a common belief of every passing generation, that the capability is going out of the game. And maybe it is! But beyond that it is tough to get to the actual top of the pile in any era

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TroTAs25RkU[/ame]

www.youtube.com/eslubin