LIGHTWEIGHT TOURNAMENT FIRST ROUND,Joe Brown vs Jimmy Carter

Dave Charnley?

 

Brown wasnt very good?
What do you think his weaknesses were?
He had great footwork ,an excellent jab , ko power,a good variety of punches ,good hand speed , and took a good shot.I think he was an excellent Champ ,nearly as good as Ortiz.
Carter? Well , how to you rate him ? Half the time he was ,"under orders".
Very solid, but I think Old Bones is better.
Brown by U DEC.

 

Kenny Lane, Ralph Dupas, Johnny Busso, Paolo Rosi, Battling Torres and Sixto Alvarez were also 'solid' fighters by any intelligible definition of the word.

 

I've read a lot about both men lately, especially Carter. Ring Magazine, a few years ago did a piece on Carter, and how erratic he was throughout his 3 reigns as lightweight champ, and how you never knew which Carter was going to show up for his fights. Usually, he was fair to mediocre in his nontitle bouts, and lost quite a few, only to avenge them in style in the title rematches. He lost his crown to guys who he dominated in the rematches. Brown, on the other hand, it can be said about him, was more consistant, and was a fairly good champion who strung together a series of defenses until Carlos Ortiz finally came along and outsmarted him for the title. I think Carter was good whrn he had his head screwed on right, but "Old BoneS" Brown, being more consistant and a bit better defensively, would have eked out a decision in a very, very close, evenly contested match...with there being the possibility that Carter would have surprised him in a rematch.

 

those names would not even crack the top 40 lightweights

 

Nat Fleischer wrote an editorial for the Ring in the 50's entitled ,"A Very Nasty Habit" detailing Carter's "erratic" performances,FleIscher went as far as he could ,without flat out stating that Carter had gone in the tank for several fights , the 50's was a bad time for boxing due to being heavily mob influenced.

 

I said he wasn't a very good champion.

And his weaknesses? None. He had no weakness, but he wasn't special in any area.

Carter was heading towards the elite side of strength, jabbing, combination punching and stamina - when he was at his best, cuffs or not.

 

So your definition of solid is top 40 all time at the weight class? I think a top 40 spot on a lightweight list suggests you're a little bit better than just solid.

 

brown edges a close 15 round decision

 

Actually Brown was ordinary when he wasnt champion ,as a champ ,I think he was class ,maybe no 11 all time !
I dont really understand your answer ,truth be told ,if you have no weaknesses,and are good at just about every thing,are a dominant Champ what more would you want?

 

'Good' at everything, yeah, not elite at everything. Brown could be defeated by fighters who had a bit more than him in certain areas. Armstrong would outfight him, Leonard would outbox him. Going down the ranks - Jack would outfight him, Laguna would outbox him, and so on.

I understand more than most about fighters hitting their stride and becoming twice the boxer they were before, but Brown wasn't even that consistent as champion. You could say the same of Ike Williams, except he was losing to Kid Gavilan or other welterweight contenders. Brown was losing to contenders (in between defences) in the weight where he was supposed to be champion. To his credit, Brown usually turned it on for the big fights, but then I don't really rate his opposition.

 

to be solid, you must be in the hall of fame. In that way you would be remembered. Your mark in boxing history would not be dislodge by time

if you are not in the HOF(maybe expect marshall) your accomplishment would most likely diminish over time

brown is an example of why overall talent must play a big part in ranking ATGs. He is barely or not even top 100 in resume but easily top 80 in almost everyone's list

 

Your response is reasonable, but Brown was allready 30 when he won the title,he lost, I think 3 non title figths while champ ,he was beaten by Busso ,whom he dominated in the return for the title a year later,Brown was 33 when he lost.
A rib seperation injury was responsible for another loss when he was 34,and he had one other ,[I forget the guys name ],also when Brown was 34.
Brown was 35 going on 36 when he beat Charnley,and I think his challengers were as good as Carter's on the whole.

 

I know there are various reasons for why Brown didn't perform quite as well as he should have, but in the end he just didn't. Maybe I'm being hypocritical in that I'm allowing Carter the 'Mob' excuse. Records are actually comparable, but for me I suppose it just comes down to 'Carter looks better on film.' I always thought Brown looked slightly vulnerable, and that his opponents only had the ability to partially capitalise on that. Carter was hittable, but he looked very, very solid in the ring.

 

Brown gives Carter a tough fight, but Jimmy is just a little too much for Joe. Scoring fast combinations & using all around very good boxing skills to score a UD win.