Name the fighters that never impressed you on film, despite being considered very good/great

Harry Greb.

Record aside, I can't even describe how dreadful EVERYTHING seems in that bit of footage going around

Carlos Monzon.

Looks basic. There's a few MW's I'd fare over him that came not long after.

 

Sandy Saddler is always a name which stands out for me in this category. Would never dispute that his record entitles him to a place right up there amongst the very greatest Feathers of all time, and I wouldn't bat an eye at anyone putting him inside their top twenty-five, pound for pound. But on film he's as underwhelming as it gets in terms of truly elite champions. Even when he was smack-bang in his prime, he could be made to look ordinary, clumsy and unintelligent, the fights against guys such as Riley and Flanagan being good examples. Looked nothing more than a rough, awkward guy with an admittedly very big punch in those fights.

Carlos Ortiz is another example. Don't get me wrong - he comes across well enough on film. But he doesn't necessarily sparkle in the way you'd expect of someone as great as he was (and for my money he's the greatest Puerto Rican of the lot, which is saying something). Dependable and solid in all areas without being dazzling in any.

 

I like the Ortiz shout. Very good boxer, and perhaps it's not that he looks bad per se, just perhaps too insular a style.

Monzon too, he's just painful to watch.

 

Ernie Terrell. When I discovered him there was all this stuff I read about what an amazing boxer he was and how he kind of influenced Ali's style. I will always consider Terrell's jab to be one of the finest in the heavyweight division, and he was a devastating inside fighter, esp. to the body, but that's all I can say about Terrell. Mostly I felt Terrell held back his potential in fights just so he could win. He was durable, and I think he could have been in some great fights, but he didn't. Terrell wasn't a risk-taker, and that's why he wasn't fun to watch a lot of times.
I also don't think Terrell ever had a GREAT performance. He always displayed his great jab, speed, and mobility, but does not have a defining performance despite numerous big wins.
Jimmy Ellis. If Terrell disappointed me, Ellis only did a little bit. Ellis was the perfect blend of boxer and puncher to me. I liked it that Ellis never hesitated to go toe-to-toe with anybody, not even the big punchers. But he was a great boxer too; his wins over Quarry and Chuvalo are proof of that. The only stipulation I have against Ellis is that he seemed to use too much energy up right away imo.

 

Most pre 1930s fighters

 

Ketchel, Dempsey, Fitzsimmons.

When I was first getting into historical boxing, these four were lauded as super-skilled, huge punching beasts who were the killers of their day. When I watched them, I realized someone had lied about the skills.

 

Ya, most of those pre-1930s fighters were just tough, strong, and dirty.

 

Anybody I mentioned in the clinching thread. And anybody I didn't that was an excessive clincher. I have to force myself to watch most of their fights just for educational purposes. Guys like Griffith, Saddler, Lewis, etc.

It was essentially a different sport pre-Walker Law, and the 20s were the beginning of the transitional era so at least half of those guys are gonna look primitive to an extent. From the latter part of that decade and into the 30s and on I consider the "modern era". Anything prior to that I chalk up to my own ignorance.

 

Floyd, Pernell, Salvador... all basic.

 

It's a mystery to me. I love watching nearly all of Griffith's fights.

 

Sam Langford. Jim Jeffries. Jim Corbett. Jack Johnson.

 

Luis Rodriguez
Stanley Kecthel
Jack Dempsey
Jim Jeffries
Georges Carpentier
Gene Fullmer

 

Fullmer was good in the sense that you cannot overstate his toughness and punching power.

 

Prince Hamed. The guy was talented athletically but he did so many things wrong. I guess I spent so much time learning to fight conventionally it just drives me crazy to watch a guy like him fight.