Rate these three in order: Peter Maher, Joe Choysnki, Kid McCoy

John Barleycorn beat him.

 

Agreed. McCoy was/is very underrated. A great fighter.

 

Means good offence but easy to take out.

 

Peter had been sparring with a similar Arthur Guinness before he left Ireland but it availed him little against John, who knocked him out every time.

 

Yes indeed, good stuff!

 

BTW from what I've read, McCoy was faster on his feet than Choynski, both were pretty quick.

 

Yes, I have seen McCoy sparing with Corbett. Corbett looks great, showing quickness, reflexes, and feints. McCoy looks ordinary, but its sparring/shadow boxing for WW 1 bonds when both were past their primes. Don't make assumptions on what I have or have not seen.

I have seen Choysnki spar with Jeffries, in 1910. It's an easy clip to obtain and IMO has very quick feet. If Choysnki moved that quickly at age 41 ( not 42 as you wrote ) , he must have been really fleet-footed in his prime.

McCoy is described with good mobility, but not in Corbett's class. Maher was never a fancy footwork type, therefore based on what I have seen and read, Choysnki has the fast feet of the three.

You've never heard of a glass cannon? How long have you been following boxing? A glass cannon describes a fighter as capable of delivering devastating damage, but at the same time could just as easily be cracked.

If you would only listen to me and take note of your errors, you'd be much better off as a poster. At least now you know what a glass cannon it. Whether you'll retain that information a year from now remains to be seen.

 

I agree, McCoy is the best of the three, and he was the best boxer of the three.

 

Tom Sharkey vs Kid McCoy and Peter Maher vs. Joe Choynski we supposedly filmed.

 

Senya didn't say he was the best, he said he was light years ahead P4P.

 

Choynski looked quick because he was sparring with Jeffries,lol To say he was quicker than McCoy is a shot in the dark because we have no film of either when they were active fighters.
You've seen an old man in boxing terms.
I've been following boxing for 58/9 years .And getting the better of a bigoted idiot for the last 13!

 

I'd say McCoy was the most skilled and most clever boxer at any weight for several years, even though he lost a few bouts. I've been a great fan of Joe Gans, but I can't deside for myself which of the two (taking prime McCoy and prime Gans) was the more clever and skillful. I don't get the same impression when I'm reading contemporary press about Choynski and Maher.

 

No, I can judge speed for myself. Obviously you can't. I shall continue to correct your bad math, falsehoods on boxing, and bigotry.

Choysnki at age 41 ( Not age 42 as you stated ) was a very quick mover, based on that he must have been something in his prime.

As for testimonials to Choyski's speed:

Stillman spoke of Joe's fighting skills, "He was very quick on his feet, had a fine straight left hand and also a powerful right. He depended upon a straight left and a straight right for his execution."

DeWitt Van Court, boxing instructor of the Los Angeles Athletic Club rated Choynski as the #4 All-Time Light Heavyweight and commented about him. He was a remarkable fighter who never considered his opponent's weight or size. Joe was one of the hardest hitters of the ring. A fine boxer, very game and fast, but lacked the stamina to take punches.

 

True, but since neither of the three took a good punch, my guess is he'd pick McCoy as the best of the three.

 

Stillman ?Are you talking about Lou Stillman?
If you are let me tell you Lou Stillman [Ingber], was 7 years old when Choynski had his last fight!
Don't mention Choynski's punching ability I've been trying to educate you on it for years!
Choynski did not lack stamina he went 20 rounds with Jeffries who was about 50 pounds the heavier man!
Choynski was essentially a super middleweight who couldn't take the power of the top heavyweights of his era.
ps You cant judge the prime speed of a man 41 years and 8 months old who is just sparring! Pedant!