Steve Hamas vs Art Lasky

They fought differently then, and fought in a way to be effective in that day. They are fit and strong enough looking though.

A funny moment right at the introductions in ring centre, the manager of Hamas reaches up and runs his hands through Laskys hair (which is clagged with too much oily 1930s hair pomade) and complains enough to makes the ref wipe it off before the fight starts. Whilst the ref is doing wiping the manager then wipes the greasy content from his hand onto the back of his pants.

 

Thanks!

 

E M is right!They both look awful! Left hands down below their waists,both begging for a right hand on the chin, slow and hesistant,and throwing arm punches.Antony Joshua is still relatively green but I would take him to crush both of these inside 4 rounds apiece.

 

This was a weak era for the division, hence the title changing hands so many times between Tunney and Louis. Hamas was essentially a college fighter, not a real seasoned fighter. Just a good athlete who took up boxing. Lasky was nothing special either. These guys rose to the level of contender during a pretty weak era IMO. Its remarkable Hamas beat Schmeling but then go watch Schmeling nearly kill him and you get a sense that it was a fluke.

 

Not sure how anyone watching Hamas can say he looks bad.

His punching style was good.
https://streamable.com/7zrm5

Defensively he has some Archie Moore like tendencies:
https://streamable.com/dzlln

He uses the lazy head movement for luring in counter opportunities.
He uses a nice shoulder roll that he counters off of.

Steve Hamas defeated Lee Ramage twice, Tommy Loughran twice, and a 1934 Max Schmeling.
If you think he looks awful, then we run into an awkward predicament where either you guys are wrong, or Max Schmeling around his prime got defeated by an awful "college fighter." Personally, its an easy decision for me.


Lasky looks very awkward, but he could trade hard punches under pressure.
https://streamable.com/ga6yf
He doesn't look pretty, so if his style and tendencies don't jive, its understandable.

 

Good context to add, thank you.

In the end, we can't chalk up every underdog victory to a fluke, without giving the winner their due credit.
Schmeling doesn't give any excuse in particular, other than he should've done better.

You can call every underdog victory a fluke if you're looking to not give the winner of the competition their credit.

 

You can say it wasnt a fluke that Schmeling lost to Hamas but in the rematch Schmeling damn near killed Hamas, gave him a career ending beating and perminent brain damage he was so dominant. Ive got no reason to doubt it was a fluke. Its not taking credit for Hamas it is what is. Schmeling was just a better fighter in every department.

 

Schmeling was clearly a class or two above.
It must've been a fluke of sorts, but one should also acknowledge what a fluke means in the context of beating a 1934 Schmeling.

Many people might say that Louis loss to Schmeling was a fluke due to undertraining and hubris.
But through Schmelings perspective, it was an arduous journey and a hell of a performance to snatch that victory.

 

Hamas had a slight tear in his shoulder I believe in the rematch which cause his arm to drop ever so slightly against Max. And with Max's power and precision timing it was virtually almost manslaughter. Schmeling ended his career and caused him brain damage.
I haven't watched the video yet as for Schmeling maybe he just had an off night. When he was on there is no way this kid hangs with him. Louis, Sharkey, Walker, Stribling, Max was a pretty bad guy.

 

I'd say this settles any doubts!

 

O c'mon they are both bad slow and without technique or defence, shoulder roll/sausage roll! Archie Moore should rise up and strike you!