Steve Hamas vs Art Lasky

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by edward morbius, Aug 11, 2017.


  1. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    I stand corrected.


    what the 1986 version of Jimmy Young has to do with who he could beat 9 years and 23 fights earlier is another kettle of fish altogether.

    Hamas beating Schmeling BEFORE Schmeling beat the daylights out of the great Joe Louis is a lot more relevant than Chuck Gardner Beating Jimmy Young long AFTER it was already decided Young was no longer a serious boxer.

    What Great fighter did Young go on to beat after losing to Gardner? 17 times knocked out former middleweight Frank Lux that's who.

    I suppose you could say Chuck beat Young after 9 years and multiple defeats (10) since he was a relevant contender but I don't think that's quite the same.
     
  2. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,745
    29,122
    Jun 2, 2006
    And Schmeling beat a 22years old Louis who was short of his peak.
     
  3. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,745
    29,122
    Jun 2, 2006
    Young was ranked at the beginning of 79,so not ten years just over 8 ,I was at the Gardner fight , he dropped Gardner.
     
  4. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    Come on, Louis had already recorded his favourite performance over Max Baer in a million dollar gate. It is this win that is often mentioned as his best ever.
     
  5. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,262
    Sep 5, 2011
    And if we go to the 1955 to 1960 era, we find Moore and Robinson the champions, both of whom began their careers before WW2. And Joe Brown began his during it. Which champions of 1956 to 1960 would you rate a clear favorite over the champions of the 1946 to 1950 era?

    Patterson over Louis? Not for me.
    Moore over Lesnevich? Yes. (but Moore and Charles were the real best light-heavies of the earlier era)
    Robinson or Fullmer over LaMotta or Cerdan? Toss-ups. Only because Ray is old. I still think he probably wins.
    Basilio or Don Jordan over Robinson? Forget it.
    Brown over Williams? Tough pick, but I would favor Williams.
    Bassey over Pep and Saddler? No.

    The inferior era idea simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny for me.

    "the most people you can name as being leading lights in any one division is four or five."

    I only named the best, but there were other fighters out there, obviously. Bernard Docusen who lost to Robinson looks great on film, for example. And when was there usually all that much depth, especially at heavyweight?
    Would the top five guys of 1902 or 1916 or 1929 or 1933 best these top five? I don't see that there is a convincing argument for that.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2017
  6. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,745
    29,122
    Jun 2, 2006
    Louis was certainly not at his best against Schmeling he trained lackadaisically and spent hours on the golf course.
     
  7. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009

    Yeah right...

    https://streamable.com/34zhg

    Great film quality of an entire uninterrupted round. You must remind me of how lackadaisical Louis is here...
     
    Pedro_El_Chef, 70sFan865 and bodhi like this.
  8. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,585
    27,251
    Feb 15, 2006
    I disagree.

    Hamas was not a great fighter, but he was obviously a very good contender.

    He proved that by getting as far as he got.
     
  9. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,585
    27,251
    Feb 15, 2006
    Not good enough.

    If Hamas was as bad as he said, then he should not have "decisively outpointed him", even on an off night.

    I consider Schmeling to be one of the more honest heavyweight champions regarding his testimony, but we can't overlook what happened.

    Hamas beat Schmeling between some of his greatest wins.
     
  10. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,262
    Sep 5, 2011
    Jackson--just watched him against Charley Norkus. Jackson shows a lot more than these two. He has a good jab, holds his hands high enough to block punches. Is very mobile and has quite a bit of head movement. He has an extremely high work rate for a heavyweight and a great deal of stamina. I would take him as an easy winner over Lasky and Hamas.

    Baker--He looks like a solid boxer for such a big man to me. He would have 15 to 20 lbs. on Lasky and Hamas and just seems a much more grounded fighter.

    Layne--has a quick, accurate left jab, and an accurate right cross. He faded fast though, and was often poorly trained, but he seems to have been quicker than he appears at first glance, able to get off before his opponents. I think he was a solid notch above Lasky, but a fight with Hamas would be close.

    C-ckell--is the best case one can make here. Was basically a light-heavy or pocket heavy who carried a lot of extra poundage. For all that he seems to have had good stamina, and was a sound boxer. He lacked durability. I think he outpoints Lasky, but considering that Hamas had victories over Schmeling and Loughran, better than any C-ckell managed, I go with Hamas to beat him.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017
  11. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,745
    29,122
    Jun 2, 2006
    Baker was a good all round pro handicapped by fragile hands he is a class above both those two.

    Hamas has a split nod over Loughran and a tko win, a win over Schmeling, later emphatically avenged via the short route.Schmeling was handicapped by a very bad cut eye.

    http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/File:F21770.JPG

    Hamas was briefly ranked for part of 1933.Lasky briefly in1934.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017
  12. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    All anyone can say is they "look" a different class or that it was not an interesting fight. They obviously were not a different class to what stands for world class in any other era because one of them beat a guy who later knocked out a prime Joe Louis.

    Best we can say is that what they show is not appreciated now. They don't use techniques we regard as skill today but perhaps their perception and strengths matched up so well that neither one could really look impressive. Some fighters look like crap and are still good enough to beat good guys without much style. And you get them at all levels. This might be a case of two guys like that?

    We can't knock them because beating Max Schmeling proved an ability to win at a good level. There is just no getting around that. Even Schmeling crucifing Hamas in the rematch shows he was good enough to take such a beating for so long. If he was so many leagues lower then he would have been blown out.
     
  13. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    Aesthetically Bob Baker looks a class above but clearly he was not because Baker never beat anybody as good as Max Schmeling.
     
  14. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,745
    29,122
    Jun 2, 2006
    Spurious and decidedly dumb argument.
    Baker beat:
    Agramonte x2
    Layne x2
    Baksi
    Payne
    Brion
    Bivins
    Valdes x2
    Holman
    Mederos
    Wallace
    Slade
    Davidson

    His resume sh*ts all over Hamas'!
     
  15. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    And which one of these dudes do you fancy to beat Schmeling?

    Schmeling v Mederos?
    Schmeling v payne?

    Would anybody want to watch those kinds of fights?

    Not to mention Hamas knocked out Tommy Laughran. I would not bet your money on Laughran losing to mederos and co.

    Bob baker was a good solid pro. But his best win was probably over a shop worn Rex Layne...
     
    Pedro_El_Chef likes this.