Unorthodox/Crude Fighters Beating Superior Fighters/Technique?

Marciano beating Ted Lowry, Roland LaStarza, Joe Louis, Kid Matthews, Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles & Archie Moore hahahaha

 

I call bull**** on the topic. The technique and the fighter are deemed superior by who is the victor. By definition, the superior fighter on a given night wins the match. The rest- technique and skill- are mere aesthetics.

 

If we're talking textbook technique or accepted orthodoxy being disrupted by sheer effective crudeness, I don't think that you can do much better than Pipino Cuevas did throughout his reign.

 

Holmes - Spinks (disregarding Holmes was past it)
Pryor - Arguello
Almost any Bazooka Limon or Hamed

 

This is why I added Jones, I never said him or Montell were crude just unorthodox.

I guess you can say that. From what I've seen I would consider him crude but you may be right.

 

Jackson-Graham

 

Well walcott was nowhere near his prime for that fight. Simon was actually the top 10 rated fighter at the time, not Walcott. I think Layne vs Walcott is a much better example. Walcott was not hard to beat in 1940. He was, though, by 1950.

 

How about

Max Baer vs Max Schmeling?

 

almost everyone of marcanos wins would count...

 

He was a superior fighter and possessed better technique in the context of his faculties than everyone he faced.

It astonishes me that the supposedly astute observers here continue to credit lesser fighters who "play to form" over those who bring the results. This is not goddamn diving or gymnastics. At the end of the night no one gives a **** who throw a textbook hook. It's the guy who is standing who is by definition better. Perhaps you need to understand the textbook is a point of departure and not a destination.

 

Surprisingly, Marciano was a big critic of non-textbook boxers based on his commentary for several 1950's fights.