Yeah, this idea that Usyk is mincemeat once Johnson gets him in his clutches is really something else. Fan fiction.
What was the action like in the 45-round heavyweight fights of old? Anyone have a sense of how many punches were thrown and landed per round? And anyone know why Lachbuster got banned?
And there you go again completely misunderstanding burden of proof by calling this claim (which you shamelessly misrepresent) baseless. The claim is true by default unless and until anyone cites papers that refute it. Just like my default belief in the nonexistence of Cuba's space program. Jesus...
Several times now I've seen Willard etc and the 45 round thing come up... These guys didnt even go that distance, so why bother bringing it up? "Yeah, I'd like to see how such-and-such does against so-and-so with a 45 round limit"... These guys didn't even make it that far. And against who we're talking about, wouldn't even last 15... Something would give before then.
Because that is exactly what happens. For starters people often claim they don't see fighters throwing double jabs in videos where the fighter does throw double jabs.
I theorize that because the films and the reputation don't align, the apologists assume there's stuff going on that isn't. There just has to be, because all these writings say what wizards these guys were... And I can't speak for others, but if one guy can see a double jab and another can't, that's his problem.
It may be his problem, but it's also a theme that stems from the same sentiment you expressed. It's relevant to the argument you're making.
Not sure? A shame! He is one of many posters I enjoy having a dialogue with. Hopefully he is back soon
If a guy doesn't know what he's looking at in a boxing match, they aren't relevant and that isn't my problem (or anyone else's). There's quite a spectrum of armchair historians ranging from very sharp to very dull. You can't convince everyone the world is round.
Honestly, I think the technique differences due to rule changes are a bigger factor. People who think a lot of the modern styles would work better than the old ones, under those conditions, haven't really thought it through. e.g. the guards need to be looser, because if you try and cover up it's too easy to punch around and through the guard. Add in that things like leverage blocks, are good for setting up grappling. People make fun of the lean back style, but the earlier boxers didn't fight like this (look at Daniel Mendoza), this was something switched to, from an almost more modern style during the bareknuckle period.
So in the bareknuckle era, boxers fought in a more modern style, than during the "transition period" (going from bareknuckle to gloved boxing)… after which boxing again became more "modern-looking"? This sounds very interesting… but how do we know this?