What top p4p fighters look average or mediocre on film?

Froch is another that doesn't inspire on film. He does so much wrong like standing square up when he attacks, leaving himself wide open to counters. Honestly to me he's not much to look at on film.

But he gets the results. Like Monzon, he obviously is doing something right.

 

Monzon and Marciano of the great fighters. Fulmer, Vitaly and Ingo of the borderline great. Froch and Bonavena of the good fighters. Perhaps Maidana as well.

Foreman could look terrible as well, but he could also quite good (the Norton fight impresses me in particular).

EDIT: Actually going back there are many that don't look good on film. Very few pre 30's. And several of the biggest names in the 30's and 40's (Baer, Braddock, Graziano and even Zale) do quite little for me. But I put this down mostly to a combination of quality of film and boxing evolving.

 

It is exactly about that. It reveals that many here do not know what is good when they see it, that they hold preconceived stylistic biases that cloud their appreciation for effective boxing.

What you call a "languid, uninspiring upright European style" has been used quite effectively by the right fighters over the sport's history. Monzon, in particular, was brilliant using that approach to control distance and adjust pace and speed in his bouts. But I suppose boxing only counts when it is an American potshot artist who dances around the ring like a fairy.

 

Jack Johnson looks like a boring clincher and holder.
I don't think that is the quality of the film.

 

I disagree because I think Monzon is a perfect example of "looking" mediocre on film but being very effective at that style. I personally think Monzon is overrated, was protected, had some home cooking, and fought some weak competition BUT I also admit that while his style is unappealing he was extremely effective at it. Particularly that weird, gumby like upper body movement that allowed him twist of range. There have been a lot of fighters who look bad or amateurish stylewise but for whatever reason are extremely effective and undeniably good/successful.

 

That's the point I was trying to make.

 

I think he looks brilliant on film. There are simply more ways to skin a cat than many assume. His control of spacing and pace was a direct result of his style. I see nothing amateurish about it… in fact I see it innovative and borderline sublime.

And exactly where in his great title run was the home cooking? The first Briscoe encounter, before the title, was an pre agreed draw. Otherwise, I see no more than usual deference paid to champions all over the world.

 

Monzon may have lacked flashiness and seemed to the unsophisticated casual observer to be "stiff", robotic and all that other crap, but he was equipped with one of the very best boxing brains, was unnaturally strong and skilled and had a piece of steel for a chin...without a doubt the greatest middleweight champ of history, he was and is, incredibly enough,...one of the most underrated of the great champions...and usually by those same casual observers I mentioned earlier.

 

Re: the bolded part.

You're getting all worked up about...what? Who claimed Carlos was amateurish?
I stand by what I said; he does not look brilliant on film. Not to me anyway. BUT he obviously was brilliant at what he did. I didn't really think that had to be stated.

 

How can a fighter be considered "amateurish" with 100 career bouts, only 3 losses, all by decision...all avenged...with 14 successful defenses...swho retires undefeated as champion?? Obviously it points to something subtlely brilliant that some so called "boxing afficianado's" just can't grasp...can't discern.