Who disappointed you the first time you saw them on film?

Might very well be the best middle ever, but he's horrible to see.

 

I agree, Meazy, and I always think of these guys as tough guys today with no training but some fights on the street under their belt...

There are plenty of guys who have experience fighting on the street who are legitimately tough and can definitely crack. Those guys are tougher and would beat a huge percentage of the population, including many who also think they're tough.

So in my opinion, we have many Fitz's and Jeffries running around, but when they go to a boxing gym, they find out how inadequate and unprepared they are... I've seen it many times personally- their reality being shattered as they come to the hard acceptance that they simply got handled by a guy they would have bet their lives they could beat just 5 or 10 minutes before.

Now Armstrong and Saddler are exceptions, of course, and I personally was impressed by Canzoneri and Ross.

I'm only talking about the guys I've seen from 1920 and back- specifically those I mentioned.

 

I was surprised to read Armstrong mentioned here.....I was hugely impressed with not only his aggression and tireless attack, but also his ability to avoid punishment coming in. He was sensational.

 

seriously...max baer.

still can't get my head around everything he was..... he had awesome power and a top notch chin but a very amateurish style to my eyes.
him v galento looked like two old drunks outside a bar at night...shouting and roaring and grabbing each other and swinging wildly.
if i didnt know better i'd have never picked baer as someone who could have held a world heavyweight title.....even if it was from someone like carnera, who i think was better than his legend normally says he was.

 

I think because he's almost painfully repetitive. You have to look really closely to notice anything special (i.e. his sneaker right hook/uppercut). Otherwise he almost looks limited.

But I guess that's why he was so special. He imposed his will on everybody.

 

You didn't fight Canzoneri good to watch? I'd suggest getting into a different sport.

 

Well, I can only speak for myself, but as a young, impressionable teen one is prone to taking everything literally. So when I was reading stories of 'Homicide Hank' I was forming this mental picture in my head of what he must have been like. I took the hyperbole, which was quite liberally sprinkled sometimes when describing the greats, literally.
So Henry, unless he was exactly as I pictured him, was always going to disappoint. He had an impossible image to live up to. I was about 15 or 16 when I first saw tape of most these guys, so it was quite a rude awakening to see that they were mortal.

I'll even go a step further (may as well, no turning back now ) and say that Sugar Ray Robinson didn't impress me that much at first. I wasn't disappointed really, just underwhelmed. Again it was due to the whole mental image thing...

But also, the fight film itself doesn't help. Low quality, grainy, patchy video with often overdubbed sound effects...it's hard to watch sometimes. It was certainly hard for me to watch back then.

Guys who did impress me right off the bat included Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Freddie Steele, Tony Zale, Marcel Cerdan and guys like that. Perhaps it was their styles or something, but I found it easier to appreciate them than a Jack Johnson for example.

 

Makes perfect sense!

And you've given me an idea for yet another horrible thread idea.......

 

I'm reposting this but I screened both Benny Leonard vs Lew Tendler as well as Mike Gibbons vs Mike O'dowd for both Steve Lott and Malcolm "Flash" Gordon.

Both guys had nothing too impressive to say at all.

 

Dempsey

 

Right now, Freddie Miller. Barney Ross, Mickey Walker, Pancho Villa, Ezzard Charles and Tommy Loughran all grew on me. I didn't think much of Benny Leonard until I bumped into the longer version of the Tendler fight. Now he's among my faves. There's probably a lot more fighters I didn't like at first I don't remember. It takes some time to get used to old footage.

 

The really old time boxing footage is strange to watch. It looked like they tried every exchange to cross-counter the other man's lead, and if they ended up body-to-body either flurried to the body or worked in the clinch. A lot of the punches from outside were looped maybe to mix-up with the straight leads and not get cross-countered. So the rhythm is very different to today.

I can see how old-time boxing would be better for self-defense than modern boxing, but today we have enormous gloves, combination punching instead of clinch work, so modern boxing makes more sense for the rules nowadays.

I like watching the Jimmy Wilde and Joe Gans stuff because it shows that mentality. They really didn't like the modern concept of trading combination punches up close but either crossed your lead so you couldn't follow it in, or clinched you up to smother your work. BUT... when I first watched them, and Jack Johnson etc., I didn't understand the logic behind bareknuckle and early gloved boxing so I was extremely disappointed.

 

Took it long enough.