Who say's the oldtimers were primitive ?

Watching the Ritchie Rivers fight. They look very modern to me.

 

I agree with you Jorodz I've always found Jim Driscoll overrated as a technician myself, but many on here call him a ring master I myself see a man thats a very good fighter but flawed in his techinic, and I'm big fan of the old school guys so it not a attack on the era, just my opinion on driscoll alone.

 

I'm shocked sugarsean, I genuinly find Driscoll to be one of the most impressive boxers I have ever seen.

 

i've seen very limited footage from this era admittedly. most of it comes from the classic and youtube but the driscoll footage i've seen is not impressive. i think a degree of overanalyzing occurs, for some fighters, to justify history placement that is based on resume and legacy but not footage

 

I used to like you.

:verysad

 

so you don't see the flaws, chin up, lunging, over reaching ?

does'nt mean I don't think he's a good fighter but he has a lot of flaws, and he's not the most impressive of boxers in my opinion.

Jose Napoles, Sam Langford, Ray Robinson, Ike Williams, Pernell Whitaker there impressive.

 

awww come on man!

seriously though, i respect your opinion immensely. what should i watch to change my mind? and what do you think of the driscoll footage in this thread?

 

Again, I must go back to modern fighters.

You can go well above journeyman level and see these kind of faults. When fighters get frustrated, or their gameplan goes out of the window, these sort of things happen. If a fighter knows that he is behind on the cards, he can turn it into an Irish brawl.

Also, it is dangerous to assume that the textbook is always right. Somtimes it is just an implement that you can get beaten round the head with.

 

Been a while since I watched it to remember anything specific. I'll have a squint tommorow and give you my views on his flaws.

See above.

Yeh its the Driscoll footage in this thread I love.

 

no probs mate :good

 

fair enough :good

 

true, but to see it in driscoll? one of the best ever? I think it's more indicative of the style and limtations of the era than purely a general trait of fighters in trouble.

i agree. textbook is not always right and some of the best, most creative boxers neglected basics and were better for it (though "it is just an implement that you can get beaten round the head with" says it all:thumbsup

 

J, the way a fighter looks on one or two clips ,doesn't necessarily imply effectiveness at all. For one example,the most beautiful text-book boxer I've seen ringside, Tippy Larkin,who won almost every round from the GREAT boxer Billy Graham,was beautiful to behold on film,but fell far short of being a great fighter...So with Jim Driscoll, or Freddie Welsh. Or probably
the unorthodox windmill, Harry Greb. It is the totality of his entire career, rather than one clip...Cheers...
P.S. Never judge a book by it's cover...:hi:

 

the film is **** NOT the fighters,

I've argued it for years but the "living colour" brigade don't dare admit that anything before their own time (the last 20 or so years ), was better.

leave them to it- ironically the same period is THE WORST period in boxing history, unlike the 40s the best period in boxing history...

but of course they just can't concede to that either!

 

pretty harsh generalization. most of us would concede that ali and louis are the top 2 heavyweights of all time, decades before some of us were born. the flaws noted in the driscoll video are from the fighter. not the film. the film did not limit his output to one punch at a time, nor did it force his hands to waist level.