Who say's the oldtimers were primitive ?

very much agreed bb. i want to show driscoll the proper respect and i agree, one clip does not do him justice. however, if we are analyzing footage from different eras to determine if they were "primative" or not, the footage provided of him does not nearly convey the greatest his record and legacy suggest. if we are using just this visual evidence alone, he may be lacking however as you have noted if the only evidence of ray robinson was from the tiger jones fight or against joey archer, they'd rate him harshly to. you've mentioned larkin MANY times in the past. he, along with packy macfarland (sp?), are certainly peeking my interest lately

 

I like to think of myself as open-minded, but you and I aren't seeing the same thing, Mr. Bien.

I watched Owen-Nelson. Some thoughts:

1) At any distance at all, but hold their hands chest-high. Good example, the first few seconds of round 5 (just after the 2:30 mark) tall guy walks straight in, hands around chest-high, and walks straight into a right lead. No effort to slip, no parry, just walks into it. Because his hands are too low and he has no head movement or any other defensive skill.

2) I don't see either working his way in as he punches like highly-skilled practitioners (Duran, Whitaker, etc.) of later eras do. When someone goes forward, he throws two punches and then they clinch. No one manages to get at a more comfortable punching distance to work, just hopes to land on his way in rather than finding a comfort zone to work the other over.

3) The taller of the two throws slapping lead hooks without any body behind them except when he throws it on the break (which he throws very well and seems to get some shoulder behind) -- literally just flays his arm out and slaps with the left glove.

4) When the taller guy jabs, he swats out at the target and if he misses his hand goes down. It doesn't return to a defensive position -- it's like swatting at a fly.

4) Most of the non-clinch punches I see originate around waist-high and return to that. Try it against Julio Cesar Chavez and see what kind of counters you get in return.

5) Shorter guy has some pretty good footwork and impresses me more skill-wise. He works some angles, steps around. But from the outside he's deficient -- sometimes he throws a completely amateurish looping left or right as if his eyes are closed, and is way off-balance after the punch. But then he also throws a pretty good straight right -- except that he couldn't hold his chin higher if he tried when he does this. Counter left hooks would eat him alive.

I see some decent work in close quarters with these guys, but nothing that seems beyond the skill level of good fringe contenders of the current or recent era.

In short, I don't think these guys stack up. You really think Pac or Floyd at 135 wouldn't eat these guys alive with their hands so low? Seriously?

Now do me a favor -- go watch Pernell Whitaker vs. JC Chavez. Compare the technique and skill. Tell me that they don't make Battling and Owen look primitive. Seriously.

EDIT: I saw the post about the last 20 years. I'm in my mid-40s. I grew up on the 1970s- and 80s-era guys. But I'll tell you straight up that Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore and Jersey Joe and SRR and a ton of others had every bit the highest level of skill that I saw of the best in MY era.

Go back far enough, and, well, I don't see it. See, sports evolve. Peyton Manning grew up in an era when quarterbacks could look at their footwork on film, look at their release point and throwing motion. He has a superior body and studied and studied and studied. That's why he's a better pure passer than Johnny Unitas ever was. Look at them both and tell me the position hasn't evolved. Watch how sprinters control their bodies now compared to how Jesse Owens ran -- with modern technique and training, he'd probably be as fast as anybody, but sprinting had not evolved in his time. So he was running like I would run (better, but follow my point): just pumping his legs and arms as fast as he could go. Look at Michael Jordan's defensive technique in basketball and how he picks someone's pocket -- tell me the guys in the 1950s could get past half-court against him. Basketball has evolved.

I don't see why it's an insult to look at celluloid/video proof of evolution of sport and see how some have improved upon the technique and skill set. Look at Micky Ward's tap-head-blast-body left hook combo. I don't see anyone throwing that the way he does in Battling Nelson era -- they don't get proper distance, proper hip and shoulder rotation, they don't shift their weight to their left foot to get more power on it. I don't see guys in Jack Johnson's day snapping the jab, twisting it at the end like a bullet in a rifled barrel, the way Ali did -- so maybe that's why guys heads didn't pop back like they'd been shot, and maybe that's why they didn't start bleeding like stuck pigs when that same shot found that same spot time and time and time again, as happened when Ali hit them.

Consider what I've posted, I'm interested in what you think. It doesn't diminish the genius of the Model T to admit that the Ferrari runs faster.

 

Great post and well made points mate.

That said I was impressed by the Moran-Neson footage taken in the context of the era in which it occured. I thought Moran (who is the little guy in the film) had terrific footwork which he clearly relied on for much of his defense. I noted his control of range was superb (note how he could evade Nelsons punches with a half step back whilst still being in range to land those frequent right hand leads as Nelson advanced).

Same deal with the Nelson-Wolgast footage posted here as well.You can see there that they could mix up there punches well,could fight at a much higher intensity than some of their clinch happy contempories (Jack Johnson,Stanley Ketchel) and possessed wonderful stamina (you can see Battling Nelson ****ing jog out for round 23!!). Again I thought they looked really good and you can see why that was such an epic fight.

Whilst I doubt they can compare with Chavez,Whitaker h2h for their era they were excellent and I think McGrain (from memory) commented in another thread on this fight that Moran-Nelson may have represented a stylistic watershed that ushered in a shift from the clinching,mauling olden ways towards the more modern style we know today and I whole heartedly agree.

 

0.08 Driscoll slips a jabs slides over to his left and fires a right hand
0.35 Yes, Driscoll is quite straight up but he moves his head expertly, watch him slip a jab there
1.05 Watch him launch a triple jab backing Robson into the ropes. See where his right hand is?
1.21 Feints a jab, slides back, then fires a right hand lead. Lovely stuff
1.50 Combination punching.
1.56 Draws Robson on, making him fall short then lands a double left hook

General points: His hands are quite low, but his right hand is adept at blocking, and when he punches his hands do come up to protect him. His offensive arsenal is pretty good, sure combination punching, wasn’t what it is now, but he worked really well. His control of distance is superb, as is his feinting. Very accurate. Also look when he advanced with that right hand lead, he’d always step or slide off at an angle.

However, look at Robson, he kept his hands up pretty tight, ok he slightly dropped his left. However, Driscoll seemed to, as the bout progressed, to fire his right hand more and more over the top of Robson’s left. To me that says that Robson’s low left was a specific weakness of him, and since he had no other sort of defence against the right hand Driscoll was able to capitalise it.

To me its obvious Driscoll was a great fighter with quite a unique style so its unfair to pin our technical knowledge of the era on fighters of his calibre. It would be like pinning the knowledge on this era on film of Roy Jones. But looking at Robson, would be out of place today do you think?

 

Battling Nelson was never confused with a skilled practicioner of the ring. The man lived off an anvil chin and had stamina for days.

 

0.08 Driscoll slips a jabs slides over to his left and fires a right hand (i have to say this looks more of Robson's wild miss then driscoll's skill but he did manage a nice body shot)
0.35 Yes, Driscoll is quite straight up but he moves his head expertly, watch him slip a jab there (bang on, nice slip)
1.05 Watch him launch a triple jab backing Robson into the ropes. See where his right hand is? (the triple jab was really a triple push and his right out was sticking straight out with it. what was protecting his from counters or an uppercut up the middle?)
1.21 Feints a jab, slides back, then fires a right hand lead. Lovely stuff (again, agree 100%. i missed this and it was quite nice)
1.50 Combination punching. (there was a 1-2 thrown. but it's almost 2 minutes in. that's about an average of one combination a round)
1.56 Draws Robson on, making him fall short then lands a double left hook (to a degree but the hooks were sloppy; still the timing and distance are there)

note: around 1:56 driscoll throws a GREAT lead right hand and uppercut on the inside

upon further reflection i still have mixed feelings.

Strengths:

1)feints and judging of distance was very good
2)driscoll had a peach of the right and was great at setting traps and making angles (great observation on your part, it improves throughout). I appreciate it more every viewing
3)Movement is solid
4)Has a nice inside uppercut

Weakensses:

1)hands are still too low
2)combination punching, as you noted, is lacking and this is the major weakness i see
3)driscoll did not throw punches with committment and often slapped them (the jabs around 1:38)
4)still walks in without any set up or jabs (3:40)
5)throws WIDE open power shots(3:40-4:00)

Overall:

My initial assessment was harsh but there are still massive flaws that even you noted. He was amazing for the era. But that speaks to the era that even one of the best exhibited them. I give driscoll all the credit in the world for fighting to the level he did in the culture he did, in the ERA he did. under the rule set and techniques that had been developed, he mastered them. techniques like feinting, skills like timing and distance and that right hand would translate anytime.

however

1)lack of combination punching
2)hand positioning
3)absence of a jab
4)chin up, straight up stance

are flaws that are dangerous and foolish in modern times. there is a reason we don't see these anymore, because aspects of the game have evolved. there are aspects (inside fighting out of a clinch) that have devolved as well but i simply do not see how throwing one punch at a time is really an advantage. thanks for the analysis and look forward to your response

 

Nah, He slipped the jab.

It was three hard jabs, he just didnt take them the whole way back. His right hand was in front of his face. Robson couldnt have countered that effectivly IMO.

Nah it was a 1-2 right uppercut. :deal It was just the first round though, and they was scheduled for 20, he did throw more combo's later on. I just used the first one he threw.

I thought they was solid hooks.

And slides off at an angle.

Agree, add in ring generalship.

But he is guarded, his hands are in place to parry and when he throws his hands come up. Its low by modern stadards but the gloves are different.

Its ups throughout though. And its a 20 rounder.

Disagree here. And plus loads of fighters do that today.

His boyo's hurt badly and open. Hes throwing right hands and landing them. I dont see whats wrong here at all.

Hes not as open a syou think, plus see above.

Every flaw you stated we see in modern days, and I fla out disagree on his lack of jab.

Also his stance looks bad, but hes strangley effective with it.

Anyway I'm mor einterested in your thoughts on my general notes, and on Robson.

 

1)I'm not seeing the right hand the same way you are. That's ok, I'll just have to watch it more keeping in mind what I'm looking for but Driscoll's right was never in proper position from my recollection

2)We've discussed combination punching and you're right, his outpoint and accuracy went up as the fight went on. The whole fight would have to be viewed before judgement can be made. I'm thinking back to fights like Hagler/Duran where slow starts were made. However, in judging JUST the clip provided, it was lacking

3)Control of distance/Angles/Timing as you said were great. His skills are without question in these areas

4)Robson was open to the right all round. His left I need to go back and examine but his hand position was better, but still not great. Driscoll pounded that right in over the top constantly

My take on the whole is this: Driscoll had obvious skills as we discussed. If I were to take this discussion away from Driscoll i would say that the era featured a different style of fighting and he had mastered it. If no one is throwing combinations, then why would he? Fights were longer and featured much more clinching and energy had to be preserved. With the limited output, he made the most of his one shots at a time. However the era as a whole had some weaknesses which were remedied. I do doubt that by round 10 we'd see Driscoll's chin tucked in, his hands up to his face, leading with the jab and landing 3-4 punch combos to the head and body because NO ONE of that era did. That has changed and personally, I feel changed for the better.

 

Cuts both ways. Some people cling to yesteryear when in fact the "good ol' days" never were.

 

For the record, I don't recall ever lauding Sam Langford. I believe him to be over-judged because he's rated more on what he never got the chance to do than for what he actually did.

It's sad historical fact that he was cheated of opportunity, but not getting an opportunity does not mean he would have succeeded had such opportunity been afforded.

(And I'm NOT saying Langford wasn't very, very good, maybe one of the best of his day -- my assessment relates more to the idea that some consider him an ATG.)