I have seen people doing so on these forums and elsewhere. Fitzsimmons, Jeffries, Sharkey, Burns, et al. But then you'll see discussion of Johnson, and he's still a slick boxing wizard. It's odd. Obviously, it isn't universal. My posts are addressed to those who have that blind spot.
I think the paradox arises because Sharkey and Jeffries were seen as old school ,no frillls,guys that traded on durability .I think Fitz is recognized as a crafty punch picker,and Burns, though too small for todays men, as a nifty in and out fighter with good skills ,mobility and a hefty wallop for his size .
There's also the fact that Fitzsimmons looks like a dorky middle school teacher, and Burns is a chubby little guy. Johnson has the right physical appearance for a modern heavyweight: muscular, bald, reasonably large. If somebody who looked like Fitzsimmons used Johnson's style, it would be immediately apparent that this isn't a modern HW.
Sharkey was pretty devoid of any finesse imo, an earlier less coordinated Bonavena, even the book co written by his relation did not claim any skills for him.
Bonavena wasn't unskilled, so you basically proved my point. I'm not saying that Sharkey was skilled, but his skills were more modern than Johnson. At least he used a higher guard, used hooks and head movement. It doesn't make him better fighter than Jack (far from it), but he fought more like a modern fighter than Johnson.
I said an earlier less coordinated Bonavena.Did Ali use a high guard ,did Roy Jones?Johnson didnt need a high guard his anticipation was good enough to nullify attacks. What have you seen of Sharkey, a few blurry seconds against Jeffries?
This content is protected I know that the quality is horrible, but we can see Sharkey using jab and straight punches. We can also see Sharkey parrying Jeffries punches. I can't say how good he looks based on this horrible video, but it seems that at least he knew how to box. Certainly doesn't look like he's "face first brawler" like you describe him.
Bonavena was a skilled fighter, so again I don't see your point. I know that, but Sharkey used style that was closer to modern orthodox style. That's my point, nothing else. Actually, we have more than a few seconds. It's enough to see his stance, his jab and his straight punches. He doesn't look that horrible, though I can't say how many times he really landed.
I didn't describe him as such,here is what I said. "Sharkey and Jeffries were seen as old school ,no frillls guys that traded on durability ."and ,"Sharkey was pretty devoid of any finesse".
I think Johnson was genuinely beaten by Willard, and have my doubts his leisurely style would translate well into todays game.
No doubt Johnson was unorthodox, and in a way that makes him look primitive to some modern viewers. But it worked for him. This happens in sports, especially with great ones. I remember when ALL of the experts were saying that Stan Musial's batting stance was terrible and he would NEVER become a decent Major League ballplayer because of it. They ALL advised him to change his stance to conform with what they considered good and modern. Well, he never did. And they were right. He never became a decent Major League ballplayer. Instead he became a great one. Stan Musial's Lifetime Stats: SUMMARY Career AB 10972 H 3630 HR 475 BA .331 R 1949 RBI 1951
