Written reports + Lack of Footage = Overrated?

:good

 

...

 

...

 

So do we have any accurate accounts from, as an example, a boxing writer who comments on a known and observable Mickey Walker fight or another contemporary like Gibbons (either one) and that also commented on Greb or Rosenbloom?

Based on the writer's accuracy of account, that may lend more credibility to the accuracy of description of styles or events. I would be interested to do a study of known fights that certain writers gave accounts of and compare what was said to our eyes, which live in a different time and context.

 

the only thing I'd say with respect to the differences of possible opinions re Greb, Gibbons to Walker and later fighters by writers that saw them all. Boxing had definitely & fundamentally evolved, improved and classy stylistic technicians were becoming much more the norm by the early mid 20s and by the mid 30s we entered into an approx. 25-40 peak of great & better fighters.

Generally speaking of course, there would have been exceptions on both sides of the advancing periods for great stylists or crude, clinching pugs.

 

James Toney and Bernard Hopkins will probably be remembered as pretty good.
Who were the "**** poor part time fighters" he faced ? I think that does a disservice to many of his challengers, many were decent professional boxers.

 

Any man who can get in the ring and hit his opponent at will - without getting hit back in return - is demonstrating excellent boxing ability.

 

It's the only thing that matters.
Anyone who jusges a man's boxing ability by how he holds his hands, where he places his feet, which punches he favours etc. against some sort of textbook tick list .... rather than how he well he performs doing whatever he does .... has obviously lost sight of the forest for the trees.

Roy Jones Jr. boxed plenty of guys socks off, some of who were very good fighters, and even if they were just mediocre professional journeymen, it takes one hell of a boxer to do that.

 

Jones had excellent defensive skills. Just like many other great fighters in history, especially from early 20th century, he chose not to keep his both hands up all the time, only raising his hands when necessary. Many German and eastern-european fighters are keeping their hands up most of the time, but they could only dream about Jones' defensive effectiveness, and they are seriously degrading their offense that way, being too predictable. Winky Wright, with his high guard, was like a baby in the hands of Hopkins.

 

Roy Jones could box superbly, so I think Klompton's point was wrong, because he states in no uncertain terms that Jones couldn't box. It is immense boxing ability that Jones showed.

Roy Jones was a great fighter, imo. No, I wouldn't rate him up with the very highest echelon of greats. On a list he might feature below dozens and dozens of others but he was still great.

Sure, I wouldn't look at Jones for an insight into a multitude of technical skills and technical craft, but that doesn't take anything away from what he did.

I don't agree with people who say he wasn't a great fighter or that he couldn't box, nor do I see any sense in those statements.