Great old timers that just don't impress you

megadodge

I've seen quite a few of the widely acknowledged greats from the old days at this stage and while the ones like Sugar Ray Robinson, Joe Louis and Jimmy Wilde impressed me no end, there have been others who left me feeling "yet again nostalgia rules".

The one that disappointed me most (by some considerable way) was Henry Armstrong. As most of you probably know, he is the only man in history to hold three world titles simultaneously (and robbed of the fourth at middle), but IMO the most impressive thing about this is that he defended with amazing regularity the WELTER title when often weighing under the LIGHTweight limit. He was also supposed to be a "non-stop punching machine".

For his achievments alone you'd have to consider him one of the very elite boxers of all-time....

Well, having seen a number of videos of him, I can safely say he'll never even come close to my Top 10. Instead of a "non-stop punching machine" (I have come across idiots who claim he threw 300 punches per round - needless to say they never saw him), he punched in 'ones' rather than combinations, came straight ahead and wasn't hard to hit.

In my genuine opinion he was one of the very first 'in-fighters', laying his head on the opponent's chest and letting go with a single hard punch followed by another, etc., which is why his style was one that opponents weren't used to and couldn't prepare for as there were no others like him. Up to (and long after) that point in boxing history, the majority of boxing was done from the outside. This factor is the main reason I believe he dominated at the time.

Now, don't get me wrong, he was still an all-time great, but not as far up the ladder as written acounts (and old-timers' tales) would have you believe.

Anybody else have similar experiences ?

Hero Of College

megadodge wrote: »

I've seen quite a few of the widely acknowledged greats from the old days at this stage and while the ones like Sugar Ray Robinson, Joe Louis and Jimmy Wilde impressed me no end, there have been others who left me feeling "yet again nostalgia rules".

The one that disappointed me most (by some considerable way) was Henry Armstrong. As most of you probably know, he is the only man in history to hold three world titles simultaneously (and robbed of the fourth at middle), but IMO the most impressive thing about this is that he defended with amazing regularity the WELTER title when often weighing under the LIGHTweight limit. He was also supposed to be a "non-stop punching machine".

For his achievments alone you'd have to consider him one of the very elite boxers of all-time....

Well, having seen a number of videos of him, I can safely say he'll never even come close to my Top 10. Instead of a "non-stop punching machine" (I have come across idiots who claim he threw 300 punches per round - needless to say they never saw him), he punched in 'ones' rather than combinations, came straight ahead and wasn't hard to hit.

In my genuine opinion he was one of the very first 'in-fighters', laying his head on the opponent's chest and letting go with a single hard punch followed by another, etc., which is why his style was one that opponents weren't used to and couldn't prepare for as there were no others like him. Up to (and long after) that point in boxing history, the majority of boxing was done from the outside. This factor is the main reason I believe he dominated at the time.

Now, don't get me wrong, he was still an all-time great, but not as far up the ladder as written acounts (and old-timers' tales) would have you believe.

Anybody else have similar experiences ?

No, Manny Pac would not have beaten Henry Armstrong.

Hero Of College

Any black Heavyweight before Jack Johnson. There seems to be this impression that because these guys were denied a chance to fight that they would have won anyways. Sam Langford, a 147lb fighter who could apparently KO full blown heavies:rolleyes: The sh!t that gets written about these guys is unreal. Nevermind the fact that Johnson won the title against 5'7" Noah Brusso AKA Tommy Burns, and lost it to a giant bufoon in Willard...and Johnson was supposed to be the best of all the "coloured" fighters. Peter Jackson couldn't even beat Corbett, so they make up the story about having a bad ankle etc. Choynski, a light-heavyweight, had Jack Johnson OUT COLD with one left hook. Stan Ketchel, another middlweight, had Johnson DOWN with one right hand....then they make up the story about how Johnson knocked his teeth out...it never happened. JJ Jeffries beat two promising black contenders senseless during his rise through the ranks but it never gets mentioned. Instead they prefer to spin the usual "Johnson was the first Black man he fought and he lost so that proves etc etc etc"

Mike Tyson is another one. A figment of perfection, the guy had 1 good win, over Spinks. The rest were over bums and losers and guys who didn't want to fight, or couldn't even if they did.

Terry McGovern and Harry Greb are two others- Greb for his worth did enjoy a big win over Gene Tunney {something Jack Dempsey couldn't do} but he then lost 5 times to him.

megadodge

No, Manny Pac would not have beaten Henry Armstrong.

Would you care to expand that point ?

megadodge

Terry McGovern and Harry Greb are two others- Greb for his worth did enjoy a big win over Gene Tunney {something Jack Dempsey couldn't do} but he then lost 5 times to him.

Greb was only a middleweight.

AND fought a large part of his career legally blind in one eye.

Unfortunately, as no recording of him exists he is blown up to be the most incredible ever by the nostalgists, however, he does have an incredible record.

walshb

Monzon to me never was all that, and even though his record is so impressive, I just never saw what so many others saw. I think he loses to Hagler, Robbie, Jones Junior, Toney, Leonard and a few others...

King of Kings

Hero Of College wrote: »

Mike Tyson is another one. A figment of perfection, the guy had 1 good win, over Spinks. The rest were over bums and losers and guys who didn't want to fight, or couldn't even if they did.

.

cowzerp

Rocky marciano for me, i thought he was a very sloppy fighter and have suspicions about his career and wheter or not the mafia decided a lot of his results! would be beaten by almost any heavyweight champ i can think of, within my life time imo.

walshb

Paul, I have to disagree. He was a well oiled machine with incredible stamina and a massive punch and great chin. Yes, he appeared awkward and at times a little sloppy, but it was his crouching style that exacerbated this. He was undefeated and was the undisputed champ who KO'd Charles and Walcott, two fine fighters. I can think of only a handful of champs in history I'd bet on to beat him. Ali and Tyson at peak, Foreman and Frazier have a very good chance. That's it really

joepenguin

Marciano for me as well. Seen a tape of him a few years back and wasn't impressed. Probably because after reading so much about him being the best of all time I had him down as the perfect fighting machine. Must dig it out actually, haven't seen it since. Think it was against Walcott or Charles?

Hero Of College

joepenguin wrote: »

Marciano for me as well. Seen a tape of him a few years back and wasn't impressed. Probably because after reading so much about him being the best of all time I had him down as the perfect fighting machine. Must dig it out actually, haven't seen it since. Think it was against Walcott or Charles?

Watch this and reconsider.

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

Monzon to me never was all that, and even though his record is so impressive, I just never saw what so many others saw. I think he loses to Hagler, Robbie, Jones Junior, Toney, Leonard and a few others...

Have to agree. He is my no. 2 biggest disappointment.

numerocinco

Not an old timer at all and will probably be slated but for me Tyson was more hype than anything, I would rate Lewis higher than him. As I said though not an old timer so a bit off topic.

megadodge

I agree with most of you on Marciano, he won the title off a 38 year old (absolutely ancient in those days), defended again against him (when he was obviously even older), next defence was against a man he beat before (La Starza, in fairness he was a decent fighter), two very tough fights against Ezzard Charles, who was a great fighter, but was a natural middleweight and well past his best, then Don Cockell who was just a very fat light-heavy, and finally Archie Moore yet another smaller older man.

It doesn't stand up to any reasonable scrutiny IMO.

cowzerp

Hero Of College wrote: »

Watch this and reconsider.

Watched and it only further proved my point, this video is awful, he was just bending over most of the time and his punches where all bad hooks, i stick by my comment on champions beating him, and i put Bruno, moorer, mccall, morrison, briggs an all in there. klitscho would anihilate him, tyson would in 1 easy, foreman would make him look like a light weight-holyfield would bully him, i honestly think most top middle weights would beat him now too, the poorest legend i can think of. would rely on a 1 punch against all the above.

walshb

Paul, he was NEVER ever beaten!
It's all nice and easy in hindsight to say X, Y and Z would have
beaten him, but Charles and Walcott could not, and both were TOP notch
fighters who would have beaten a lot of great fighters from recent years.
He was awkward and sloppy and difficult, but that was his style. He was very very
hard, supremely tough and fit and relentless and had a killer right hand.

The great Louis was obliterated by Rocky, and I know Joe was over the hill, but I think
it has been claimed that the Rock carried Joe in that fight. Joe
was still very dangerous and I don't think Joe beats Rocky even at Peak

I also see real quality in that video Paul. Subtle and deceptive defensive moves and counters.
Yes, he dipped, but he had massively powerful legs. Watch Pea Whitaker and it's obvious he may
have got some defensive tricks from Rocky. He threw beautiful counter uppercuts. I really
think the Rock was impressive. No middle, LH or Cruiser would beat Rocky

Hero Of College

walshb wrote: »

Paul, he was NEVER ever beaten!
It's all nice and easy in hindsight to say X, Y and Z would have
beaten him, but Charles and Walcott could not, and both were TOP notch
fighters who would have beaten a lot of great fighters from recent years.
He was awkward and sloppy and difficult, but that was his style. He was very very
hard, supremely tough and fit and relentless and had a killer right hand.

The great Louis was obliterated by Rocky, and I know Joe was over the hill, but I think
it has been claimed that the Rock carried Joe in that fight. Joe
was still very dangerous and I don't think Joe beats Rocky even at Peak

The test you apply here is not necessarily how well Marciano did against this guy or that guy.

Take the following example:-

"I think Foreman would take Klitschko"

The first thing you do there is ask "Why do You Think That??"

Being what they are, most people will immediately answer..."Oh, well....I saw him against Thompson and I thought he was blah blah blah"

THE VERY NEXT question you have to ask them is THIS:- "How Well Do You Think Foreman Would Have Done With Thompson"???

Most "boxing fans" {little setantaites the lot of them} will usually say "Oh...He would Have Knocked Him Out"

"Like He Did Little Jimmy Young"

Conversation will usually end there.

Joe Louis may have been ancient and baldy when Marciano beat him, and, Marciano may have struggled with Walcott, but he took him out cold in a combined 14 rounds. Joe Louis struggled and struggled and struggled with Wlacott, arguably losing the first fight having been down twice. His seconds had to restrain him from leaving the ring in disgust before the verdict was announced.

Truth be told, Walcott probably didn't even hit his prime until he finally took Charles at the 3rd time of asking.

If Charles and Walcott were poor fighters, then screw it, we might as well take a look at Joe Louis legacy aswell.

Quality fighters, Hall of Famers even, like Jimmy Bivins and Lee Savold all lost to Louis when he made his comeback. Arguably, Louis did better in his comeback than Foreman did in his, and fought better fighters too.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Paul, he was NEVER ever beaten!

Bren i sincerley have doubts about how genuine the rocks legacy of been unbeaten is, i have suspicions that the mafia and promoters had a lot to do with his wins, remember this was back in racist american times and he was meant to hang with people from mafia circles if i what i rad is to believed!

personally i dont rate his style, or his defense that highly, i see him dodging etc,, but wonder how this can be compared to mayweather and pea who would still be looking at there opponents while dodging and not just bowing and hoping for the best!

i know thats a bit harsh but its a harsh way of explaining the different defense styles! i just dont rate anything i've seen of him and can only base my likes on what i see, sloppyness and scrappiness is what i see.

Hero Of College

cowzerp wrote: »

Bren i sincerley have doubts about how genuine the rocks legacy of been unbeaten is, i have suspicions that the mafia and promoters had a lot to do with his wins, remember this was back in racist american times and he was meant to hang with people from mafia circles if i what i rad is to believed!

Enough said.

cowsh!it wrote:

personally i dont rate his style, or his defense that highly, i see him dodging etc,, but wonder how this can be compared to mayweather and pea who would still be looking at there opponents while dodging and not just bowing and hoping for the best!

Just cos you can't defend like Pea and Floyd doesn't mean you can't defend. Its like saying Foreman punched harder than Ali so therefore Ali couldn't punch. Get real dude.

T-K-O

The Mafia line could be used against every fighter up until a certain year..

cowzerp

Hero Of College wrote: »

Just cos you can't defend like Pea and Floyd doesn't mean you can't defend. Its like saying Foreman punched harder than Ali so therefore Ali couldn't punch. Get real dude.

walshb stated about his defense and mentioned pea so i used him to state my case, im sure walshb understood that, not suprised you did not though.

megadodge

The great Louis was obliterated by Rocky, and I know Joe was over the hill, but I think
it has been claimed that the Rock carried Joe in that fight. Joe
was still very dangerous and I don't think Joe beats Rocky even at Peak

Joe Louis was completely and utterly past it at 37 (only boxing for the money) and he still managed to close Rocky's eye with his jab. Rocky did what he had to do, but even his biggest fans never use that fight as one of his highlights, so far from the prime Louis was his opponent. He never fought again.

Truth be told, Walcott probably didn't even hit his prime until he finally took Charles at the 3rd time of asking

At 37 ??? Seriously ??

And even when he fought Joe Louis they were both around 34 at the time and Joe retired after the second fight realising he just didn't have it anymore.
Their fights were between two old, past-their-best boxers and yes Walcott probably deserved the first one.

I don't see Rocky lasting past the 7th or 8th with a prime Joe Louis, who punched much harder and faster than a 40-something Archie Moore, who went to his grave believing the ref robbed him in the Marciano fight, when Rocky was badly hurt after the knockdown.

Hero Of College

megadodge wrote: »

Joe Louis was completely and utterly past it at 37 (only boxing for the money) and he still managed to close Rocky's eye with his jab. Rocky did what he had to do, but even his biggest fans never use that fight as one of his highlights, so far from the prime Louis was his opponent. He never fought again.



At 37 ??? Seriously ??

And even when he fought Joe Louis they were both around 34 at the time and Joe retired after the second fight realising he just didn't have it anymore.
Their fights were between two old, past-their-best boxers and yes Walcott probably deserved the first one.

I don't see Rocky lasting past the 7th or 8th with a prime Joe Louis, who punched much harder and faster than a 40-something Archie Moore, who went to his grave believing the ref robbed him in the Marciano fight, when Rocky was badly hurt after the knockdown.

If Moore was soooo past it, then why did he get to fight for and win the Light Heavy title after he lost to Marciano? Why was he considered a worth opponent for Patterson and Ali loooong after Rocky had retired??

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

Joe Louis was completely and utterly past it at 37 (only boxing for the money) and he still managed to close Rocky's eye with his jab. Rocky did what he had to do, but even his biggest fans never use that was badly hurt after the knockdown.

Mega, I distinctly remarked that Louis was past his prime; but it has also been claimed that Rocky never wanted that match and actually carried Louis in the fight. How they would have fared had both been at peak is a matter of opinion. I think Rocky beats Louis by KO at peak

walshb

Hero, we all have differing views here. Just try and keep it a little civil. Why the
incessant need to always be so forceful and derogatory in your arguments?
I just don't understand it!

Hero Of College

walshb wrote: »

Hero, we all have differing views here. Just try and keep it a little civil. Why the
incessant need to always be so forceful and derogatory in your arguments?
I just don't understand it!

An argument should always be forceful, rather than farceful.

Show me where I was derogatory, and I will take it back.

Judomad

Hero Of College wrote: »

An argument should always be forceful, rather than farceful.

Show me where I was derogatory, and I will take it back.

you are actually a long term troll, seriously, its a shame you found this board, without yourself it would be perfect.......

walshb

Hero Of College wrote: »

An argument should always be forceful, rather than farceful.

Show me where I was derogatory, and I will take it back.

Did you or did you not quote Cowzerp as Cow****?

I think you did.

Why?, I don't have the first clue. Just quit it and get back to sensible adult debating!

Seriously, if you just learned to chill a little, you would be a very good poster here...

Judomad

walshb wrote: »

Did you or did you not quote Cowzerp as Cow****?

I think you did.

Why?, I don't have the first clue. Just quit it and get back to sensible adult debating!

Seriously, if you just learned to chill a little, you would be a very good poster here...

F**k him out bren....

Bren:

On his last legs Judo mate!

Hero Of College

walshb wrote: »

Did you or did you not quote Cowzerp as Cow****?

I think you did.

Why?, I don't have the first clue. Just quit it and get back to sensible adult debating!

Seriously, if you just learned to chill a little, you would be a very good poster here...

He did it to me first. Now, thats sounds childish, and probably is, but if I can't get protection from Mods then I am going to react in kind.

Hero Of College

Judomad wrote: »

F**k him out bren....

Bren:

On his last legs Judo mate!

Sure.

walshb

Hero Of College wrote: »

He did it to me first. Now, thats sounds childish, and probably is, but if I can't get protection from Mods then I am going to react in kind.

He did it to you first?

Where exactly?

From my reading of the posts, you reacted and quoted Paul as cow**** and he responded with Zero of College, anyway, you are right, this is getting damn childish.

Let's leave it here and move on in a sensible fashion!

Agreed?

Hero Of College

walshb wrote: »

He did it to you first?

Where exactly?

From my reading of the posts, you reacted and quoted Paul as cow**** and he responded with Zero of College, anyway, you are right, this is getting damn childish.

Let's leave it here and move on in a sensible fashion!

Agreed?

I thought it was the other way around. Check and see he hasn't edited the posts please.

walshb

You posted your comment 5 mins before Paul's reply, end of matter!!!

cowzerp

Hero Of College wrote: »

An argument should always be forceful, rather than farceful..

This is a chat forum for debating, not arguing. me and walshb disagree loads even though we come from the same school of thought overall, opinions vary, simple as.

Hero Of College wrote: »

Show me where I was derogatory, and I will take it back

on the 1st thread i seen you on, you called me son!
also said i was the lamest poster ever!
and questioned wheter or not i had an amateur boxing card!
nice way to introduce yourself...thats only some too!

if everyone posted where you've been rude or out of order to them you'd be outta here very fast, personally, i dont want you banned-but i would prefer if you did not look for an argument at every opurtunity.