larry holmes proposed 50th fight unbeaten

[Cap]

It was generally conceded that Galento was over-the-hill when he fought Baer. Some referred to their fight as the Battle of the Bums. After all, Tony had been fighting since 1928 when he fought Max in 1940. In his prime he weighed anywhere from 215 to 225. He was rotund, but he was a fan favourite with his wild-swinging style. Something that can't be said for most of the 1980s heavyweights, who were just fat.

As for Holmes, during his reign, he was accused so often of using a thumb in the eye that he helped bring about the use of thumbless gloves.

[Robinson]

Cap

So the HW's of the 1940s were fitter and better than the HWs of the 1980s....?

Ok thanks.

[Cap]

Cap

So the HW's of the 1940s were fitter and better than the HWs of the 1980s....?

Ok thanks.

If I had a choice of watching Tony Galento or Pinklon Thomas, I'd watch Galento as he was the more exciting fighter. Most of the heavyweights of the 1980s were boring. Mike Weaver and Gerrie Coetzee were among the exceptions.

[Robinson]

What galenton fights do you have or have you watched?

I have just seen him vs Louis and Baer.

I however have seen quite a few of Thomas fights...some are a tad boring but
I have found alot of enjoyment out of them. Even when faded (vs Tyson, Holyfield
and Bowe) he gave a good though limited account of himself.

Can you please give me some good examples of Thomas and galento fights as a
comparison for excitement.

Thomas fights i have
vs Coetzee- Not a barn burner but not that bad a bout. Thomas pumped the jab on and off.
vs Witherspoon - I enjoyed this fight. A good win for Pink.
vs Berbick - this was some what boring. Pinklon was inconsistent and Berbick was able to bully him.
vs Tyson - He had his moments and showed some class, Tyson was too good and too supreme.
vs Holyfield- Holy was way to fast and crisp with his shots. Pink looked shot.
vs Bowe - Pink has some good moments but is out done by the bigger and younger Bowe. Pink shows
good heart.
vs Morrison - sad one round blow out:(

Out of the two Galento fights I saw....Im not a fan. I would love to see more of this man that alot
of the posters here have such a high opinion on the man.

[Robinson]

I guess some people find butterbean more exciting than a lennox lewis....

[dempseyfire]

What galenton fights do you have or have you watched?

I have just seen him vs Louis and Baer.

I however have seen quite a few of Thomas fights...some are a tad boring but
I have found alot of enjoyment out of them. Even when faded (vs Tyson, Holyfield
and Bowe) he gave a good though limited account of himself.

Can you please give me some good examples of Thomas and galento fights as a
comparison for excitement.

Thomas fights i have
vs Coetzee- Not a barn burner but not that bad a bout. Thomas pumped the jab on and off.
vs Witherspoon - I enjoyed this fight. A good win for Pink.
vs Berbick - this was some what boring. Pinklon was inconsistent and Berbick was able to bully him.
vs Tyson - He had his moments and showed some class, Tyson was too good and too supreme.
vs Holyfield- Holy was way to fast and crisp with his shots. Pink looked shot.
vs Bowe - Pink has some good moments but is out done by the bigger and younger Bowe. Pink shows
good heart.
vs Morrison - sad one round blow out:(

Out of the two Galento fights I saw....Im not a fan. I would love to see more of this man that alot
of the posters here have such a high opinion on the man.

To that note, imagine if all you'd seen vs Thomas was the Tyson fight and the Morrison blowout.

Compared to those films, I'd say Galento looks just as good or better vs Louis and Baer.

[Robinson]

Indeed I get your point.

Though that goes both ways...what makes most people so sure that he lost
so much by the time he faced Baer and Louis.

I mean Thomas still showed good fundamentals and one could see
where the skills were.

In the two galento bouts I see a short, rotund man who wants to
knock out guys as though its 3am in the alley next to his bar.

[dempseyfire]

Indeed I get your point.

Though that goes both ways...what makes most people so sure that he lost
so much by the time he faced Baer and Louis.

I mean Thomas still showed good fundamentals and one could see
where the skills were.

In the two galento bouts I see a short, rotund man who wants to
knock out guys as though its 3am in the alley next to his bar.

We're going to have to disagree about the Louis fight, I think Galento looks like a dangerous contender vs Joe. No-one is claiming, or ever claimed, Two Ton Tony was a great technician. He was a strong-chinned, very hard punching slugger who had suprising quickness/speed for a man of his body type/build, who usuallyu fought from a very low crouch which made him a difficult target.

As for the Baer fight, he was 20 lbs over what he usually weighed and two fights away from retirement. All of the fight reports indicate that Galento had slipped a good deal by that fight compared to a few years prior. If that's not indication of a fallen fighter I don't know what is.

[Robinson]

in reagrds to louis challengers...i will say one think.

Abe Simon was a freakish hulk of a man. how did such small legs carry that
monster upper body.

Is there much more footage of Simon fighting or training.

I think that fight showed the talents of Louis well.

[Ambling Alp]

dempseyfire, you can't have it both ways. You can't legitimately criticize fighters from the 1980's for similar things that you won't criticize fighters from the 1940's.

-For example, what would say of a more modern fighter than lost 5 times in a row like Farr did? Yes, one was against Louis, but we are also talking about a washed up Jimmy Braddock and Red Burman here.

-Somehow Cooney has a glass jaw for getting knocked down in the 2nd round of the Holmes fight, despite lasting longer than 10 out of 11 of Holmes' previous challengers. After all, Holmes didn't have an early KO punch.
Then how about Joe Louis getting knocked down by Braddock? Braddock certainly didn't have a Ko punch, and he hadn't fought for more than 2 years.

-There is somehow a big difference in Pastor going the distance against Turkey Thompson and Cooney getting stopped by Holmes. That is overlooking the fact that Pastor was knocked down 6 times by Thompson in the first round. He was very lucky the referee didn't stop it and it didn't go into the books as a 1st round stoppage.
It's also a fact that the Cooney-Holmes fight was scheduled for 15 rounds. Had it been scheduled for 10 (like Thompson-Pastor) Cooney would have went the distance and would have only been knocked down 1 time.

-Pastor had one bad night against Conn so he shouldn't get ripped for getting stopped?
That's interesting . Yoyu have no problem ripping Lennox Lewis' chin for getting knocked out by Rahman even though Lewis was only stopped one other time in his career. Supposedly Rahman hadn't proved himself that good of a puncher in his other fights. Well, Rahman certainly showed in the rest of career that he hit a lot harder than Billy Conn.
That other "knockout hitters" couldn't stop Pastor but Billy Conn could indicates that they weren't that good of "knockout hitters". If it was one lucky punch, maybe you could argue that it was a fluke. However, we are talking about getting knocked down in 3 different rounds. If he would have just lost a decision without being knocked down you could argue it wasn't so embarrassing. However, getting knocked around like that against a guy who couldn't stop lightheavywerights is more than an off night.

-If Pastor can't take Billy Conn's punches, he is going to be in big trouble against James Smith,Trevor Berbick,Mike Weaver,Tim Witherspoon and Earnie Shavers.
-Galento looked sloppy against Baer because he was ot of shape and got tired? He looked sloppy from early on in round 1. If a more modern fighter looked that bad that early, would you be saying this?

-Pinklon Thomas looked worse against Tyson than Galento against Baer? You have got to be kidding. Thomas atleast resembled a heavyweight contender. He wasn't a joke. He was better than Galento in virtually everyway imaginable in that fight. Galento would have been lucky to get past the 2nd round against Tyson.

-You excuse Galento for holding on to Baer a lot because Baer was a hard puncher. Yet you often criticize Ali holding too much against Frazier.

-You excuse Conn for not having a knockout % because a low knockout % doesn't mean that you don't have a hard punch. ( I agree that KO % can be deceiving) However, somehow since Holmes didn't score a lot of early knockouts, he therefore isn't that hard of a puncher. huh?

btw- I am not going by ESPN for why opinions that I respect that are criticial of guys like Nova,Galento, etc. I have read many books that say this. This is back up from the records that I see and the film that have seen.

I also wanted to add this quote from something you said recently:
"All of the fight reports indicate that Galento had slipped a good deal by that fight compared to a few years prior."

Ok, lets say that true. Galento fought Louis only 1 year prior to when he fought Max Baer.
Therefore Galento couldn't been that good when he fought Louis.
Therefore, using your own logic Galento must have slipped a great deal before Louis defended his against him.

Btw- Galento was Ring Magazine's #4 contender for 1938. After beating 3 tomato cans in early 1939, he then challenged Louis. He won his last 11 fights before fighting Louis. Galento had to be one of the best contenders at the time he fought Louis.

Galento was the Ring Magazine's #1 contender for the year 1939 (after he had fought Louis, beat Nova, but before he had fought Baer). Galento's first fight in 1940 was against Max Baer. Galento had to be one of the best heavyweights in the world going into the Baer fight.

That is pretty sad commentary of the heavyweight divison of the time that Galento was one of the best. What does that say about Nova (whom he beat) and the other contenders? It says that they weren't that good.

dempseyfire, I think that you make a lot of good observations on other posts. I just strongly disagree with you here.
That you like the 1940's is fine. That you don't seem to like the 1980's guys is fine too.
However, you have to be able to criticize your favorites for the similar things that you criticize fighters from the 1980's for. Likewise, you have to be able to give credit to the 1980's guys for the similar things that you give credit to the 1940's heavyweights. You have to use the same criteria.

I do want add:
-I don't think that overall Holmes challengers were that great; just overall better than Louis'.
-I do think that Schmeling and Walcott were better than anyone Holmes defended the title against.
- I don't think I am baised toward modern fighters. For example, I think the Teens were a great decade for heavyweights. This decade is ridiculausly bad.
-Including all weight divisions, I think the 1940's was as good as the 1980's. There were many great fighters in the other weight classes of the 1940's.
-I do think that overall, the fighters Louis fought before winning the title (in 1937) were better than the fighters that Holmes fought before Holmes won the title.
-I think that Louis was better than Holmes.

[granberry]

LOTS of goodies here from a boxrec boxing "authority"

LOL

. . .
-For example, what would say of a more modern fighter than lost 5 times in a row like Farr did? Yes, one was against Louis, but we are also talking about a washed up Jimmy Braddock and Red Burman here.

. . .
Braddock certainly didn't have a Ko punch, . . .
. . .

HOW does poor alp know SO MUCH about Red Burman?

I spent 2 hours talking to Burman during and after a boxing awards dinner in Baltimore.

He told me in detail about his fight with Louis--about how Louis' jab was different from anyone else's--about how it felt when you were hit by it---MANY other details about what it was like to fight Joe Louis and why facing Louis was so different from anything else in a fighter's experience--about his fights with John Henry Lewis, Melio Bettina, the several fights he had with Tommy Farr--in detail about Farr as a fighter you were facing--etc etc etc.

But our instant 'expert', alp, knows SO MUCH about Red Burman.

And of course alp is an 'expert' when it comes to Tommy Farr.

Braddock was known as a big right hand puncher.

But no one ever let poor alp in on that, even with all his 'reading' and watching 'films.'

LOL.

When he got the disputed decision over Tommy Farr in his last fight, Braddock was big, powerful, had a blockbuster left jab, and a dangerous right hand that kept Farr off, was very strong inside, and of course had his iron chin.

The film of that fight is very instructive.

I have watched it many times to learn from Braddock.

[dempseyfire]

I think Farr got robbed vs Braddock.

Alp, this is going nowhere. Just admit you don't know much about the 1940s era HWs. You dismiss guys like Burman off like they were some sort of bum, whereas Burman probably would've boxed the likes of Berbick and Cooney's ears off (and let me clarify, I'm not saying Burman definitely beats those two, but I can see Burman doing better than the vastly inferior ST Gordon did vs Berbick and befuddling Cooney if he could survive the first 4 rounds.

[Cap]

Every era has its poor performers (can't seriously call them bums). You can't realistically compare fighters from different eras as the environments were so different.

[raylawpc]

Every era has its poor performers (can't seriously call them bums). You can't realistically compare fighters from different eras as the environments were so different.

AMEN!!