Ezzard charles footage broken down

[matko]

Just found this on youtube was looking at some of my fave fighter's like James Toney and Mike McCallum and came accross this breaking down some of his techniques thought i'd post it for some of you Ezzard Charles fans, was watching the documentary on James Toney and Bill Miller and shows Bill talking James through some of his techniques shame there aint many fighter's like these nowadays

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E2BEE8Ce70&feature=fvw

[BoxBuzz]

spectacular! Thanks so much for that! He beat Archie three times. And he was nearly as good as Archie as well!

[granberry]

Why choose a fight with an old Charles and Coley Wallace, who had an unsuccessful pro career?

If you want analyze a left hook, do it with Dempsey's.

If you want to analyze a right hand, do it with Louis'.

Showing Charles taking advantage of poor Coley Wallace is a bad choice.

[TheGreatA]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81non05aKX4

Another analysis by the same creator. He said he'd make one of Tony Canzoneri next.

[granberry]

Burley was obviously a great judge of distance.
Putting Hopkins and de LaHoya on a level with Burley, as the video maker tries to do, is disgusting.

They don't rate compared with Burley.

[BoxBuzz]

I like what he has done here and with the Burley video as well. In addition I enjoy the music score he chose.

[TheGreatA]

Burley was obviously a great judge of distance.
Putting Hopkins and de LaHoya on a level with Burley, as the video maker tries to do, is disgusting.

They don't rate compared with Burley.

He was not rating them with Burley. He was actually criticizing De La Hoya's modern stance and used Hopkins as an example of the "old school" stance. The footage on Burley is limited so he had to use additional information to prove his point.

[granberry]

Burley was obviously a great judge of distance.
Putting Hopkins and de LaHoya on a level with Burley, as the video maker tries to do, is disgusting.

They don't rate compared with Burley.

He was not rating them with Burley. He was actually criticizing De La Hoya's modern stance and used Hopkins as an example of the "old school" stance. The footage on Burley is limited so he had to use additional information to prove his point.

The footage of the Burley Smith fight is longer than that entire video.

Burley was a great judge of distance. That is shown by his standing so close and hardly moving when Smith, a full weight class bigger, throws his heaviest right hands. Few people have perceptions on that level. Joe Gans was the greatest of all in that respect.

[TheGreatA]

The footage of the Burley Smith fight is longer than that entire video.

Burley was a great judge of distance. That is shown by his standing so close and hardly moving when Smith, a full weight class bigger, throws his heaviest right hands. Few people have perceptions on that level. Joe Gans was the greatest of all in that respect.

The modern boxing fan doesn't really care to watch an old film from the 1940's. They'll "get it" if one uses a contemporary fighter to prove one's point about the old stance working even in today's boxing.

When one looks at a fighter like Burley holding his hands low they assume he's some primitive boxer with outdated techniques who doesn't have the ability of today's boxers. The video above was posted to prove this wrong, not to the boxing historian who already knows but the average boxing fan who doesn't. As you said Burley was a great judge of distance who held his hands relatively low because he could get away with it, not because he didn't know how to hold his hands high. But this is what's assumed of the past greats.

[granberry]

The footage of the Burley Smith fight is longer than that entire video.

Burley was a great judge of distance. That is shown by his standing so close and hardly moving when Smith, a full weight class bigger, throws his heaviest right hands. Few people have perceptions on that level. Joe Gans was the greatest of all in that respect.

The modern boxing fan doesn't really care to watch an old film from the 1940's. They'll "get it" if one uses a contemporary fighter to prove one's point about the old stance working even in today's boxing.

When one looks at a fighter like Burley holding his hands low they assume he's some primitive boxer with outdated techniques who doesn't have the ability of today's boxers. The video above was posted to prove this wrong, not to the boxing historian who already knows but the average boxing fan who doesn't. As you said Burley was a great judge of distance who held his hands relatively low because he could get away with it, not because he didn't know how to hold his hands high. But this is what's assumed of the past greats.

Only an ass would assume that.

An ass who is 100% clueless on the subject of boxing.

Not to mention that their hero Ali held his hands at his sides much of the time.

[TheGreatA]

Only an ass would assume that.

An ass who is 100% clueless on the subject of boxing.

Not to mention that their hero Ali held his hands at his sides much of the time.

Ali was supposedly a greater athlete though and even he would not stand a chance against the Klitschko brothers or Lennox Lewis.

This is what I hear.

[BoxBuzz]

I would hesitate to call a young boxing enthusiasts asinine or foolish just because they have not yet learned all there is to know about this sport. Burley is an excellent example of good teachable technique. Some athletes can bend the rules and get away with it. I think the best of the best are those who are great athletes AND follow the rules with discipline. But the great athletes seem to feel compelled to "show off" by showing disdain for such discipline.

Examples: Leonard, Ali, RJJ. Hamed is another on a different level of course.

[TheGreatA]

I would hesitate to call a young boxing enthusiasts asinine or foolish just because they have not yet learned all there is to know about this sport. Burley is an excellent example of good teachable technique. Some athletes can bend the rules and get away with it. I think the best of the best are those who are great athletes AND follow the rules with discipline. But the great athletes seem to feel compelled to "show off" by showing disdain for such discipline.

Examples: Leonard, Ali, RJJ. Hamed is another on a different level of course.

I agree I wouldn't call people foolish only because their interest in a particular sport's history is not quite like mine.

With videos like boxari1980's about all-time greats such as Charles and Burley it's much easier to illustrate to the casual fan why the boxers from the 1940's weren't just a bunch of brawlers with no skill included. I think he should be applauded for his efforts.

[granberry]

Why would anyone care what the clueless "think" ?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I wonder what Curtis Cokes thinks about this footage. Sadly, I've only seen one quote from him.

[BoxBuzz]

Why would anyone care what the clueless "think" ?

This is a great question and I believe I have an answer. Some are just downright entertaining! However, in the marketplace of ideas, just as in the commercial marketplace the old adage, "buyer beware" should be taken seriously.

[TheGreatA]

Why would anyone care what the clueless "think" ?

Everyone starts out being ignorant. How could I possibly expect someone who has never seen Joe Louis outside of maybe some footage of him being knocked out by Marciano as an old man to rate him as an all-time great? So I'll make the films available to them. Usually they'll change their minds and if they don't then that's their opinion.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Your you tubes are awesome. Do you have any Griffith/Rodriguez?