No, he did not. They didn't exist back then. Jim Jacobs and Nat Fleischer had a long debate about this fact. Do you have evidence to the contrary?Decagon wrote:Joe Gans didn't throw sustained combinations?
Gentalman Jim Corbet
re
>>>Yeah. Heavyweights these days just aren't as active as John L. Sullivan, Jim Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons.<<<
The early fighters were a hell of alot more active than these one fight a year boxers of today. When they were not in actual bouts they were fighting exhibitions, just about every week. They knew how to fight and they were always in shape because they did fight. Hell, all any early fighter would have to do against a modern fighter is just be able to last ten rounds, which most could do with no problem whatsoever...then, even if the eraly fighter was not able to punch the man out, the modern fighter would collpase because of lcak of conditioning. Take John L. Sullivan...when he would have maybe two, or three regulation fights a year, but altogether he would have close to 100 barn-storming bouts! Today's fighter doesn't even come close and even with all of the advances in conditioning nowadays, the modern fighters are no where near as physically fit as the early fighters were!
The early fighters were a hell of alot more active than these one fight a year boxers of today. When they were not in actual bouts they were fighting exhibitions, just about every week. They knew how to fight and they were always in shape because they did fight. Hell, all any early fighter would have to do against a modern fighter is just be able to last ten rounds, which most could do with no problem whatsoever...then, even if the eraly fighter was not able to punch the man out, the modern fighter would collpase because of lcak of conditioning. Take John L. Sullivan...when he would have maybe two, or three regulation fights a year, but altogether he would have close to 100 barn-storming bouts! Today's fighter doesn't even come close and even with all of the advances in conditioning nowadays, the modern fighters are no where near as physically fit as the early fighters were!
Yes I do I have several fights of Gans, Nelson, Britt and others and its just a nonsense to say that they didn't throw combinations... you've obviously never either read about them or seen them in action to make such a remark...Nero3000 wrote:No, he did not. They didn't exist back then. Jim Jacobs and Nat Fleischer had a long debate about this fact. Do you have evidence to the contrary?Decagon wrote:Joe Gans didn't throw sustained combinations?
I've read most available materials on the fighters and own many of their existing fights personally. The style of the day was hands low, one or two wide punches and a clinch.silkov wrote:Yes I do I have several fights of Gans, Nelson, Britt and others and its just a nonsense to say that they didn't throw combinations... you've obviously never either read about them or seen them in action to make such a remark...Nero3000 wrote:No, he did not. They didn't exist back then. Jim Jacobs and Nat Fleischer had a long debate about this fact. Do you have evidence to the contrary?Decagon wrote:Joe Gans didn't throw sustained combinations?
-
tiredoldngrey
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 442
- Joined: 23 May 2005, 12:36
I think, and this is a fairly recent change of heart for me, that the early gloved/late bare knuckle fighters are horribly underestimated as to their speed, defensive ability and combination punching, and someday I'll post something along those lines...
That said, Corbetmust be respected because he chnged boxing perhps more than any man ever. At the time his fights with Jackson and Fitzsimmons were considere the fastest most scientific mtches in the history of pugilism, and champions like Tunney were impressed by his skill and knowldge years later.
That said, Corbetmust be respected because he chnged boxing perhps more than any man ever. At the time his fights with Jackson and Fitzsimmons were considere the fastest most scientific mtches in the history of pugilism, and champions like Tunney were impressed by his skill and knowldge years later.
re
>>>Exhibitions? Glorified sparring matches. Who cares?<<<
Of course someone who has no clue about the time would not care. If you even knew the least bit about the time you would have known the an exhibition in 1900 was a hell of a lot different than what we now call exhibition, which is what you are accustomed to knowing. No a lot of the early exhibitions should have been regular contests as more times than not both fighters went after one another like it was for a title...but I forgot, you feel that eight round bouts and under, regardless of their actual meaning are the run of the mill, go through your paces, but don't hurt yourself exhibitions. Sorry, but about the only time those kinds of exhibitions were given in the eraly times was when all the fighters had gotten together to give a benefit for another fighter who had fallen on hard times, then the exhibitions were on a non-serious nature. Imagine a modern fighter ever giving a day of his time to benefit another fallen fighter...that was the norm with the early fighters...not only could they fight, but they had integrity, which is something rarely seen with these modern fighters of today. Some have it, but only a very few!
Of course someone who has no clue about the time would not care. If you even knew the least bit about the time you would have known the an exhibition in 1900 was a hell of a lot different than what we now call exhibition, which is what you are accustomed to knowing. No a lot of the early exhibitions should have been regular contests as more times than not both fighters went after one another like it was for a title...but I forgot, you feel that eight round bouts and under, regardless of their actual meaning are the run of the mill, go through your paces, but don't hurt yourself exhibitions. Sorry, but about the only time those kinds of exhibitions were given in the eraly times was when all the fighters had gotten together to give a benefit for another fighter who had fallen on hard times, then the exhibitions were on a non-serious nature. Imagine a modern fighter ever giving a day of his time to benefit another fallen fighter...that was the norm with the early fighters...not only could they fight, but they had integrity, which is something rarely seen with these modern fighters of today. Some have it, but only a very few!
Late 19th Century Fighters Vs. Early 21st Century Fighters
I feel that the early 21st Century heavyweights are a sorry
lot in terms of skill, athletic ability, and stamina. It is hard
for me to believe that such fighters would have success
while being in fights-to-a-finish. Whatever their abilities,
the late 19th Century fighters had plenty of stamina, so
they must've been in much better condition.
- Chuck Johnston
lot in terms of skill, athletic ability, and stamina. It is hard
for me to believe that such fighters would have success
while being in fights-to-a-finish. Whatever their abilities,
the late 19th Century fighters had plenty of stamina, so
they must've been in much better condition.
- Chuck Johnston
The skills level of boxers today is atrocious generally, as is stamina and workrate quite often... it all comes I think from the sport being watered down, fighters boxing just 3 times a year even before the win anything!.
If you see a boxer today with a half-decent jab he's immeadiately called a master boxer!...
If you see a boxer today with a half-decent jab he's immeadiately called a master boxer!...
Re: Late 19th Century Fighters Vs. Early 21st Century Fighte
Better condition? Possibly, but don't forget that todays fighters throw a LOT more punches than yesterdays and move a lot more. Back then there were only a couple punches thrown and then a clinch.Chuck1052 wrote:I feel that the early 21st Century heavyweights are a sorry
lot in terms of skill, athletic ability, and stamina. It is hard
for me to believe that such fighters would have success
while being in fights-to-a-finish. Whatever their abilities,
the late 19th Century fighters had plenty of stamina, so
they must've been in much better condition.
- Chuck Johnston
This is true. Corbett and Young Griffo moved boxing forward light years.tiredoldngrey wrote:I think, and this is a fairly recent change of heart for me, that the early gloved/late bare knuckle fighters are horribly underestimated as to their speed, defensive ability and combination punching,
(pardon the caps here.)THEY DIDN'T HAVE COMBINATION PUNCHING BACK THEN. WATCH THE FILMS THAT EXIST. Defensive ability? Sure, for the day. But back then all you had to be on the look out for was one or two wide, arcing punches before a clinch happened. You didn't go into a fight worrying about how you were going to dodge a left jab/right cross/left hook/right uppercut combination thrown by a Muhammad Ali or a Roy Jones or a Pernell Whitaker.
Speed I will give you. Guys like Corbett, Griffo and Dixon were fast and agile fighters.
and someday I'll post something along those lines...
That said, Corbetmust be respected because he chnged boxing perhps more than any man ever. At the time his fights with Jackson and Fitzsimmons were considere the fastest most scientific mtches in the history of pugilism, and champions like Tunney were impressed by his skill and knowldge years later.
8) 
OK, just scroll up for my take on the whole old style vs. new debateNero3000 wrote:tiredoldngrey wrote:I think, and this is a fairly recent change of heart for me, that the early gloved/late bare knuckle fighters are horribly underestimated as to their speed, defensive ability and combination punching,
(pardon the caps here.)THEY DIDN'T HAVE COMBINATION PUNCHING BACK THEN. WATCH THE FILMS THAT EXIST. Defensive ability? Sure, for the day. But back then all you had to be on the look out for was one or two wide, arcing punches before a clinch happened. You didn't go into a fight worrying about how you were going to dodge a left jab/right cross/left hook/right uppercut combination thrown by a Muhammad Ali or a Roy Jones or a Pernell Whitaker.
Speed I will give you. Guys like Corbett, Griffo and Dixon were fast and agile fighters.
That said, Corbetmust be respected because he changed boxing perhps more than any man ever.
This is true. Corbett and Young Griffo moved boxing forward light years.