Better than Sum of his parts?

Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15128
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by Ambling Alp II »

Some guys really don't impress you on film. They aren't that fast, have much power, and don't that impressive of boxing skills. Yet somehow, some way, a few managed to have a better career than you would think and beat several fighters who look better on film.

Here are a few that I thought of:
Trevor Berbick
Paul Berlanbach
Gene Fullmer

Who else fits this category?
BoxBuzz
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 29847
Joined: 07 Jun 2005, 16:37

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by BoxBuzz »

Primo Carnera, who benefited from some "remote control" parts.

Naseem Hamed who's talent was through the roof, but did not commit in a way to bring him to the true pinnacle

Floyd Patterson....small for a HW, a bit chinny, but had great heart, and blinding speed, and was able to navigate well in most deep waters.

Carmen, The Onion Farmer ....grit and determination allowed him to rise above his talent and skill.
Seamus
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 17000
Joined: 31 Jul 2005, 23:38

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by Seamus »

EXCEPT for his chin, Patterson was pretty darn good.
Bodyshot3
Middleweight
Posts: 9791
Joined: 31 Dec 2013, 15:19

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by Bodyshot3 »

Dennis Andries springs to mind....long stretches of his career saw Dennis almost exclusively trade on his brute physical stength, determination and excellent fitness levels and pretty successfully as well.

He actually became a much better boxer when he worked with the Kronk guys but really the basic premise with Dennis was that he was mentally and physically a block of granite and he broke people down in his own way. He certainly did not have that many rounds when he beat someone with speed or the variety of his punches.
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

Gene Fullmer, so many people talk about him like a crude face first slugger, but he landed on everyone and competed at the highest level. I think he's historically underrated from the eye test.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46317
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by gilgamesh »

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Gene Fullmer, so many people talk about him like a crude face first slugger, but he landed on everyone and competed at the highest level. I think he's historically underrated from the eye test.
Whenever he faced Carmen Basilio a battle of two guys with the reputations of sluggers, Fullmer got the better of it and stopped Basilio late by fighting the smarter fight. Fullmer was a boxer that night, a strategy he needed maybe not necessarily to win, but to make it an easier nights work, and he got the job done stopping Basilio in the 14th.

I believe it was 1959's Fight of the Year.
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

It's a shame threads like this will quietly drift away while people indulge that raging troll in the Basketball thread and the immortal Fat Golfer thread will never leave the front page.
Counter-puncher
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 39141
Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by Counter-puncher »

Brian Mitchell
Jim Watt
handsofstone
Cruiserweight
Posts: 23034
Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 17:28

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by handsofstone »

gilgamesh wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Gene Fullmer, so many people talk about him like a crude face first slugger, but he landed on everyone and competed at the highest level. I think he's historically underrated from the eye test.
Whenever he faced Carmen Basilio a battle of two guys with the reputations of sluggers, Fullmer got the better of it and stopped Basilio late by fighting the smarter fight. Fullmer was a boxer that night, a strategy he needed maybe not necessarily to win, but to make it an easier nights work, and he got the job done stopping Basilio in the 14th.

I believe it was 1959's Fight of the Year.
I always felt both fights were stopped quite prematurely,especially for being in the 50's,Basilio must have been raging i assume ,Was there any controversy over the stoppages??
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

Basilio had an amazing quote that I can't remember in my old age.
Othro
Middleweight
Posts: 401
Joined: 23 Apr 2014, 21:28

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by Othro »

Carlos Monzon always looked average to me . A legend no doubt but it seems he just had the IT factor .
cfang
Middleweight
Posts: 946
Joined: 23 Jan 2014, 16:50

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by cfang »

:TU:
Othro wrote:Carlos Monzon always looked average to me . A legend no doubt but it seems he just had the IT factor .
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46317
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by gilgamesh »

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Basilio had an amazing quote that I can't remember in my old age.
Following the Fullmer fight you mean?
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

gilgamesh wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Basilio had an amazing quote that I can't remember in my old age.
Following the Fullmer fight you mean?
Either following it, or in the ring during it. I can't remember.
Tomasino
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 7876
Joined: 24 Apr 2010, 16:39

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by Tomasino »

Carl Froch. He often looked crude and slow and very hit table on the way up.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46317
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by gilgamesh »

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Basilio had an amazing quote that I can't remember in my old age.
Following the Fullmer fight you mean?
Either following it, or in the ring during it. I can't remember.
If you think of it let me know because I'm very curious
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

gilgamesh wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:
Following the Fullmer fight you mean?
Either following it, or in the ring during it. I can't remember.
If you think of it let me know because I'm very curious
It was definitely bad ass.
handsofstone
Cruiserweight
Posts: 23034
Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 17:28

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by handsofstone »

Why is it that all the fighters from back in the day were great for a quote and came out with something quirky,clever and funny yet fighters today talk absolute bollocks?

Even the fighters who grew up with no education said some great quips,todays fighters all talk the same bland crap
ElJefe
Middleweight
Posts: 2545
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 13:13

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by ElJefe »

Tomasino wrote:Carl Froch. He often looked crude and slow and very hit table on the way up.
Froch was the first name that came to mind for me.
Counter-puncher
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 39141
Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by Counter-puncher »

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Either following it, or in the ring during it. I can't remember.
If you think of it let me know because I'm very curious
It was definitely bad ass.
didn't he say something about killing the ref? and hating him till the day he died?
Bodyshot3
Middleweight
Posts: 9791
Joined: 31 Dec 2013, 15:19

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by Bodyshot3 »

Andries remains my prime example but thinking back I would suggest another Brit light-heavy who is much-maligned....namely Clinton Woods.

Clinton arguably had a wee bit more in his locker than Dennis but he was still something of an over-achiever in my book and a great deal of folk were frankly gob-smacked that he got as far as he did.

There was just something about Clinton that ensured that he somehow graduated from being a hard-strong lad from Sheffield who could win a British/Commonwealth belt through to world class.

He had the knack of delivering a bomb when he needed it (Klemetsen and Hoye) and had all those fights with Johnson and Gonzalez when he often did not look that good at all; a tall-ish and rangy guy who often got bogged down in the trenches and did not manage to fight from distance.

Admittedly, Johnson was bloody brilliant at turning any fight into a life-and-death-scrap and should probably have a nod on this thread too :box:
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

Counter-puncher wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:
If you think of it let me know because I'm very curious
It was definitely bad ass.
didn't he say something about killing the ref? and hating him till the day he died?
That doesn't sound familiar.
Tony1244
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 24653
Joined: 03 Jun 2010, 21:31

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by Tony1244 »

I remember reading in Ring Magazine about Trevor Berbick. It said something to the effect of he was the worst fighter on the planet with a winning record.

This was before he fought Ali, Tate, and Holmes and way before I saw him on film.

He did well considering the description.
Tony1244
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 24653
Joined: 03 Jun 2010, 21:31

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by Tony1244 »

Oscar Bonavena looked like a rank amateur in style. But he could hit a bit and take a good shot.

He was like a punching bag with arms that kept hitting you.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46317
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?

Post by gilgamesh »

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Counter-puncher wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
It was definitely bad ass.
didn't he say something about killing the ref? and hating him till the day he died?
That doesn't sound familiar.
Doesn't sound like something Basilio would say either.
Post Reply