Jersey Joe Walcott, Floyd Patterson, Ezzard Charles

Post Reply
BrocktonBlockbuster49
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4900
Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32

Jersey Joe Walcott, Floyd Patterson, Ezzard Charles

Post by BrocktonBlockbuster49 »

go watch the film, and then go watch film of baer, sharkey and schmeling.


IMO

I see charles, walcott, patterson are all more "finished" boxers than sharkey, baer, schmeling. They also had more developed styles and greater athleticism. they also seem to be faster, more polished, and much more fluid. sharkey also kept his hands low, a big no no.


even though max baer was more of a physical speciman, he was also VERY crude, and he threw wide loopy punches with no defense



i am impressed with sharkey and schmelings boxing skills, i just think charles, walcott, patterson in a step above them in speed, skill, athletisism. all have more modern styles.
pundit
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Jersey Joe Walcott, Floyd Patterson, Ezzard Charles

Post by pundit »

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:go watch the film, and then go watch film of baer, sharkey and schmeling.


IMO

I see charles, walcott, patterson are all more "finished" boxers than sharkey, baer, schmeling. They also had more developed styles and greater athleticism. they also seem to be faster, more polished, and much more fluid. sharkey also kept his hands low, a big no no.


even though max baer was more of a physical speciman, he was also VERY crude, and he threw wide loopy punches with no defense



i am impressed with sharkey and schmelings boxing skills, i just think charles, walcott, patterson in a step above them in speed, skill, athletisism. all have more modern styles.
I (and others) saw your other post. No need to open a knew thread.
BrocktonBlockbuster49
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4900
Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32

Post by BrocktonBlockbuster49 »

i am a regular here with almost 5,000 posts. i can open a new thread if i want!!!!!!!!! :evil:


pundit, go watch the film then comeback and answer the question. its a very simple process
pundit
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Post by pundit »

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i am a regular here with almost 5,000 posts. i can open a new thread if i want!!!!!!!!! :evil:


pundit, go watch the film then comeback and answer the question. its a very simple process
I just don't feel like answering you in 5 different places.
evndrbsn
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 757
Joined: 10 Jul 2004, 13:20

Post by evndrbsn »

I don't think there is any comparison. You are comparing apples to oranges here. Boxers to sluggers. Walcott, Charles, and Patterson were leagues above Sharkey, Schmeling, and Baer. While all of the fighters mentioned have exceptional boxing ability, like you said, the former trio were more polished and finished when it came to that area.

This is like comparing Ali to Frazier as a finished boxer. Ali was simply more rounded, much like Walcott, Charles, and Patterson were.
pundit
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Post by pundit »

evndrbsn wrote:I don't think there is any comparison. You are comparing apples to oranges here. Boxers to sluggers. Walcott, Charles, and Patterson were leagues above Sharkey, Schmeling, and Baer. While all of the fighters mentioned have exceptional boxing ability, like you said, the former trio were more polished and finished when it came to that area.

This is like comparing Ali to Frazier as a finished boxer. Ali was simply more rounded, much like Walcott, Charles, and Patterson were.
Maybe Baer was a bit of a slugger (but a formidable one), but neither Sharkey nor Schmeling were. Sharkey in his best fights looks rather rounded to me, as does the Schmeling who went 12 succesful rounds with Joe Louis.

Besides, if you call Schmeling and Sharkey sluggers, what do you call Marciano? And yet Marciano got the better of Walcott and (an admittedly declining) Charles. And Patterson fell victim to Ingemar Johannson, who was arguably much cruder than either Schmeling or Sharkey.

I think two factors may be biasing the assessment here. First, the quality of film. 1930s fighters look necessarily as bit edgy, given that cameras could make much fewer pics per second than in the 1950s. And second (and I know that I tap into hot water here): Sharkey, Schmeling and Baer were all white; Walcott, Charles and Patterson all black. Black men just tend to look more rounded in their movements than white men, not only in boxing but also in other sports like basketball.
evndrbsn
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 757
Joined: 10 Jul 2004, 13:20

Post by evndrbsn »

pundit wrote:
evndrbsn wrote:I don't think there is any comparison. You are comparing apples to oranges here. Boxers to sluggers. Walcott, Charles, and Patterson were leagues above Sharkey, Schmeling, and Baer. While all of the fighters mentioned have exceptional boxing ability, like you said, the former trio were more polished and finished when it came to that area.

This is like comparing Ali to Frazier as a finished boxer. Ali was simply more rounded, much like Walcott, Charles, and Patterson were.
Maybe Baer was a bit of a slugger (but a formidable one), but neither Sharkey nor Schmeling were. Sharkey in his best fights looks rather rounded to me, as does the Schmeling who went 12 succesful rounds with Joe Louis.

Besides, if you call Schmeling and Sharkey sluggers, what do you call Marciano? And yet Marciano got the better of Walcott and (an admittedly declining) Charles. And Patterson fell victim to Ingemar Johannson, who was arguably much cruder than either Schmeling or Sharkey.

I think two factors may be biasing the assessment here. First, the quality of film. 1930s fighters look necessarily as bit edgy, given that cameras could make much fewer pics per second than in the 1950s. And second (and I know that I tap into hot water here): Sharkey, Schmeling and Baer were all white; Walcott, Charles and Patterson all black. Black men just tend to look more rounded in their movements than white men, not only in boxing but also in other sports like basketball.
I think I may have been a bit unclear. I did not mean to lump Walcott, Charles, and Patterson into the category of boxers and Sharkey, Schmeling, and Baer into the category of sluggers exactly. I was saying the difference in technique was as different as apples and oranges, boxers and sluggers, etc. Hope that clears that up.
granberry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3742
Joined: 13 Jul 2006, 11:30

Re: Jersey Joe Walcott, Floyd Patterson, Ezzard Charles

Post by granberry »

BrocktonBlockbuster49


"I see charles, walcott, patterson are all more "finished" boxers than sharkey, baer, schmeling. They also had more developed styles and greater athleticism. they also seem to be faster, more polished, and much more fluid. "

NO ONE WAS A MORE FINISHED BOXER THAN SHARKEY.

"sharkey also kept his hands low, a big no no. "

DID YOU EVER SEE ALI FIGHT? APPARENTLY NOT.
BrocktonBlockbuster49
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4900
Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32

Post by BrocktonBlockbuster49 »

sottyu im drunk so i cant really answer ur question but uyes i seen ali fight., idk how i even found this computer
Collins2000
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4175
Joined: 06 May 2002, 06:13

Post by Collins2000 »

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:sottyu im drunk so i cant really answer ur question but uyes i seen ali fight., idk how i even found this computer
Hahahahahaha, are you out on the booze with Monte and Ted Spoonbill?

:o
Tantum
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1916
Joined: 05 Jul 2002, 17:57

Post by Tantum »

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i am a regular here with almost 5,000 posts. i can open a new thread if i want!!!!!!!!! :evil:

You're an obnoxious child with an attitude problem.
Post Reply