Jersey Joe Walcott, Floyd Patterson, Ezzard Charles
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
Jersey Joe Walcott, Floyd Patterson, Ezzard Charles
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.
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

Re: Jersey Joe Walcott, Floyd Patterson, Ezzard Charles
I (and others) saw your other post. No need to open a knew thread.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.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
-
pundit
- Heavyweight

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.
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

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.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.
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.pundit wrote: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.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.
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.
Re: Jersey Joe Walcott, Floyd Patterson, Ezzard Charles
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.
"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

- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
-
Collins2000
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 4175
- Joined: 06 May 2002, 06:13