I often read threads where the comments about old timers are merely based on statistics records, such as: how could so and so be any good if he lost thirty-six out of a hundred? or comments along those lines.
Consider this, there's more than the cold numbers and numbers don't lie but they also don't tell the whole story either.
I've known a lot of old timers ---and I mean old--- I trained under Johnny Coulon and I've met Barney Ross, Jack Dempsey, Tony Galento and a bunch of others.
So when you read the math consider the time and era. Purses were smaller and fighters fought a lot. In today's world a fighter sprains a wrist and a fight gets postponed. An old timer would crack a knuckle in one fight and a week later he would be in another ring fighting one handed because he needed a few bucks more to make bill payments. And before a thumb healed a fighter could have four or five fights.
Across the board, old timers fought whether they were injured or besieged by colds. Building records was not done with modern day type corpses but by fighting other tough and hungry fighters.
Something to consider about old timers
..very good points.....check the records and you'll see that the top fighters had to fight the other top fighters to stay at the top. of course there were those like burley, bivins...etc....who never got shots at the title...but over all...a top ten guy had to be active and fight other top ten guys...and stayed active and picked up needed money by fighting lesser ones too. with all those matches these guys engaged in they went up against a huge variety of styles ....and there wasn't much an opponent could do that they hadn't seen.
Absolutely right on the statistics. Ferdie Pacheco and I have discussed this topic often and he has stated that the suits in the networks would say -How can this guy be a suitable opponent, he's 15-5-1, look at all the fights he has lost.
This without considering whom he had fought -contenders undefeated prospects and very seasoned journeymen- while his network house opponent might be 30-0 against corpses and raw prelim fighters.
Besides old timers fighting more often, they generally gave away weight, and not a light-heavy who bulks up to 210 pounds on special diets, but giving away weight as in Jack Blackburn fighting middles and middleweight Greb fighting heavyweights.
This without considering whom he had fought -contenders undefeated prospects and very seasoned journeymen- while his network house opponent might be 30-0 against corpses and raw prelim fighters.
Besides old timers fighting more often, they generally gave away weight, and not a light-heavy who bulks up to 210 pounds on special diets, but giving away weight as in Jack Blackburn fighting middles and middleweight Greb fighting heavyweights.
One of my favourite fighters has a record that would make you think he was just an average boxer from the '50s, nothing special, maybe just a trial horse or fringe contender. Jimmy Carter, 81-31-9. Infact, he was very good; great on his best night, with no major weaknesses (it seemed). He could take a great shot, was fast, powerful, strong, conserved yet explosive on a moment's notice. Carter was also accurate, punched well in combination, hit hard to the body, and his shots were as compact as I've ever seen. Couldn't be wild if he tried, just like Joe Louis and Ike Williams. In the thirty or so rounds I've seen of Carter, he showed a wide array of defensive skills; blocking, ducking, parrying, rolling, leaning, pretty much everything. You wouldn't catch Shane Mosley doing all that, or 95% of the fighters around today with those impressive numerical records.
Re: Something to consider about old timers
Yep , this is true. The old timers set out to learn there craft.enrique wrote:I often read threads where the comments about old timers are merely based on statistics records, such as: how could so and so be any good if he lost thirty-six out of a hundred? or comments along those lines.
Consider this, there's more than the cold numbers and numbers don't lie but they also don't tell the whole story either.
I've known a lot of old timers ---and I mean old--- I trained under Johnny Coulon and I've met Barney Ross, Jack Dempsey, Tony Galento and a bunch of others.
So when you read the math consider the time and era. Purses were smaller and fighters fought a lot. In today's world a fighter sprains a wrist and a fight gets postponed. An old timer would crack a knuckle in one fight and a week later he would be in another ring fighting one handed because he needed a few bucks more to make bill payments. And before a thumb healed a fighter could have four or five fights.
Across the board, old timers fought whether they were injured or besieged by colds. Building records was not done with modern day type corpses but by fighting other tough and hungry fighters.
They seemed to take the blue collar trades approach to their chosen proffesion.
Serve the apprenticeship and become a pro.
On a side note Enrique one of the fighters you mentioned in another thread was very much this way. Eddie Perkins who you mentioned that you met .
Did you ever meet his trainer Frank Tommaso?
Good guy I trained under him a little while. You mentioned that Coulon managed Perkins. Johnny had to have been a fascinating carachter. I wish I could have met him. He was a Chicago mainstay for years and years.
Frank passed away a number of years ago. A real nice guy.enrique wrote:Tomasso and Coulon were partners in the managing and training of Perkins. Is Tomasso still around? Last time I saw him was about 1981 in Fort Lauderdale.
Perkins was super, a very nice man and a great champion....
Im pretty sure Perkins is still around, some guys I worked with used to bowl with him on the southside ( Chicago) all the time.
Ive never met Eddie but I heard from those guys what a good guy he was.
Tomaso loved him. He would talk about him all the time.