A better question is whether or not the heavyweights of today would have the sand to have competed in 1896.
Why wouldnt they? When they saw the type of fighter they would have to face, they would probably fall to the floor laughing hysterically.
If Bernard Hopskins went back in time to fight in 1896, he would dominate Sullivan and any other heavyweight of that era. If Sullivan had modern training no one know how good he would have been; but as he was, he would be totally lost in this era., or even the era right after his.
John L. Sullivan against today's boxers
-
Rory McCloskey
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: 29 Jun 2005, 13:11
re
Well what I see is a couple of youngsters with about one, or two years of watching boxing under their belt with absolutely not even a hint of what the old time fighters were truly like…which is common…as that is the way that a lot of today’s kid’s are…they have no grasp on history and if it didn’t occur before 1998, then they are not interested, but they are still experts in their own minds…which is far more laughable than the style of any old “putting the dukes up” style boxers of the past. Sorry boys, but the extent of a fighters career cannot be summed up in a biographical , half-page thumbnail sketch written by some twenty-five year old who got his information from the exact same kind of book that you young-un’s have.
As I said at the beginning and as Enrique just said, read Michael Izenberg's "John L Sullivan and his America," and then form an opinion because all you are doing now is just showing how pitiful the future may be, since it is the young that will eventually run the world. As far as trying to enlighten these young clueless kids…it’s useless unless you can be incorporated it into a new song by Limp Bizkit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Let us not forget that John L. was only one of the recognised champions, kyle Fox hyped his own American champion at the time, and Charley Mitchel had put John L. down in a previous fight so I think he did better than you say.<<<
By the way it wasn’t Kyle Fox, it was Richard Fox and it was Jake Kilrain that Fox hyped as the American champion because he hated Sullivan with a passion, but Fox’s claim had about as much merit as John Ruiz, one of the blistering-pace punching machines of today that would make all older fighters look silly…compared to the old fighters…a lot of today’s fighters look gay in how they fight, not all, but some, which says a lot about those youngsters that believe so highly in them!
As I said at the beginning and as Enrique just said, read Michael Izenberg's "John L Sullivan and his America," and then form an opinion because all you are doing now is just showing how pitiful the future may be, since it is the young that will eventually run the world. As far as trying to enlighten these young clueless kids…it’s useless unless you can be incorporated it into a new song by Limp Bizkit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Let us not forget that John L. was only one of the recognised champions, kyle Fox hyped his own American champion at the time, and Charley Mitchel had put John L. down in a previous fight so I think he did better than you say.<<<
By the way it wasn’t Kyle Fox, it was Richard Fox and it was Jake Kilrain that Fox hyped as the American champion because he hated Sullivan with a passion, but Fox’s claim had about as much merit as John Ruiz, one of the blistering-pace punching machines of today that would make all older fighters look silly…compared to the old fighters…a lot of today’s fighters look gay in how they fight, not all, but some, which says a lot about those youngsters that believe so highly in them!
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
Very well put.tiredoldngrey wrote:I read once, and I wish I still had this book, where the man that trained Tunney early on said that John L. had the fastest and most accurate one-two combination he had ever seen, and he would get violently angry at people that underestimated John L..
As far as old styles and modern styles, I saw Lewis and K fight and to me, the stances used and the way in which they sparred looked like something from the late 1700s, and had either of them had the know-how to throw a solar plexus punch that man would have won the fight early, modern training methods be damned.
Strategy-wise, it seems to me that, in a fight to the finish, bare knuckles, that strategy and conditioning would be huge much more so than in today's era of athleticism. You obviously couldn't wail away to end the fight quickly, lest you get winded, broken fisted and all at the same time. Also, defense had to be much more important than most of us want to allow. And not just putting your hands along your head or blocking with the arms, as they would be taking as much damage as the place they protecty. In other words, I suspect the defense used then was more subtle, involving swaying out of range, rolliung with punches, and parrying and/or deflecting them. Plus, counterpunching was probably more precise, if done one punch at a time. This is in order to protect the hands. You would learn to avoid this punch and place your own as to do maximum damage w/minimum risk to your hands. Today the empasis is on a bunch of punches and few land cleanly.
Whether John L or Corbett could beat anybody else is almost impossible to tell, not knowing the individuals, but as to whether or not those men, who rose to the top in their era, could compete with those that are underachievers in their own era, that's not fair or legitimate. I would suggest that a guy who could make himself fight and win over 2 1/2 hours in the rain, would beat Kirk Johnson at anything from Backgammonb to Playstation games. A better question is whether or not the heavyweights of today would have the sand to have competed in 1896.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
Who are you responding to? I didn't call you a kid -- I called you naive.theone wrote:First of all i am far from akid and have been following the sport for over 30 years. Your insistance that turn of the century fighters can compete with those of today exposes your ignorance, no matter the pretentsious tone your writing takes.
Always remember to quote so your venom is spewed in the right direction.
Re: re
Richard Kyle Foxbarry wrote:Well what I see is a couple of youngsters with about one, or two years of watching boxing under their belt with absolutely not even a hint of what the old time fighters were truly like…which is common…as that is the way that a lot of today’s kid’s are…they have no grasp on history and if it didn’t occur before 1998, then they are not interested, but they are still experts in their own minds…which is far more laughable than the style of any old “putting the dukes up” style boxers of the past. Sorry boys, but the extent of a fighters career cannot be summed up in a biographical , half-page thumbnail sketch written by some twenty-five year old who got his information from the exact same kind of book that you young-un’s have.
As I said at the beginning and as Enrique just said, read Michael Izenberg's "John L Sullivan and his America," and then form an opinion because all you are doing now is just showing how pitiful the future may be, since it is the young that will eventually run the world. As far as trying to enlighten these young clueless kids…it’s useless unless you can be incorporated it into a new song by Limp Bizkit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Let us not forget that John L. was only one of the recognised champions, kyle Fox hyped his own American champion at the time, and Charley Mitchel had put John L. down in a previous fight so I think he did better than you say.<<<
By the way it wasn’t Kyle Fox, it was Richard Fox and it was Jake Kilrain that Fox hyped as the American champion because he hated Sullivan with a passion, but Fox’s claim had about as much merit as John Ruiz, one of the blistering-pace punching machines of today that would make all older fighters look silly…compared to the old fighters…a lot of today’s fighters look gay in how they fight, not all, but some, which says a lot about those youngsters that believe so highly in them!
I missed the Richard ..
You missed the Kyle...
Still the same person
re
tonyevs--agreed..although it was almost always written as Rickard K. Fox, which we both missed!
theone--you say you have been following boxing 30 years, well to be blunt...I don't believe you, but then again you may have, but the past thirty years seems to be the extent of your boxing knowledge because all of the statements that I have read that you have posted lately shows very little, if any actual truth to the statements, which again is not meant as an insult, it's just the way it is. Statements such as no heavyweights were built like Tyson until Liston, or the manner that you think Corbett beat Sullivan, or the fact that you stated that the fighters of Johnson's time had evolved, but Johnson himself was very, very similar in style to James J. Corbett.
theone--you say you have been following boxing 30 years, well to be blunt...I don't believe you, but then again you may have, but the past thirty years seems to be the extent of your boxing knowledge because all of the statements that I have read that you have posted lately shows very little, if any actual truth to the statements, which again is not meant as an insult, it's just the way it is. Statements such as no heavyweights were built like Tyson until Liston, or the manner that you think Corbett beat Sullivan, or the fact that you stated that the fighters of Johnson's time had evolved, but Johnson himself was very, very similar in style to James J. Corbett.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
Re: re
Yeah, that is a rather, ummm dare I say -- naive statement.barry wrote:...Statements such as no heavyweights were built like Tyson until Liston...
Re: re
I did mean to put Richard in along with the Kyle Fox...honestbarry wrote:tonyevs--agreed..although it was almost always written as Rickard K. Fox, which we both missed!
.
Richard Kyle Fox was a sort of Don King of his day, he wanted to own the heavyweight champion right from Paddy Ryan.
He saw that prizefighting was getting the publics interest and that sold his new paper better, some of the so-called sports were plain silly(shin-kicking contests, head-butting contests and flag-pole sitting)
It is true Fox disliked John L., because John L. would not bow to anybody..even a big player such as Fox did not get Sullivan`s respect.
re
The Police Gazette certainly had it's share of silly contests during that time. The shin kicking, or purring as it was also called seemed to be pretty brutal. I recall seeing an illustration where a purring contest occured an it had the men wearing some kind of sharp object on the point of their shoe, like a spur or something. Some of the challenges that people threw at one another during the time was just plain comical.
Yes these `competitions` just seem so unbelievable
Thanks for the `purring` info, never heard it called that
It does make you think of the damage that would have been inflicted because I read an old newspaper article where they described the `official contest shoes`if I remember correct they were basically pit-boots
In the days before TV, people who could not afford the theatre made do with other things, entertainment came in various forms, without todays regulations and safety they could just about get away with anything.
Thanks for the `purring` info, never heard it called that
It does make you think of the damage that would have been inflicted because I read an old newspaper article where they described the `official contest shoes`if I remember correct they were basically pit-boots
In the days before TV, people who could not afford the theatre made do with other things, entertainment came in various forms, without todays regulations and safety they could just about get away with anything.
The Great John L.
You are incorrect about Nat Fleischer. He said that JACK JOHNSON was the greatest heavyweight he'd ever seen.
His list of his top 10 Heavyweights ever, most recently updated in the September 1971 issue of The Ring went like this:
1. Jack Johnson
2. Jim Jeffries
3. Bob Fitzsimmons
4. Jack Dempsey
5. James J. Corbett
6. Joe Louis
7. Sam Langford
8. Gene Tunney
9. Max Schmeling
10. Rocky Marciano
I don't see John L. Sullivan on his top 10, let alone #1.
Also, the people that talk about fighters going 20-40 rounds back in the day....need to try and realize that those guys were fighting at a much slower pace than fighters of subsequent years.
I'm not saying that they didn't have greater overall stamina, on average, but nutting over them going twice as many rounds is absurd given the level of intensity of the fights.
That is all.
You are incorrect about Nat Fleischer. He said that JACK JOHNSON was the greatest heavyweight he'd ever seen.
His list of his top 10 Heavyweights ever, most recently updated in the September 1971 issue of The Ring went like this:
1. Jack Johnson
2. Jim Jeffries
3. Bob Fitzsimmons
4. Jack Dempsey
5. James J. Corbett
6. Joe Louis
7. Sam Langford
8. Gene Tunney
9. Max Schmeling
10. Rocky Marciano
I don't see John L. Sullivan on his top 10, let alone #1.
Also, the people that talk about fighters going 20-40 rounds back in the day....need to try and realize that those guys were fighting at a much slower pace than fighters of subsequent years.
I'm not saying that they didn't have greater overall stamina, on average, but nutting over them going twice as many rounds is absurd given the level of intensity of the fights.
That is all.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
If you reread my statement, I was refering to an earlier listing that was published in Ring in the 50's I believe. I do have the later list as well, but that didn't serve my purpose in this thread.jwizard wrote:The Great John L.
You are incorrect about Nat Fleischer. He said that JACK JOHNSON was the greatest heavyweight he'd ever seen.
His list of his top 10 Heavyweights ever, most recently updated in the September 1971 issue of The Ring went like this:
1. Jack Johnson
2. Jim Jeffries
3. Bob Fitzsimmons
4. Jack Dempsey
5. James J. Corbett
6. Joe Louis
7. Sam Langford
8. Gene Tunney
9. Max Schmeling
10. Rocky Marciano
I don't see John L. Sullivan on his top 10, let alone #1.
Also, the people that talk about fighters going 20-40 rounds back in the day....need to try and realize that those guys were fighting at a much slower pace than fighters of subsequent years.
I'm not saying that they didn't have greater overall stamina, on average, but nutting over them going twice as many rounds is absurd given the level of intensity of the fights.
That is all.
Always on the level. John L. Sullivan
...eek..tonyevs.....i'd be caustious about fighters looking gay. one fighter said that about another and got killed by him in the ring.
i'm not going to get into the discussion here because it is just impossible to compare fighters from such different eras. i suppose the realluy good ones from various eras would fight and train under the appropriate conditions and would do well.
this thread is too long for me to look for the source, but someone here said corbett had a good left jab and strong right hand and that was all that was needed. this woujld be a surprise to boxers from over the past many decades who have found the left hook is their best knockout weapon.
i'm not going to get into the discussion here because it is just impossible to compare fighters from such different eras. i suppose the realluy good ones from various eras would fight and train under the appropriate conditions and would do well.
this thread is too long for me to look for the source, but someone here said corbett had a good left jab and strong right hand and that was all that was needed. this woujld be a surprise to boxers from over the past many decades who have found the left hook is their best knockout weapon.
Anyone who rates Jack Johnson as number one and does not try to fit Joe Jeanette in the top 10 somewhere is roughing it in my estimation. But since there are no records of these fights and not much in the way of even heresay it sort of tough to factor him in. But he did have his way with Jack on more than one occasion according to the books.
Who are you responding to? I didn't call you a kid -- I called you naive.
No I wasnt responding to you John L., you posted while I was writing my responds to Barry. but for the record i find you as ignorant as barry in this matter.
Statements such as no heavyweights were built like Tyson until Liston
You maybe right. Name a few.
or the manner that you think Corbett beat Sullivan..
Nat Fleischer- I trust everyone knows who he is- decribed Corbett vs Sullivan like this: A gifted exponent of a new style of boxing against old traditional slugging methods and archaic milling tatics which were doomed to defeat."
or the fact that you stated that the fighters of Johnson's time had evolved, but Johnson himself was very, very similar in style to James J. Corbett.
Fleischer, Sam Andre and other boxing historians describe Jack Johnson's fighting style as very distinctive. They describe him as fighting cautiously before slowly building up over the rounds into a more aggressive fighter. Johnson revolutionized the boxing stance to maximize balance,and developed the art of feinting to a high degree.
Johnson developed a more patient style than was customary in those days: playing cat and mouse, waiting for a mistake, and then striking.
Sounds like Johnsons style was quite a bit evolved from Corbetts to me.
No I wasnt responding to you John L., you posted while I was writing my responds to Barry. but for the record i find you as ignorant as barry in this matter.
Statements such as no heavyweights were built like Tyson until Liston
You maybe right. Name a few.
or the manner that you think Corbett beat Sullivan..
Nat Fleischer- I trust everyone knows who he is- decribed Corbett vs Sullivan like this: A gifted exponent of a new style of boxing against old traditional slugging methods and archaic milling tatics which were doomed to defeat."
or the fact that you stated that the fighters of Johnson's time had evolved, but Johnson himself was very, very similar in style to James J. Corbett.
Fleischer, Sam Andre and other boxing historians describe Jack Johnson's fighting style as very distinctive. They describe him as fighting cautiously before slowly building up over the rounds into a more aggressive fighter. Johnson revolutionized the boxing stance to maximize balance,and developed the art of feinting to a high degree.
Johnson developed a more patient style than was customary in those days: playing cat and mouse, waiting for a mistake, and then striking.
Sounds like Johnsons style was quite a bit evolved from Corbetts to me.
re
>>>but someone here said corbett had a good left jab and strong right hand and that was all that was needed.<<<
Actually…I said that we saw with Winky Wright recently that a good jab and straight right is all anyone really needs to beat the best fighters in the world…Corbett I said had a good jab, good straight right and a good left hook, but his style would give fighters of any era fits.
>>>Nat Fleischer- I trust everyone knows who he is- decribed Corbett vs Sullivan like this: A gifted exponent of a new style of boxing against old traditional slugging methods and archaic milling tatics which were doomed to defeat."<<<
Guess what…Fleischer did not see the fight…so his depiction of it is no more right then mine and when you consider the fact that Fleischer many, many times passed on fiction as opposed to fact, well then his claims are a lot of the time incorrect, which has been proven time and again during the last thirty years by the International Boxing Research Organization, but the fact that you would take someone’s word about the fight who didn’t actually see the fight, well that’s all anyone needs to know about your argument!
>>>Johnson revolutionized the boxing stance to maximize balance,and developed the art of feinting to a high degree.<<<
No…that was James J. Corbett that revolutionized boxing technique, which can read in any boxing history book including the one you mentioned!
>>>Sounds like Johnsons style was quite a bit evolved from Corbetts to me.<<<
That’s just because you have never read anything about it!
Actually…I said that we saw with Winky Wright recently that a good jab and straight right is all anyone really needs to beat the best fighters in the world…Corbett I said had a good jab, good straight right and a good left hook, but his style would give fighters of any era fits.
>>>Nat Fleischer- I trust everyone knows who he is- decribed Corbett vs Sullivan like this: A gifted exponent of a new style of boxing against old traditional slugging methods and archaic milling tatics which were doomed to defeat."<<<
Guess what…Fleischer did not see the fight…so his depiction of it is no more right then mine and when you consider the fact that Fleischer many, many times passed on fiction as opposed to fact, well then his claims are a lot of the time incorrect, which has been proven time and again during the last thirty years by the International Boxing Research Organization, but the fact that you would take someone’s word about the fight who didn’t actually see the fight, well that’s all anyone needs to know about your argument!
>>>Johnson revolutionized the boxing stance to maximize balance,and developed the art of feinting to a high degree.<<<
No…that was James J. Corbett that revolutionized boxing technique, which can read in any boxing history book including the one you mentioned!
>>>Sounds like Johnsons style was quite a bit evolved from Corbetts to me.<<<
That’s just because you have never read anything about it!
-
vagabundo55
- Heavyweight
I agree with this.enrique wrote:Could the Red Baron compete in a WW I biplane against an F-16?
No.
Is the comparison fair? No also.
Sullivan with his technique of 120 years ago could not compete with todays fighters. Now, if you take that Sullivan and give him modern skills, he would be a formidable fighter.
Let us not forget, he only lost one fight in his life, when he was way past his peak and still went 21 rounds --most modern heavyweights would collapse before seventen- he had very good power in either hand and in his youth had been considered a fast fighter.
Read Izenberg's "John L Sullivan and his America," before considering him just a tough man. He was way better than that, he was unbeaten for many years and very feared.
[quote="Jaclem"]...eek..tonyevs.....i'd be caustious about fighters looking gay. one fighter said that about another and got killed by him in the ring.
quote]
I don`t remember calling any boxer gay..or even looking it...on this thread or any other 
I take it you mean something different to what I think you mean...I really am confused now
quote]
I don`t remember calling any boxer gay..or even looking it...on this thread or any other
I take it you mean something different to what I think you mean...I really am confused now
I said that we saw with Winky Wright recently that a good jab and straight right is all anyone really needs to beat the best fighters
This is perhaps the silliest statement about boxing that I ever heard.
Guess what…Fleischer did not see the fight…so his depiction of it is no more right then mine and when you consider the fact that Fleischer many, many times passed on fiction as opposed to fact, well then his claims are a lot of the time incorrect,
Not this time. Fleischer had no possible reason to lie about this. If you ever saw a tape of Jack Johnson fighting you would know his description of his fighting style is dead on.
No…that was James J. Corbett that revolutionized boxing technique, which can read in any boxing history book including the one you mentioned!
I agree with you. he did revolutionize boxing technique from the way sullivan and boxers before him fought. Johnson, revolutionized it further.
Barry, we could go on forever with this silly argument. So this is probably the last thing i'm going to say on the subject.
Things change. Times change and the way most things are done change with it. Especially in sports, including boxing. To believe that the fight game has not advanced in technique since the time of Sullivan or Corbett is very naive. In over a century that the sport has been practiced under the Queensbury rule, no fighter or trainer has had the forsight to improve upon what was already in exsistance? Its an insult to all the great influential fighters and trainers who helped the fight game develop overtime. Boxing was not dubbed the "Sweet Science" for nothing. Science does not stay stagnant; it is the constant pursuit of learnig through observation and experimentation.
Admittingly, we seem to have hit a scientific brick wall, but the turn of the century brought with it a renaissance that eventually rose the game to a level "The Boston Strongboy " could only imagine.
This is perhaps the silliest statement about boxing that I ever heard.
Guess what…Fleischer did not see the fight…so his depiction of it is no more right then mine and when you consider the fact that Fleischer many, many times passed on fiction as opposed to fact, well then his claims are a lot of the time incorrect,
Not this time. Fleischer had no possible reason to lie about this. If you ever saw a tape of Jack Johnson fighting you would know his description of his fighting style is dead on.
No…that was James J. Corbett that revolutionized boxing technique, which can read in any boxing history book including the one you mentioned!
I agree with you. he did revolutionize boxing technique from the way sullivan and boxers before him fought. Johnson, revolutionized it further.
Barry, we could go on forever with this silly argument. So this is probably the last thing i'm going to say on the subject.
Things change. Times change and the way most things are done change with it. Especially in sports, including boxing. To believe that the fight game has not advanced in technique since the time of Sullivan or Corbett is very naive. In over a century that the sport has been practiced under the Queensbury rule, no fighter or trainer has had the forsight to improve upon what was already in exsistance? Its an insult to all the great influential fighters and trainers who helped the fight game develop overtime. Boxing was not dubbed the "Sweet Science" for nothing. Science does not stay stagnant; it is the constant pursuit of learnig through observation and experimentation.
Admittingly, we seem to have hit a scientific brick wall, but the turn of the century brought with it a renaissance that eventually rose the game to a level "The Boston Strongboy " could only imagine.
re
>>>This is perhaps the silliest statement about boxing that I ever heard.<<<
Really…well then break it down for me…why is it silly…what makes it silly…because it’s the truth…I bet you can’t break it down as to why it’s silly…what makes it silly…dazzle me with your intuition!
>>>Not this time. Fleischer had no possible reason to lie about this. If you ever saw a tape of Jack Johnson fighting you would know his description of his fighting style is dead on.<<<
Fleischer had no reason to lie, but Fleischer would take anything that fighters of the past said and print it as if it was fact and anyone that knows just a little about Johnson knows that Johnson was one of the greatest story-tellers in boxing history and more times than not his stories had a lot of fiction…read his autobiography…talk about a tale of fiction…it is full of fun anecdotes, but not much of it is actually fact and also Fleischer spent many, many, many hours listening to tales from Johnson. Fleischer is well known to be one of the best, but also one of the most inaccurate historians of all-time because he would always let his love for the old-timers cloud his judgment of what is right…hell he wouldn’t even rank Ali under he was pretty much on his death-bed, which is about all anyone really needs to know when it comes to Fleischers judgment on listing the best because he would much prefer to list his favorites and pass them off as best. Fleischer did a lot for the sport of boxing, no doubt about it, but he wasn’t the best of historians…this has been proven with facts through the last thirty years. Besides, the statement had absolutely nothing to do with Jack Johnson anyway…it was about the Corbett-Sullivan fight
>>>To believe that the fight game has not advanced in technique since the time of Sullivan or Corbett is very naive.<<<
No one has said that…not even once! Hell, no one has even hinted at that!
>>>Its an insult to all the great influential fighters and trainers who helped the fight game develop overtime.<<<
The only person who has been insulting any fighters is you with your talk of how boxers like Sullivan would be beat by a middleweights of today, and several other similar statements, which is just naïve! Every sport evolves, which boxing has, but not a lot. About one of the only real changes that has been made is that fighters will now spend half a year preparing for one fight, which isn’t progress…it’s actually taken the game back. The biggest change in the around the beginning of 1920, or actually a little before when fighters began using combinations more, but that’s still not to say that the early fighters were only one punch tricks…read about Terry McGovern…he was combination throwing machine as was the likes of Walcott and Langford. John L. Sullivan was one of the toughest men to ever walk upright on this planet. Accounts of his fights put the fighters of today to shame when it comes to conditioning and overall toughness. Sure a fighter today might dance a lot more, but very rarely does a fighter come around that even matches the description that you make of the modern fighter and that’s just fact. Rarely does any heavyweight throw 50 punches a round and keep up the pace for 12 rounds because most are spent by the middle rounds and with the advancements in physical training and in medicine the way the current fighter performs is pretty much pathetic in light of the time. These fighters today should be able to fight 100 rounds, but there are none that can, well maybe one, or two, but unlike football, baseball and basketball there really isn’t a whole lot to change in boxing and there hasn’t been. The object of the sport has always been the same…try to inflict as much punishment to your opponent as possible in the allotted time given. There hasn’t been a new punch developed in 100 years and there’s not really many different ways that a person can throw a punch. Sure it has evolved, but not much. The sport has continued to get weaker as it gets older. I wish that wasn’t the case, but unfortunately it is!
Really…well then break it down for me…why is it silly…what makes it silly…because it’s the truth…I bet you can’t break it down as to why it’s silly…what makes it silly…dazzle me with your intuition!
>>>Not this time. Fleischer had no possible reason to lie about this. If you ever saw a tape of Jack Johnson fighting you would know his description of his fighting style is dead on.<<<
Fleischer had no reason to lie, but Fleischer would take anything that fighters of the past said and print it as if it was fact and anyone that knows just a little about Johnson knows that Johnson was one of the greatest story-tellers in boxing history and more times than not his stories had a lot of fiction…read his autobiography…talk about a tale of fiction…it is full of fun anecdotes, but not much of it is actually fact and also Fleischer spent many, many, many hours listening to tales from Johnson. Fleischer is well known to be one of the best, but also one of the most inaccurate historians of all-time because he would always let his love for the old-timers cloud his judgment of what is right…hell he wouldn’t even rank Ali under he was pretty much on his death-bed, which is about all anyone really needs to know when it comes to Fleischers judgment on listing the best because he would much prefer to list his favorites and pass them off as best. Fleischer did a lot for the sport of boxing, no doubt about it, but he wasn’t the best of historians…this has been proven with facts through the last thirty years. Besides, the statement had absolutely nothing to do with Jack Johnson anyway…it was about the Corbett-Sullivan fight
>>>To believe that the fight game has not advanced in technique since the time of Sullivan or Corbett is very naive.<<<
No one has said that…not even once! Hell, no one has even hinted at that!
>>>Its an insult to all the great influential fighters and trainers who helped the fight game develop overtime.<<<
The only person who has been insulting any fighters is you with your talk of how boxers like Sullivan would be beat by a middleweights of today, and several other similar statements, which is just naïve! Every sport evolves, which boxing has, but not a lot. About one of the only real changes that has been made is that fighters will now spend half a year preparing for one fight, which isn’t progress…it’s actually taken the game back. The biggest change in the around the beginning of 1920, or actually a little before when fighters began using combinations more, but that’s still not to say that the early fighters were only one punch tricks…read about Terry McGovern…he was combination throwing machine as was the likes of Walcott and Langford. John L. Sullivan was one of the toughest men to ever walk upright on this planet. Accounts of his fights put the fighters of today to shame when it comes to conditioning and overall toughness. Sure a fighter today might dance a lot more, but very rarely does a fighter come around that even matches the description that you make of the modern fighter and that’s just fact. Rarely does any heavyweight throw 50 punches a round and keep up the pace for 12 rounds because most are spent by the middle rounds and with the advancements in physical training and in medicine the way the current fighter performs is pretty much pathetic in light of the time. These fighters today should be able to fight 100 rounds, but there are none that can, well maybe one, or two, but unlike football, baseball and basketball there really isn’t a whole lot to change in boxing and there hasn’t been. The object of the sport has always been the same…try to inflict as much punishment to your opponent as possible in the allotted time given. There hasn’t been a new punch developed in 100 years and there’s not really many different ways that a person can throw a punch. Sure it has evolved, but not much. The sport has continued to get weaker as it gets older. I wish that wasn’t the case, but unfortunately it is!
Anyone who can laugh at the oldtimers is either foolish or simply doesn't know what he is talking about. These were extremely strong and hard men who often fought 50+ rounds and in many cases would have more fights in a year than todays fighters have in a whole career.
Sullivan was a tremendously strong man and that would be effective in any era. He was one of the fighters who popularised the use of gloves so in many ways he was a pioneer not the dumb brute that many here mistakenly think. By the time Sullivan fought Corbett he was in his mid 30s and ravaged by alcoholism and much of the ineptness of his performance was due to his age and terrible conditioning.
If you look at the fighters of Sullivans era they all more than stand up to todays 'champions'. They didn't need to take the various suppliments that many of todays lot rely on and I very much doubt that Klitchenko or Ruiz would laugh if they had either Sullivan, Corbett, Fitzsimmons or Jeffries in the opposite corner.
If they did they'd soon wish they hadn't.
Sullivan was a tremendously strong man and that would be effective in any era. He was one of the fighters who popularised the use of gloves so in many ways he was a pioneer not the dumb brute that many here mistakenly think. By the time Sullivan fought Corbett he was in his mid 30s and ravaged by alcoholism and much of the ineptness of his performance was due to his age and terrible conditioning.
If you look at the fighters of Sullivans era they all more than stand up to todays 'champions'. They didn't need to take the various suppliments that many of todays lot rely on and I very much doubt that Klitchenko or Ruiz would laugh if they had either Sullivan, Corbett, Fitzsimmons or Jeffries in the opposite corner.
If they did they'd soon wish they hadn't.
BoxBuzz wrote:There are those of us here who beleive that the sport is slowly evolving.
I always like to hear from a kindred spirit on that point. But I think it is a slow and subtle trend, the current group being a negative anomalie to my thesis. And the best of the best are not included in my "trend" discusssion. I think the evolution is subtle.
But Kirk Johnson ruling the old HW divison? Do you see Kirk dominating the whole early run up to and including Jack Johnson?
Yeah, you're right its evolving... into WWF Wrestling!... :x