dempseyfire, you can't have it both ways. You can't legitimately criticize fighters from the 1980's for similar things that you won't criticize fighters from the 1940's.
-For example, what would say of a more modern fighter than lost 5 times in a row like Farr did? Yes, one was against Louis, but we are also talking about a washed up Jimmy Braddock and Red Burman here.
-Somehow Cooney has a glass jaw for getting knocked down in the 2nd round of the Holmes fight, despite lasting longer than 10 out of 11 of Holmes' previous challengers. After all, Holmes didn't have an early KO punch.
Then how about Joe Louis getting knocked down by Braddock? Braddock certainly didn't have a Ko punch, and he hadn't fought for more than 2 years.
-There is somehow a big difference in Pastor going the distance against Turkey Thompson and Cooney getting stopped by Holmes. That is overlooking the fact that Pastor was knocked down 6 times by Thompson in the first round. He was very lucky the referee didn't stop it and it didn't go into the books as a 1st round stoppage.
It's also a fact that the Cooney-Holmes fight was scheduled for 15 rounds. Had it been scheduled for 10 (like Thompson-Pastor) Cooney would have went the distance and would have only been knocked down 1 time.
-Pastor had one bad night against Conn so he shouldn't get ripped for getting stopped?
That's interesting . Yoyu have no problem ripping Lennox Lewis' chin for getting knocked out by Rahman even though Lewis was only stopped one other time in his career. Supposedly Rahman hadn't proved himself that good of a puncher in his other fights. Well, Rahman certainly showed in the rest of career that he hit a lot harder than Billy Conn.
That other "knockout hitters" couldn't stop Pastor but Billy Conn could indicates that they weren't that good of "knockout hitters". If it was one lucky punch, maybe you could argue that it was a fluke. However, we are talking about getting knocked down in 3 different rounds. If he would have just lost a decision without being knocked down you could argue it wasn't so embarrassing. However, getting knocked around like that against a guy who couldn't stop lightheavywerights is more than an off night.
-If Pastor can't take Billy Conn's punches, he is going to be in big trouble against James Smith,Trevor Berbick,Mike Weaver,Tim Witherspoon and Earnie Shavers.
-Galento looked sloppy against Baer because he was ot of shape and got tired? He looked sloppy from early on in round 1. If a more modern fighter looked that bad that early, would you be saying this?
-Pinklon Thomas looked worse against Tyson than Galento against Baer? You have got to be kidding. Thomas atleast resembled a heavyweight contender. He wasn't a joke. He was better than Galento in virtually everyway imaginable in that fight. Galento would have been lucky to get past the 2nd round against Tyson.
-You excuse Galento for holding on to Baer a lot because Baer was a hard puncher. Yet you often criticize Ali holding too much against Frazier.
-You excuse Conn for not having a knockout % because a low knockout % doesn't mean that you don't have a hard punch. ( I agree that KO % can be deceiving) However, somehow since Holmes didn't score a lot of
early knockouts, he therefore isn't that hard of a puncher. huh?
btw- I am not going by ESPN for why opinions that I respect that are criticial of guys like Nova,Galento, etc. I have read many books that say this. This is back up from the records that I see and the film that have seen.
I also wanted to add this quote from something you said recently:
"All of the fight reports indicate that Galento had slipped a good deal by that fight compared to a few years prior."
Ok, lets say that true. Galento fought Louis only 1 year prior to when he fought Max Baer.
Therefore Galento couldn't been that good when he fought Louis.
Therefore, using your own logic Galento must have slipped a great deal before Louis defended his against him.
Btw- Galento was Ring Magazine's #4 contender for 1938. After beating 3 tomato cans in early 1939, he then challenged Louis. He won his last 11 fights before fighting Louis. Galento had to be one of the best contenders at the time he fought Louis.
Galento was the Ring Magazine's #1 contender for the year 1939 (after he had fought Louis, beat Nova, but before he had fought Baer). Galento's first fight in 1940 was against Max Baer. Galento had to be one of the best heavyweights in the world going into the Baer fight.
That is pretty sad commentary of the heavyweight divison of the time that Galento was one of the best. What does that say about Nova (whom he beat) and the other contenders? It says that they weren't that good.
dempseyfire, I think that you make a lot of good observations on other posts. I just strongly disagree with you here.
That you like the 1940's is fine. That you don't seem to like the 1980's guys is fine too.
However, you have to be able to criticize your favorites for the similar things that you criticize fighters from the 1980's for. Likewise, you have to be able to give credit to the 1980's guys for the similar things that you give credit to the 1940's heavyweights. You have to use the same criteria.
I do want add:
-I don't think that overall Holmes challengers were that great; just overall better than Louis'.
-I do think that Schmeling and Walcott were better than anyone Holmes defended the title against.
- I don't think I am baised toward modern fighters. For example, I think the Teens were a great decade for heavyweights. This decade is ridiculausly bad.
-Including all weight divisions, I think the 1940's was as good as the 1980's. There were many great fighters in the other weight classes of the 1940's.
-I do think that overall, the fighters Louis fought before winning the title (in 1937) were better than the fighters that Holmes fought before Holmes won the title.
-I think that Louis was better than Holmes.
