Page 1 of 2
Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 24 May 2016, 10:25
by Ambling Alp II
Some guys really don't impress you on film. They aren't that fast, have much power, and don't that impressive of boxing skills. Yet somehow, some way, a few managed to have a better career than you would think and beat several fighters who look better on film.
Here are a few that I thought of:
Trevor Berbick
Paul Berlanbach
Gene Fullmer
Who else fits this category?
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 24 May 2016, 10:43
by BoxBuzz
Primo Carnera, who benefited from some "remote control" parts.
Naseem Hamed who's talent was through the roof, but did not commit in a way to bring him to the true pinnacle
Floyd Patterson....small for a HW, a bit chinny, but had great heart, and blinding speed, and was able to navigate well in most deep waters.
Carmen, The Onion Farmer ....grit and determination allowed him to rise above his talent and skill.
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 24 May 2016, 13:53
by Seamus
EXCEPT for his chin, Patterson was pretty darn good.
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 24 May 2016, 13:55
by Bodyshot3
Dennis Andries springs to mind....long stretches of his career saw Dennis almost exclusively trade on his brute physical stength, determination and excellent fitness levels and pretty successfully as well.
He actually became a much better boxer when he worked with the Kronk guys but really the basic premise with Dennis was that he was mentally and physically a block of granite and he broke people down in his own way. He certainly did not have that many rounds when he beat someone with speed or the variety of his punches.
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 24 May 2016, 14:16
by SaadOffTheDeck
Gene Fullmer, so many people talk about him like a crude face first slugger, but he landed on everyone and competed at the highest level. I think he's historically underrated from the eye test.
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 24 May 2016, 14:25
by gilgamesh
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Gene Fullmer, so many people talk about him like a crude face first slugger, but he landed on everyone and competed at the highest level. I think he's historically underrated from the eye test.
Whenever he faced Carmen Basilio a battle of two guys with the reputations of sluggers, Fullmer got the better of it and stopped Basilio late by fighting the smarter fight. Fullmer was a boxer that night, a strategy he needed maybe not necessarily to win, but to make it an easier nights work, and he got the job done stopping Basilio in the 14th.
I believe it was 1959's Fight of the Year.
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 24 May 2016, 15:54
by SaadOffTheDeck
It's a shame threads like this will quietly drift away while people indulge that raging troll in the Basketball thread and the immortal Fat Golfer thread will never leave the front page.
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 24 May 2016, 15:56
by Counter-puncher
Brian Mitchell
Jim Watt
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 24 May 2016, 16:05
by handsofstone
gilgamesh wrote:SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Gene Fullmer, so many people talk about him like a crude face first slugger, but he landed on everyone and competed at the highest level. I think he's historically underrated from the eye test.
Whenever he faced Carmen Basilio a battle of two guys with the reputations of sluggers, Fullmer got the better of it and stopped Basilio late by fighting the smarter fight. Fullmer was a boxer that night, a strategy he needed maybe not necessarily to win, but to make it an easier nights work, and he got the job done stopping Basilio in the 14th.
I believe it was 1959's Fight of the Year.
I always felt both fights were stopped quite prematurely,especially for being in the 50's,Basilio must have been raging i assume ,Was there any controversy over the stoppages??
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 24 May 2016, 16:18
by SaadOffTheDeck
Basilio had an amazing quote that I can't remember in my old age.
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 24 May 2016, 16:53
by Othro
Carlos Monzon always looked average to me . A legend no doubt but it seems he just had the IT factor .
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 24 May 2016, 17:00
by cfang
Othro wrote:Carlos Monzon always looked average to me . A legend no doubt but it seems he just had the IT factor .
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 24 May 2016, 18:30
by gilgamesh
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Basilio had an amazing quote that I can't remember in my old age.
Following the Fullmer fight you mean?
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 24 May 2016, 19:09
by SaadOffTheDeck
gilgamesh wrote:SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Basilio had an amazing quote that I can't remember in my old age.
Following the Fullmer fight you mean?
Either following it, or in the ring during it. I can't remember.
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 24 May 2016, 19:12
by Tomasino
Carl Froch. He often looked crude and slow and very hit table on the way up.
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 24 May 2016, 19:17
by gilgamesh
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:gilgamesh wrote:SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Basilio had an amazing quote that I can't remember in my old age.
Following the Fullmer fight you mean?
Either following it, or in the ring during it. I can't remember.
If you think of it let me know because I'm very curious
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 24 May 2016, 19:25
by SaadOffTheDeck
gilgamesh wrote:SaadOffTheDeck wrote:gilgamesh wrote:
Following the Fullmer fight you mean?
Either following it, or in the ring during it. I can't remember.
If you think of it let me know because I'm very curious
It was definitely bad ass.
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 25 May 2016, 04:08
by handsofstone
Why is it that all the fighters from back in the day were great for a quote and came out with something quirky,clever and funny yet fighters today talk absolute bollocks?
Even the fighters who grew up with no education said some great quips,todays fighters all talk the same bland crap
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 25 May 2016, 07:04
by ElJefe
Tomasino wrote:Carl Froch. He often looked crude and slow and very hit table on the way up.
Froch was the first name that came to mind for me.
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 25 May 2016, 10:12
by Counter-puncher
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:gilgamesh wrote:SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Either following it, or in the ring during it. I can't remember.
If you think of it let me know because I'm very curious
It was definitely bad ass.
didn't he say something about killing the ref? and hating him till the day he died?
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 25 May 2016, 15:00
by Bodyshot3
Andries remains my prime example but thinking back I would suggest another Brit light-heavy who is much-maligned....namely Clinton Woods.
Clinton arguably had a wee bit more in his locker than Dennis but he was still something of an over-achiever in my book and a great deal of folk were frankly gob-smacked that he got as far as he did.
There was just something about Clinton that ensured that he somehow graduated from being a hard-strong lad from Sheffield who could win a British/Commonwealth belt through to world class.
He had the knack of delivering a bomb when he needed it (Klemetsen and Hoye) and had all those fights with Johnson and Gonzalez when he often did not look that good at all; a tall-ish and rangy guy who often got bogged down in the trenches and did not manage to fight from distance.
Admittedly, Johnson was bloody brilliant at turning any fight into a life-and-death-scrap and should probably have a nod on this thread too

Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 25 May 2016, 15:02
by SaadOffTheDeck
Counter-puncher wrote:SaadOffTheDeck wrote:gilgamesh wrote:
If you think of it let me know because I'm very curious
It was definitely bad ass.
didn't he say something about killing the ref? and hating him till the day he died?
That doesn't sound familiar.
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 25 May 2016, 15:09
by Tony1244
I remember reading in Ring Magazine about Trevor Berbick. It said something to the effect of he was the worst fighter on the planet with a winning record.
This was before he fought Ali, Tate, and Holmes and way before I saw him on film.
He did well considering the description.
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 25 May 2016, 15:12
by Tony1244
Oscar Bonavena looked like a rank amateur in style. But he could hit a bit and take a good shot.
He was like a punching bag with arms that kept hitting you.
Re: Better than Sum of his parts?
Posted: 25 May 2016, 15:20
by gilgamesh
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Counter-puncher wrote:SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
It was definitely bad ass.
didn't he say something about killing the ref? and hating him till the day he died?
That doesn't sound familiar.
Doesn't sound like something Basilio would say either.