Black and white boxing era

[greynotsoold]

I'm a young guy, 20 years old. I'm looking at some videos of older fighters like Ray Robinson, LaMotta, etc. All I'm seeing here is just swinging. Overwhelming the opponent with punches and then leaning on them until someone or they both wear themselves out. These fighters had tons of heart but not seeing the skill that I've seen in the later eras of boxing. I want to know what makes these fighters so "great" in everyone's opinion. And feel free to send me links on more fighters and videos to watch. Forgive any ignorance on the subject

I'm an old guy, with about 40 years of boxing behind me, and I think the same thing when I watch modern boxing.
A lot of what makes a fighter better than others is pretty subtle. Watch how they control distance. Watch how a guy throws his jab, what his feet do, and how he reacts to the other guy's jab. Class shows in how a guy punches when the other guy is punching, how he finishes his combinations.
Myself, personally, I have been on a jose Napoles trip for awhile now, and I think I am about to embark on a study of Ike Williams.

[Rantcatrat]

I'm a young guy, 20 years old. I'm looking at some videos of older fighters like Ray Robinson, LaMotta, etc. All I'm seeing here is just swinging. Overwhelming the opponent with punches and then leaning on them until someone or they both wear themselves out. These fighters had tons of heart but not seeing the skill that I've seen in the later eras of boxing. I want to know what makes these fighters so "great" in everyone's opinion. And feel free to send me links on more fighters and videos to watch. Forgive any ignorance on the subject

I'm an old guy, with about 40 years of boxing behind me, and I think the same thing when I watch modern boxing.
A lot of what makes a fighter better than others is pretty subtle. Watch how they control distance. Watch how a guy throws his jab, what his feet do, and how he reacts to the other guy's jab. Class shows in how a guy punches when the other guy is punching, how he finishes his combinations.
Myself, personally, I have been on a jose Napoles trip for awhile now, and I think I am about to embark on a study of Ike Williams.

@greynotsoold - Good post. I have some good articles on Ike Williams if you want me to pass them on to you. Let me know.

[Rantcatrat]

@greynotsoold

Check out this article on Ike Williams.

[IamInuit]

This is starting to crack me up. I have been trying so hard to not get into this eternal debate that in the end never really solves anything. To a certain segment of society if you can’t find it on youtube or a film then it didn't happen or it’s extremely exaggerated. Does anyone with even an iota of boxing history/human history on their belt realize what you are dismissing using the premise that there is no footage? Specifically with boxing you are dismissing quite literally at least a hundred great boxers going back as far as George Dixon and beyond. On practically every top ten atg list you will find fighters with little or no footage. Robinson has topped the 147 list for ever and there is maybe one fight floating around of his time spent there and its crap. Much of the footage available is shit to say the least.

Just sit back for a second and think of the fighters one tosses out because of a lack of footage. Then think how much history in general that we could dismiss because of a lack of footage? It is by that blood and those events that we now have all of this gadgetry. We could I suppose dismiss all of history prior to the advent of all of these devices.

In the end I don’t need a chunk of film to tell me who Greb was. I bring Greb up because for some reason he is singled out. And singled out ironically because of his dominance. I can read the history of the man in books and by alternate sources using testimony by those who were there and respected historians that have followed him and others through their time. In many ways, the written word is as important as any tape. There are quite literally hundreds of great fighters with no film attached. Somehow this makes them less great? And this is a sound argument how? How much of human history is accepted by word alone? The medium of film has been a short one compared to our shared human history w/o it. And ftr they did film some of Grebs fights. Tunney 1, Walker and Flowers but they were filmed using a nitrate base which only has about a 50 year lifespan.

Harry Greb was a marvel and would have wiped the floor with any middleweight fighting today including that Russian Godlike character that the rest of the world ducks. Speaking of ducks, this shit never played out in the fashion it does today. Today, a time when the chances on getting an undisputed champion is slim to none and slim left the party. Either Greb was as good as all his contemporaries say along with historians, broadcasters and onlookers or they are all liars based solely on the fact that there is no film. Seems a fickle stance and better suited for a first year philosophy course and the study of skepticism.

Harry Greb fought over 300 times. 299 at boxrec and only lost 8 times including only one legit stoppage. He fought from welter to heavy and was the only man to beat Tunney, arguably twice. He fought heavyweight contenders and 45 times in one year but of course the skeptics merely suggest they were scrubs and cab drivers. He fought and beat 18 Hall of famers, 7 light-heavyweight champions and fought blind in one eye about the last 3 years of his career. If this isn’t great then I don’t know what is. Those who love this Nanny state of boxing will simply reply “he was great for his time” Bullshit. He would have been great at any time. My lord both Moyer brothers would be world champions with ease today and animals like Stanley Ketchel probably would not be able to get a fight.

If anything guys like Greb, Gans, Langford and countless others don’t get their due respect based solely on this lack of footage. That is pretty evident. Perhaps the Roman Empire was an elaborate hoax. And later, people such as Da Vinci and Galileo are all made up characters. I've seen no film footage. All nursery rhymes and really no different then the stories of religion. The boxing establishment was steered away from Burley and the rest of Murderers row because they were that good. It took Moore 160 fights to even get a title shot and he's the only one that made it out with any degree of success. You can’t capture that fact on film.

It’s funny because you see the phrase “rose coloured glasses” being tossed around and if anyone is wearing them its those who believe that boxing began in 1990.

[Max Power]

The main point I got in your post Inuit, is that everybody elevates and appraises these way in the past greats without EVER even seeing them fight! And you think this is right.



Nobody ever said it should be dismissed, history is history and it's what enables those that come after to build from it.

[FinitoElDinamita]

I agree with those who say the black and white era are overrated.. personally they are boring to me..

I think 70s-early 90s fighters were the most skilled, had competitive matchups, and were most exciting.

[Max Power]

The post above I can identify with. Although I have mocked 70's boxers considerably I think the greats from that era were definitely better than those before. I don't think Louis or Marciano would be able to beat the fully developed and stronger 70's Ali (although they might have out-bulled the lighter 60's one) and I'm pretty sure Foreman would have knocked out any man who came before him (And I do mean ANY).

And I also feel that Mike Tyson and the 90's HW scene and the early 2000's were the real Golden Age of Heavyweight boxing.

I can't watch the B&W era for any reasons apart from research.

[jabvargas24]

haha

This guy