Tweet
Originally posted by JeBron Lamez
View Post
-
- - Large stock of jughaids and anthropoids on this forum full of holes stocked with opinions. -
I already know I made a poor thread title again. I should have defined better what I was looking for. I thought I had done enough but wrong again. KO artists are usually not great pure boxers from what I have observed. I already said Robinson's best defense was probably his offense. I can't put a man on there whose best defense is his offense. He looks like a man who wants to take the opponent's head off as soon as possible. Not the look of a pure boxer.
I don't mean someone like Loche either who spurned any actual fighting for defense. I call him a defensive exhibitionist not an actual fighter. Sorry, Nic. Your defense shoved everything else out.
As far as people complaining about who is on there and who is not, I already said choose anyone you want, put 'em in a separate post, since the processor here only allows 10 spots.
Vlad is not on there for a good reason--he was not a great pure boxer IMO.
Look, anybody out there is boxing. If they win a lot of fights they must be a great pure boxer. Right? No, wrong. I wouldn't cite Marciano as a great pure boxer. He was a great fighter. Period.
So the insertion of the word pure has some kind of meaning other than 'great boxer.' It places great emphasis on defense, just like I did in the introductory post.
Of my 10 entries I see only one thing in common. Some could punch, some some could not; some were super fast, some were not; some were constant movers, others stood right in the pocket and didn't mind.
The one thing I see they all had in common besides being great fighters and having two legs was their defensive genius and the emphasis they placed on it during matches. Their defense is very easy to see also. No confusion like 'that combo was actually a defensive move,' etc. etc.
As every fighter tells you, almost everything they do in the ring has become instinct for them. That says plenty. The honed instinct of one fighter causes him to parry, slip or evade punches, while others see it as a chance to open up. Robinson was the latter kind, Pep the former IMO.
Yes, a big emphasis on defense in this poll. Sorry if that was not clear, for that would be my fault once more.
Early Mike Tyson had a great defense in large part due to his offense. You cannot actually know which punches or moves might have been defensive. That was a defensive repositioning, no he was just setting up for another punch, etc. etc.
Fighters are not supposed to think about their moves once inside the ring. They say if you do you are already in trouble. It is supposed to all be seamless from offense to defense. Sometimes you see the defense operating clearly, other times, though, you cannot say just how involved defensive intent might have been.
For boxers it is mostly a honed instinct how one reacts. I think two huge factors play a role in these reactions: personality, i.e. personal propensity; and especially an early trainer's philosophy. Behind a shadow screen Charles cannot be mistaken for Tyson because they were trained differently. The emphasis on what was practiced.
Last edited by Mr Mitts; 01-17-2025, 04:16 PM.Comment
-
-
-
I suppose it depends on whom you believe,the referee who was also the promoter and wanted all action crowd pleasers,to fill his arena, or people like George Siler the best referee of his day who called the decision for Hart," an exceedingly strange one."Originally posted by Willie Pep 229 View PostComment
-
If I remember correctly, JJ got jobbed by the referee. It was likely a White-Black thing.Originally posted by Mr Mitts View Post
From ChatGPT
"Despite Johnson's clear technical superiority, the referee awarded the decision to Hart. The official reasoning was that Hart was the aggressor throughout the fight."
JJ's defensive stance gave him (the referee) and them (the newspapers) the opening they needed to job him out of the decision (L PTS 20/20).
"Defense always wins in the end" -- Jack Johnson
Nope! It doesn't.
Maybe it was racial, maybe fight fans just like watching fighting over watching boxing technique.
Either way, defense does not always win.
The loss made it easier for Jeffries to avoid Johnson. Lack of aggression may have cost JJ more than just the decision.
If JJ had blown out Marvin Hart with power the pressure would have been on Jeffries to fight him. You can't do that if you're defensive.
P.S. Then again probably not, it doesn't look like Jeffries would have given JJ a shot under any circumstance.Last edited by Willie Pep 229; 01-17-2025, 07:07 PM.Comment
-
There is absolutely zero basis for believing Jeffries would ever risk his title against a black man.Originally posted by Willie Pep 229 View Post
Comment
-
JJ vs JJ. JJ should easily have known better than to go the distance with Hart whom he probably could have dominated, mangled or KO'd.Comment
-
He mangled him pretty well in the first ten rounds,Hart's face was described as looking like steak tartare.Originally posted by Mr Mitts View Post
With the prospect of a title shot if he won Hart possibly fought the fight of his life,there was no such incentive for Johnson,but that's no excuse for him not putting the verdict beyond doubt.Comment
-
- - ChatGPT is it now?Originally posted by Willie Pep 229 View Post
Johnson bricked it as was his habit, plain and simple. After this fight Jeff stated he was retiring after having taken care of all worthwhile contenders.
Jack Johnson vs. Marvin Hart
(Redirected from Fight:19111)
Jump to navigationJump to search Jack Johnson 191 lbs lost to Marvin Hart 192 lbs by PTS in round 20 of 20- Date: 1905-03-28
- Location: Woodward's Pavilion, San Francisco, California, USA
- Referee: Alec Greggains
- Pre-fight article: [1]
"Marvin Hart was awarded the decision over Jack Johnson in a twenty-round contest last night that went the limit, but he came far from demonstrating that he is qualified to meet Jim Jeffries. Hart was game and kept boring into the big colored man all through the fight. Johnson's much-vaunted cleverness did not count for much. While he was able to hit Hart frequently, his blows did not seem to damage the white man from Kentucky. The sympathies of the large crowd were openly with Hart, who was at the short end in the betting, and every lead he made at Johnson, whether he landed or not, was greeted with cheers. Hart managed to deal the only effective blow in the eleventh round, when he landed a right swing on Johnson's jaw that staggered the black man and nearly knocked him over. Referee Greggains stated that he gave the decision to Hart, because all through the fight Hart did all the forcing and leading. According to Greggains, if Hart had not pursued his tactics there would have been no fight, as Johnson merely contented himself with countering. Hart's face was battered to a pulp, but Johnson's blows did not seem to have much sting to them. Johnson did a great deal of uppercutting, but Hart covered up and the blows did not seem to hurt him." (Washington Post)
Jump to navigationJump to search Jack Johnson 214 lbs drew with Battling Jim Johnson 223 lbs by PTS in round 10 of 10- Date: 1913-12-19
- Location: Élysée Montmartre, Paris, Paris, France
- Referee: Emile Maitrot
- Judge: Franz Reichel
- Judge: M Oudin
- World Heavyweight Championship (7th defense by Jack Johnson)
- This was the first World Heavyweight Championship fight fought between two black fighters.
- On November 6, 1913, the International Boxing Union met in Paris and voted to withdraw recognition of Johnson as world champion because he "persistently refused to meet his challengers and because of his conviction of white slavery." Johnson had come to Paris several months earlier from Chicago, where he had been convicted of violating the Mann Act.
- The December 20, 1913, edition of the Saskatoon Phoenix (Saskatoon, Canada) stated:
- A cabled article printed in the Evening World (New York City) stated:
Willie Pep 229
likes this.
Comment
Comment