Film night with Jimmy Jacobs.

[juggernaut666]

...all those guys would look amateurish in the skills next to Floyd and Pacman...the fact you think fighting a unskilled brawler type Lamotta 5"

your a jerk plain and simple. The fact that you don't understand the skill set of a LaMotta who knows distance and was known for his defense and two handed attack proves once again your a jackazz!

Kid Gavilan is condsidered the greatest Cuban pro boxer and gave Robinson some of his best bouts!
Basilio is an ATG you don't know it but everyone who knows boxing does!
From Zivic to Holly Mimms your clueless, time to go back to ignoring you and elroy. I thought you both have started a different out look and possibly learned something but your both just kids and fools.

good luck kids your going to need it in life! Try to add reality to your exsistance.

Ray

He was not an all-time great like his benefactors think he is. I would be reluctant to rank him as one of the greatest fighters if I had to draft an all-time list. If he was on it then he would be at the bottom of that list. He scored a huge win against Marcel Cerdan, went 2-1 against Fritzie Zivic, defeated Tony Janiro, went 1-2 against Jimmy Reeves, a very good career but hardly the stuff legends are made of. The movie made it seem he was a concussive puncher. Remember the fight scene with pretty boy Tony Janiro? He rearranged Janiro's nose in that fight and knocked him down. In actual reality he won a ten round decision in that fight. In his 89 wins he KO'd about 30 of his opponents.........

[billeau2]

Came across this 2-page article yesterday - and thought it might interest you guys.

http://postimg.org/image/8jjvn3rnn/

http://postimg.org/image/r5f6sd0f7/full/

Good read. There is an incredible irony at play in this article. The author in creating his point of view did, in essence what he accuses the other party of doing...he created a strawman to attack, to make his point. Generally speaking boxing historians, with one notable exception, do not claim fighters pre dempsey were technically on the same level as fighters post dempsey.

jack Johnson is the one exception and there are some reasons to believe that JJ was a modern marvel that stood alone...and there are many tapes of Jack Johnson throwing combinations btw.

Many times it was argued that guys like Fitz and Corbett...Sullivan, etc had to make up for things like longer rounds, fighting injured, and this was why they could not focus on technical excellence, i.e. the strawman was that one had to outlast an opponent and overcome adversity...not worry about technical proficiency. Well...that sounds pretty ******. The fact is these guys fought from different ranges, they had a different way of punching, it was in essence a different sport. This however does not account for the development of fighters like Johnson, Dempsey and Tunney in the heavyweight division...all guys who relied upon technical excellence.

[BattlingNelson]

Great read thx. Hardly surprising..... But! I can understand the bit about hw. But he also mentions them watching the great Joe Gans. How can he put Gans in with those other overtly slow, plodding heavies?

Also intersting that he feels that the real turning point came with Dempsey.

Still thanks for posting.

[billeau2]

Great read thx. Hardly surprising..... But! I can understand the bit about hw. But he also mentions them watching the great Joe Gans. How can he put Gans in with those other overtly slow, plodding heavies?

Also intersting that he feels that the real turning point came with Dempsey.

Still thanks for posting.

One problem comes when you try to pin down a change in boxing via the fighters...in fact one should do as Ray has done and use the trainers to deliniate changes in the sport. But...then things get messy! Fighters in Dempsey's time and before learned a lot of the craft from other fighters. The idea that a trainer could technically improve a fighter was a modern, circa the Louis era, idea. blackburn was a pioneer in this respect.

Of course there were other great trainers in the old days, but for the most part a trainer helped with fitness and logistics. For example, Jack Johnson learned his craft from, among others, Choynski, who was able to beat a young, green Johnson. BTW Choynski and Jem Mace, among others were superb technical fighters, but they were not big men.

Boxing was more of an apprenticeship...Dempsey learned a lot of his craft from other fighters, when he was a young man.

I want to give an analogy when it comes to comparing different types of fight conditions: Kimbo slice developed a way that he could, in very short order, dispose of big men with little skill. What most people do not realize is that Kimbo was quite skilled, and quite well trained, to go into a back yard, run across the yard and attack until the other guy fell. Before this is dismissed, lets realize that by fighting in this fashion Kimbo minimized harm to himself, his opponent, and he minimized risk. In a fight with no gloves, the hand can be broken, someone can break a jaw, etc. So Kimbo was good at what he trained to do: knock an unskilled opponent to the ground quickly.

We all know Kimbo was not nearly as succesful when he changed his fighting discipline. there were many reasons for this, but one of the reasons was, Kimbo was fighting under different conditions. We can certainly say things like the author did such as "Patterson would put Corbett on his ass with the first combination he threw....Corbett never threw a combo!" But, put Patterson in a bigger ring, have him try to unleash a combo on a man fighting off his back leg.

There is no doubt that boxing became more technically sound, but it is good to remember that you cannot compare the performance of the old timers because they were training under different circumstances.

[sonnyboyx2]

One problem comes when you try to pin down a change in boxing via the fighters...in fact one should do as Ray has done and use the trainers to deliniate changes in the sport. But...then things get messy! Fighters in Dempsey's time and before learned a lot of the craft from other fighters. The idea that a trainer could technically improve a fighter was a modern, circa the Louis era, idea. blackburn was a pioneer in this respect.

Of course there were other great trainers in the old days, but for the most part a trainer helped with fitness and logistics. For example, Jack Johnson learned his craft from, among others, Choynski, who was able to beat a young, green Johnson. BTW Choynski and Jem Mace, among others were superb technical fighters, but they were not big men.

Boxing was more of an apprenticeship...Dempsey learned a lot of his craft from other fighters, when he was a young man.

I want to give an analogy when it comes to comparing different types of fight conditions: Kimbo slice developed a way that he could, in very short order, dispose of big men with little skill. What most people do not realize is that Kimbo was quite skilled, and quite well trained, to go into a back yard, run across the yard and attack until the other guy fell. Before this is dismissed, lets realize that by fighting in this fashion Kimbo minimized harm to himself, his opponent, and he minimized risk. In a fight with no gloves, the hand can be broken, someone can break a jaw, etc. So Kimbo was good at what he trained to do: knock an unskilled opponent to the ground quickly.

We all know Kimbo was not nearly as succesful when he changed his fighting discipline. there were many reasons for this, but one of the reasons was, Kimbo was fighting under different conditions. We can certainly say things like the author did such as "Patterson would put Corbett on his ass with the first combination he threw....Corbett never threw a combo!" But, put Patterson in a bigger ring, have him try to unleash a combo on a man fighting off his back leg.

There is no doubt that boxing became more technically sound, but it is good to remember that you cannot compare the performance of the old timers because they were training under different circumstances.

What rubbish...

Hey Bill, i see how you have had a bet on Fury to defeat Wlad. Well how about a wager with me Bill... if your man Fury beats Wlad, i will never again frequent this website. Same goes for you should Wlad win..

Is the bet on Bill?

[joeandthebums]

One problem comes when you try to pin down a change in boxing via the fighters...in fact one should do as Ray has done and use the trainers to deliniate changes in the sport. But...then things get messy! Fighters in Dempsey's time and before learned a lot of the craft from other fighters. The idea that a trainer could technically improve a fighter was a modern, circa the Louis era, idea. blackburn was a pioneer in this respect.

Of course there were other great trainers in the old days, but for the most part a trainer helped with fitness and logistics. For example, Jack Johnson learned his craft from, among others, Choynski, who was able to beat a young, green Johnson. BTW Choynski and Jem Mace, among others were superb technical fighters, but they were not big men.

Boxing was more of an apprenticeship...Dempsey learned a lot of his craft from other fighters, when he was a young man.

What rubbish...

Jack Dempsey, taken from Championship Fighting Explosive Punching and Aggressive Defense

"Swinging back through Memory Lane, I found myself, at twenty-one, making my first trip to New York, where I fought Andre Anderson, "Wild Bert" Kenny and John Lester Johnson, who cracked two of my ribs. Although that New York trip was a disappointment, I received much valuable fighting information from top-flight heavies like Frank Moran, Bill Brennan, Billy Miske and Gunboat Smith, when each dropped into Grupp's Gymnasium.

And I recalled the details of my later post-graduate courses in fighting from Doc Kearns and Trainer Deforest, one of the best instructors in the world. Deforest's career went clear back to the days of Peter Jackson and London prize-ring rules.

That geographic investigation of my own technique really humbled me. It hit me right on the chin with the booming fact that since I was six years old, I'd had the opportunity to learn punching from a long parade of guys who had studied it. I had absorbed their instructions, their pointers, their theories, in Manassa, Montrose, Provo, Ogden, Salt Lake City, Goldfield, Tonopah, New York, San Francisco, Chicago, St. Paul, and many other cities-before I met Willard at Toledo."

[Ray Corso]

........."I would be reluctant to rank him as one of the greatest fighters".......

...who the hell cares how YOU would rank anyone, your a fan who has no experience evaluating skills to begin with!
No one said he was a great puncher, I said he had a great two handed attack which is true! LaMotta is a top ten middleweight and as a former champion most knowledgeable boxing people have him high on their list.

Without boxrec you wouldn't have anything to write, you have NO knowledge because you have NO practicle experience to draw from.

Have fun goober, going fishing this morning the fish have more to say than you do.

Ray

[juggernaut666]

........."I would be reluctant to rank him as one of the greatest fighters".......

...who the hell cares how YOU would rank anyone, your a fan who has no experience evaluating skills to begin with!
No one said he was a great puncher, I said he had a great two handed attack which is true! LaMotta is a top ten middleweight and as a former champion most knowledgeable boxing people have him high on their list.

Without boxrec you wouldn't have anything to write, you have NO knowledge because you have NO practicle experience to draw from.

Have fun goober, going fishing this morning the fish have more to say than you do.

Ray

The only sencable thing one can take from your post is you are going fishing , the question is fishing for what ? To sound credible or just points to make you look knowledgeable on here?


Lamotta had a TWO ,not ONE , but TWO handed attack .......what was i thinking ,this makes easily nearly unbeatable no one would stand a chance today ????????

[joeandthebums]

...who the hell cares how YOU would rank anyone, your a fan who has no experience evaluating skills to begin with!

If that is your attitude then why frequent public forums such as this?

Why not only converse with industry recognised and respected individuals - from your posts you indicate these are the circles you worked in - why not pick the phone up and speak with people who are able to evaluate boxing skills instead of the no-nothing fans of the sport?

[billeau2]

Jack Dempsey, taken from Championship Fighting Explosive Punching and Aggressive Defense

"Swinging back through Memory Lane, I found myself, at twenty-one, making my first trip to New York, where I fought Andre Anderson, "Wild Bert" Kenny and John Lester Johnson, who cracked two of my ribs. Although that New York trip was a disappointment, I received much valuable fighting information from top-flight heavies like Frank Moran, Bill Brennan, Billy Miske and Gunboat Smith, when each dropped into Grupp's Gymnasium.

And I recalled the details of my later post-graduate courses in fighting from Doc Kearns and Trainer Deforest, one of the best instructors in the world. Deforest's career went clear back to the days of Peter Jackson and London prize-ring rules.

That geographic investigation of my own technique really humbled me. It hit me right on the chin with the booming fact that since I was six years old, I'd had the opportunity to learn punching from a long parade of guys who had studied it. I had absorbed their instructions, their pointers, their theories, in Manassa, Montrose, Provo, Ogden, Salt Lake City, Goldfield, Tonopah, New York, San Francisco, Chicago, St. Paul, and many other cities-before I met Willard at Toledo."

Thank you Joe, This probably went over Sonny's head, but it did not go over mine!