Boxing Defense: 1950's (Robinson, Turpin, Gavilan, Bratton, Moore)

[i love boxing]

[Zaroku]

Mad respect from me and Jhonny(after jhonny Gonzalez)
We hate most of the mo f****ersb on this site3.
Shalom

[Rusty Tromboni]

LOL, it's funny that the HL features Gavilan - who was plainly out-boxed by Graham.

In those days, you could win rounds just by pushing the action. To put it in perspective, Mayweather-Pacquiao and Mayweather-Alvarez would have been pretty near even on the scorecards. And Mayweather-De La Hoya would have been a toss up; no surprises if Oscar had gotten the nod.

I dunno how much footage is available of them from the 50's, but Pastrano and Giardello were probably already better pure-boxers than anyone featured here.


And of course, while he had been his best the decade before, the very best defensive fighter in the world was still the inimitable Willie Pep: possibly the best fighter, ever H2H.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I know people like to glorify the old timers, but how can you watch Lomachenko and Duran, and then be impressed by that ^ ?

It's like drinking premium Bordeaux wine, and then being handed something poured from a box.

[Dempsey19]

LOL, it's funny that the HL features Gavilan - who was plainly out-boxed by Graham.

In those days, you could win rounds just by pushing the action. To put it in perspective, Mayweather-Pacquiao and Mayweather-Alvarez would have been pretty near even on the scorecards. And Mayweather-De La Hoya would have been a toss up; no surprises if Oscar had gotten the nod.

I dunno how much footage is available of them from the 50's, but Pastrano and Giardello were probably already better pure-boxers than anyone featured here.


And of course, while he had been his best the decade before, the very best defensive fighter in the world was still the inimitable Willie Pep: possibly the best fighter, ever H2H.

Fights are still scored like that today. JCC vs Whittaker ?

[Rusty Tromboni]

Fights are still scored like that today. JCC vs Whittaker ?

That was further back in time than we'd like to admit, sir. I hate to be the one to say it. I also think that was an example of how corrupt Boxing can be.

If anything, look at how Adelaide Byrd gave Canelo almost every round against Golovkin in their first bout.

I am not saying the pendulum swung that other way, but it's waaaay more acceptable to be "slick", or defensive.

If you want an example of great Boxing going unrecognized, look at Fury-Wilder. Fury absolutely schooled him. I can't give Wilder more than two rounds. If you're being ridiculously generous you can score one or two of the rather inactive rounds as even - but you'd be rewarding Wilder for nothing more than standing still to avoid making mistakes. I had it 117-110. At best you might argue something like 117-112.
That result was one ofthe most grotesque displays of corruption I've seen in a sport that is the definition of corrupt.

[ecto55]

I know people like to glorify the old timers, but how can you watch Lomachenko and Duran, and then be impressed by that ^ ?

It's like drinking premium Bordeaux wine, and then being handed something poured from a box.

Funnily enough...for those who know their boxing history, other than Moore (remarkable counter-puncher, no mere highlight reel can explain his abilities) and Gavilan to an extent (offense first, defense facilitated that offence, think maybe a Chavez Sr), I wouldn't put these fighters in my best defensive boxers of that decade.

Robinson was an offensive fighter know for absorbing too much, Turpin was awkward yes but also absorbed a lot of punishment, and Bratton was a spoiler.

In terms of Duran and Lomachenko, you know that Duran was taught his higher level boxing abilities and defense (slipping, head rolling, upper body evasiveness) by Ray Arcel and especially Freddie Brown?

These two trainers had experience dating back to the 1920's...so Duran's no example of a modern fighter as his techniques and skills derived pre-50's. Arcel, because of mafia pressure, was absent from boxing through the 50/60's, until he was brought back in to assist with Roberto Duran in the late 60's.

As for Lomachenko, he's great to watch also...but mostly because what he does is in our modern hi-def footage. There isn't a single thing he does which hasn't been done before decades earlier.

Reminds me of the RJJ phenomena 25 years ago....kepting hearding and reading 'moves, never been seen before'. Uggh

RJJ himself said all he did was what the old timers did but quicker (due to 'modern nutrition').

[ecto55]

I dunno how much footage is available of them from the 50's, but Pastrano and Giardello were probably already better pure-boxers than anyone featured here.


And of course, while he had been his best the decade before, the very best defensive fighter in the world was still the inimitable Willie Pep: possibly the best fighter, ever H2H.

I know, but something attempting to educate the ignorant masses is better than nothing.

Nice mention re. Billy Graham btw...

Me?..of that five (Robinson, Turpin, Gavilan, Bratton, Moore) I'd only have put Moore in, but his mesh of defensive/countering abilities are so complex to explain that I'd have omitted him from any reel. I think the HL creator was limited by easily available footage.

People are still struggling to solve Moore's unique style today...mere highlights don't do him justice imo.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Funnily enough...for those who know their boxing history, other than Moore (remarkable counter-puncher, no mere highlight reel can explain his abilities) and Gavilan to an extent (offense first, defense facilitated that offence, think maybe a Chavez Sr), I wouldn't put these fighters in my best defensive boxers of that decade.

Robinson was an offensive fighter know for absorbing too much, Turpin was awkward yes but also absorbed a lot of punishment, and Bratton was a spoiler.

In terms of Duran and Lomachenko, you know that Duran was taught his higher level boxing abilities and defense (slipping, head rolling, upper body evasiveness) by Ray Arcel and especially Freddie Brown?

These two trainers had experience dating back to the 1920's...so Duran's no example of a modern fighter as his techniques and skills derived pre-50's. Arcel, because of mafia pressure, was absent from boxing through the 50/60's, until he was brought back in to assist with Roberto Duran in the late 60's.

As for Lomachenko, he's great to watch also...but mostly because what he does is in our modern hi-def footage. There isn't a single thing he does which hasn't been done before decades earlier.

Reminds me of the RJJ phenomena 25 years ago....kepting hearding and reading 'moves, never been seen before'. Uggh

RJJ himself said all he did was what the old timers did but quicker (due to 'modern nutrition').

I see Duran as a continuation of the Boxing being practiced Pre WWII by ethnic White fighters. Apostoli, Corbett III, Steele, Hostak... a lot of these guys could either on offense or defense fight like Duran. He welded it all together.

THe more explosive stuff you see guys like RObinson, Charles, MArshall, Ike Williams and young Moore do would begin to take over Boxing. Flashier, anarobic. But not necessarily better. Duran vs. Leonard was basically old school vs. new school, and even with the odds stacked in the latter's favor (size and youth), old school still won handidly.