the trouble with Paul Williams..
Collapse
-
-
Leonard was never big on the jab?
I agree he had more to his repertoire than typical fighters that rely on their jab ( Lewis, Wlad etc) but he WAS big on the jab, it's just that he could move, dodge, throw lightning flurries, fight on the inside, the outside.. I don't think there was a punch he DIDN'T use.. so in retrospect, he was a solid fighter with a solid jab, but not necessarily a "jabber" ala Hearns, Lewis.
Anyway, back to my point, for Hearns to outjab Leonard (which he did, because Leonard had alot of trouble getting around Hearns' reach, which often ended up in Hearns landing his jab before Leonard) says alot.Comment
-
I don't think I need to tell anyone Paul is just about a 1/2 foot taller than most of the men in his division..
If you were a 5'7 or 5'8 champ would you face this guy?
I sure ***in wouldn't..
*** no.
I don't even enjoy watching big guys like Williams beat up(down) on guys so much smaller than he is.
It's less enjoyable viewing IMO.
I'm a decent sized guy myself at 6'4..
But I never liked watching Lennox Lewis or the other big fighters out there essentially cheat with their size to win contests.. Never.
Who saw that celebrity fight between Manute Bol and "Refrigerator" Perry?
One of my roomates just read this thread and said this is the cause of "collectively beating up guys smaller than me my whole life.."
Comment
-
I wouldn't think it's fair to call that his WEAK point; He had a very, very good jab which he used more than sparingly.Not nearly enough to have a jabbing war. Leonard was a very fluid flurry puncher and jab was actually one of his weaker points. It is weird though, since he was no swarmer but his speed and skills were so amazing that he boxed on outside without relying much on jab.
It just wasn't his main focus- because it didn't have to be his strong point. Tall sticks like Mark Breland had nothing to fall back on without the jab. Not guys like Leonard or Pernell- Even Floyd.Comment
Comment