Tweet
From Manny Pacquiao to the Klitschkos: The View from the Fight Fan
By Mike Plunkett
“His longevity exceeds that of any champion in any weight class” – Chris Petrill (on “The Brown Bomber” Joe Louis)
We live in an age where technology can bring together boxing fans from the far reaches of the globe in a way that wouldn’t have been imaginable even ten years ago. Facebook has been the social networking facility of the hour for about four years now and for me it has become an indispensible tool on many fronts, especially when it comes to networking with like-minded hardcore fight fans and those embedded firmly on the inside of the sport. Awhile back I took part in one of those friendly Facebook debates on the fight game that start out as a harmless question about one thing or another. You know the type; the kind of question draws about a hundred responses, some reasonable and other half-****ed, that segue a half dozen times and devolve into a firefight between passionate hardcore fans for no logical reason.
Over the course of this seemingly prolonged back and forth I quickly took note of the responses of one member in particular, Mr. Chris Petrill. A lifelong fight fan, Chris dutifully replied to every question or challenge set before him. His responses were balanced and well thought out to the point it was clear he was somebody that had studied The Sweet Science and its long and celebrated history. Over time and after many exchanged messages I was clear on the fact that I was dealing with somebody who was a ‘lifer’, opinionated and ready to back up his views and assertions with reason and facts, and that it would be enjoyable for you, our loyal readers, and I, to pose him with a varying array of questions; a sort of overview on various fighters and eras. I think you’ll find his responses very well thought out and worth the read.
MP: You are a sort of student of the sport of boxing. Your tastes range all the way back to the Sam Langford era, a time when many of the most talented black fighters were exchanging leather on short notice and for what effectively amounts to meal money. Looking at Sam Langford, what was it that captivated you as a fan and do you think his spirit lives at all today?
The man was the combination of quick boxer of the Chris Byrd or Eddie Chambers variety (in terms of speed, boxing ability, and ring IQ) with the power of a Klitschko or Tyson. That is the type skill set that would allow him to compete in any era.
By all accounts, he got the better of the world champions he fought; he defeated lightweight champ Joe Gans over a 15-round decision and he was the victim of incompetent judging when he lost Joe Walcott for the welterweight crown. Sadly, that was the only title shot he received. He also dominated the great Stanley Ketchel for a 6-round no-decision and knocked-out Philadelphia Jack O’Brien in impressive fashion. In fact, he was far more impressive with O’Brien than was Jack Johnson. Sadly, when Langford fought the aforementioned Johnson, he was a small middleweight at 150 lbs to Johnson’s 195lbs. As Sam grew in size and experience he lobbied for a rematch. Unfortunately Jack declined realizing how much Langford had improved and deemed him too dangerous a proposition.
Langford was light years ahead of his time. In many respects he was Muhammad Ali before [the era] of Ali in that he often predicted the round in which he would dispose of his opponent. For example, in one of his bouts, he asked his opponent’s chief seconds what they were doing. They responded by saying that they were cutting oranges to give him between rounds. Langford responded with “He won’t be making it back”. Langford then proceeded to unload a combo and knocked the man out. I can sum up his greatness by pointing to his unprecedented rise; the man started his career as a lightweight and eventually moved up and peaked as a leading heavyweight contender.
In fact, I would contend that for a period of the Johnson reign, he was the best heavyweight on the planet. I would suggest that any boxing fan look at his old films on YouTube and behold the mastery he exhibited with respect to slipping and parrying jabs, his revolutionary feinting and his tremendous body punching. His accomplishments in this respect surpass those of Manny Pacquiao. Could you imagine if Oscar De La Hoya went up to heavyweight and beat the best available contenders? That is precisely what Langford did. He began his career at lightweight and excelled all the way up to and at heavyweight. He was quite simply one of the greatest fighters in the history of the sport.
MP: Jack Johnson broke through in 1908 by crossing the color line and taking the World heavyweight championship away from Tommy Burns, a white fighter. Today Johnson is credited with breaking down a boundary and becoming the first ever black World heavyweight champion. Years later in 1937 Joe Louis won the heavyweight championship and went on to reign for an unprecedented 11 years, in that time, further bridging the gap between blacks and whites. Both were trail-blazers and great all-time heavyweights; differentiate between “The Galveston Giant” and “The Brown Bomber”, their styles and historical impact for our readers.
These two men were both trail blazers but that is where the similarities end. Jack Johnson did more harm than good in many respects, especially the manner in which he played with and taunted opponents. One could say he ushered in the era of poor sportsmanship. The man elicited so much hatred with his arrogance and irreverence that he made it very difficult for Joe Louis to receive a shot. In fact Joe Louis had to adhere to a strict behavioral model which had many restrictions, one of which did not allow him to eat watermelon, his favorite food, in public. Jack Johnson also did the unspeakable by writing an article predicting Germany’s Max Schmeling would win, and subsequently wagered on him as well.
In fact, he even offered to train Schmeling. To add insult to injury, he paraded around Harlem flaunting his winnings after Schmeling defeated Louis. That said, he was a great fighter, but one I believe who benefited from a weak era bereft combination punchers. His style was one that utilized a ramming jab and uppercuts on the inside. Johnson was very effective at working in clinches and using them to his strategic advantage. It was in close where he landed most of his meaningful punches. I can’t imagine him being successful today with 12-round championship fights and much larger men who would outmuscle him in the clinches.
I don’t like the fact that he drew the color line when he became champion, denying worthy black fighters like Sam Langford the opportunity to fight for the title. Once the door was open to him he closed it to members of his kind; that is both selfish and counterproductive to advancing any civil rights agenda. Think about it for a moment. Can you imagine two black men fighting for the title in 1910? It would have been unprecedented. Though he was the first, his motives were very self-serving.
Joe Louis is a man about whom I cannot say enough great things. This man did more for advancing the cause of black athletes than anyone. He was the first man of color to be embraced as a hero by the nation. That is enormous accomplishment given the time period. Joe Louis was not as athletic as Johnson but he was more technically sound in my opinion and a better boxer-puncher. Joe threw devastating combinations and had dynamite in both hands. Every punch he threw exemplified precision and form. His longevity exceeds that of any champion in any weight class.
That is simply staggering! Joe could outbox you and out-punch you. Louis was also more of a stalker and did not elect to fight on the inside often, if at all. It is also important not to forget that this man was unbeatable in rematches. For example, Joe Walcott, Arturo Godoy, and Billy Conn all faired reasonably well, especially Conn and Walcott in their first encounters with Louis, only to be dominated in the rematch. I feel that this is a fact many people overlook. On my all-time heavyweight list, Joe Louis is number one and no one else is close.
MP: I had the pleasure of interviewing somebody recently with ties to the late Archie Moore’s first wife. Over the course of that discussion it came out that she had stated that in fact the “Old Mongoose” was in fact four years older than what was listed on his birth certificate. This would suggest that Moore was in fact anywhere from 36 to 40 years-old when he won the World light heavyweight title, an ancient age for any prizefighter, let alone one at the elite world-class level. How many examples has the sport had like Moore over the years and what do you feel they did differently that enabled them to thrive into their forties?
Bernard Hopkins is definitely one fighter that comes to mind as he just fought brilliantly to a controversial draw with arguably the best light heavyweight in the world in Jean Pascal. I think his dedication to his craft and his clean lifestyle has enabled him to remain fresh as fighter in his mid to late 40’s. George Foreman would certainly be another example of this. I think in the case of George it was the maturity he acquired through his self-imposed hiatus from the sport that allowed him to compete well at an older age. In addition I think he fought smarter when he got older in contrast to the full speed ahead, knock the other guy out at all costs approach he employed in his first career. I think we will be able to include Vitali Klitschko in this category if he continues his dominance after reaching the age 40 threshold.
By Mike Plunkett
“His longevity exceeds that of any champion in any weight class” – Chris Petrill (on “The Brown Bomber” Joe Louis)
We live in an age where technology can bring together boxing fans from the far reaches of the globe in a way that wouldn’t have been imaginable even ten years ago. Facebook has been the social networking facility of the hour for about four years now and for me it has become an indispensible tool on many fronts, especially when it comes to networking with like-minded hardcore fight fans and those embedded firmly on the inside of the sport. Awhile back I took part in one of those friendly Facebook debates on the fight game that start out as a harmless question about one thing or another. You know the type; the kind of question draws about a hundred responses, some reasonable and other half-****ed, that segue a half dozen times and devolve into a firefight between passionate hardcore fans for no logical reason.
Over the course of this seemingly prolonged back and forth I quickly took note of the responses of one member in particular, Mr. Chris Petrill. A lifelong fight fan, Chris dutifully replied to every question or challenge set before him. His responses were balanced and well thought out to the point it was clear he was somebody that had studied The Sweet Science and its long and celebrated history. Over time and after many exchanged messages I was clear on the fact that I was dealing with somebody who was a ‘lifer’, opinionated and ready to back up his views and assertions with reason and facts, and that it would be enjoyable for you, our loyal readers, and I, to pose him with a varying array of questions; a sort of overview on various fighters and eras. I think you’ll find his responses very well thought out and worth the read.
MP: You are a sort of student of the sport of boxing. Your tastes range all the way back to the Sam Langford era, a time when many of the most talented black fighters were exchanging leather on short notice and for what effectively amounts to meal money. Looking at Sam Langford, what was it that captivated you as a fan and do you think his spirit lives at all today?
The man was the combination of quick boxer of the Chris Byrd or Eddie Chambers variety (in terms of speed, boxing ability, and ring IQ) with the power of a Klitschko or Tyson. That is the type skill set that would allow him to compete in any era.
By all accounts, he got the better of the world champions he fought; he defeated lightweight champ Joe Gans over a 15-round decision and he was the victim of incompetent judging when he lost Joe Walcott for the welterweight crown. Sadly, that was the only title shot he received. He also dominated the great Stanley Ketchel for a 6-round no-decision and knocked-out Philadelphia Jack O’Brien in impressive fashion. In fact, he was far more impressive with O’Brien than was Jack Johnson. Sadly, when Langford fought the aforementioned Johnson, he was a small middleweight at 150 lbs to Johnson’s 195lbs. As Sam grew in size and experience he lobbied for a rematch. Unfortunately Jack declined realizing how much Langford had improved and deemed him too dangerous a proposition.
Langford was light years ahead of his time. In many respects he was Muhammad Ali before [the era] of Ali in that he often predicted the round in which he would dispose of his opponent. For example, in one of his bouts, he asked his opponent’s chief seconds what they were doing. They responded by saying that they were cutting oranges to give him between rounds. Langford responded with “He won’t be making it back”. Langford then proceeded to unload a combo and knocked the man out. I can sum up his greatness by pointing to his unprecedented rise; the man started his career as a lightweight and eventually moved up and peaked as a leading heavyweight contender.
In fact, I would contend that for a period of the Johnson reign, he was the best heavyweight on the planet. I would suggest that any boxing fan look at his old films on YouTube and behold the mastery he exhibited with respect to slipping and parrying jabs, his revolutionary feinting and his tremendous body punching. His accomplishments in this respect surpass those of Manny Pacquiao. Could you imagine if Oscar De La Hoya went up to heavyweight and beat the best available contenders? That is precisely what Langford did. He began his career at lightweight and excelled all the way up to and at heavyweight. He was quite simply one of the greatest fighters in the history of the sport.
MP: Jack Johnson broke through in 1908 by crossing the color line and taking the World heavyweight championship away from Tommy Burns, a white fighter. Today Johnson is credited with breaking down a boundary and becoming the first ever black World heavyweight champion. Years later in 1937 Joe Louis won the heavyweight championship and went on to reign for an unprecedented 11 years, in that time, further bridging the gap between blacks and whites. Both were trail-blazers and great all-time heavyweights; differentiate between “The Galveston Giant” and “The Brown Bomber”, their styles and historical impact for our readers.
These two men were both trail blazers but that is where the similarities end. Jack Johnson did more harm than good in many respects, especially the manner in which he played with and taunted opponents. One could say he ushered in the era of poor sportsmanship. The man elicited so much hatred with his arrogance and irreverence that he made it very difficult for Joe Louis to receive a shot. In fact Joe Louis had to adhere to a strict behavioral model which had many restrictions, one of which did not allow him to eat watermelon, his favorite food, in public. Jack Johnson also did the unspeakable by writing an article predicting Germany’s Max Schmeling would win, and subsequently wagered on him as well.
In fact, he even offered to train Schmeling. To add insult to injury, he paraded around Harlem flaunting his winnings after Schmeling defeated Louis. That said, he was a great fighter, but one I believe who benefited from a weak era bereft combination punchers. His style was one that utilized a ramming jab and uppercuts on the inside. Johnson was very effective at working in clinches and using them to his strategic advantage. It was in close where he landed most of his meaningful punches. I can’t imagine him being successful today with 12-round championship fights and much larger men who would outmuscle him in the clinches.
I don’t like the fact that he drew the color line when he became champion, denying worthy black fighters like Sam Langford the opportunity to fight for the title. Once the door was open to him he closed it to members of his kind; that is both selfish and counterproductive to advancing any civil rights agenda. Think about it for a moment. Can you imagine two black men fighting for the title in 1910? It would have been unprecedented. Though he was the first, his motives were very self-serving.
Joe Louis is a man about whom I cannot say enough great things. This man did more for advancing the cause of black athletes than anyone. He was the first man of color to be embraced as a hero by the nation. That is enormous accomplishment given the time period. Joe Louis was not as athletic as Johnson but he was more technically sound in my opinion and a better boxer-puncher. Joe threw devastating combinations and had dynamite in both hands. Every punch he threw exemplified precision and form. His longevity exceeds that of any champion in any weight class.
That is simply staggering! Joe could outbox you and out-punch you. Louis was also more of a stalker and did not elect to fight on the inside often, if at all. It is also important not to forget that this man was unbeatable in rematches. For example, Joe Walcott, Arturo Godoy, and Billy Conn all faired reasonably well, especially Conn and Walcott in their first encounters with Louis, only to be dominated in the rematch. I feel that this is a fact many people overlook. On my all-time heavyweight list, Joe Louis is number one and no one else is close.
MP: I had the pleasure of interviewing somebody recently with ties to the late Archie Moore’s first wife. Over the course of that discussion it came out that she had stated that in fact the “Old Mongoose” was in fact four years older than what was listed on his birth certificate. This would suggest that Moore was in fact anywhere from 36 to 40 years-old when he won the World light heavyweight title, an ancient age for any prizefighter, let alone one at the elite world-class level. How many examples has the sport had like Moore over the years and what do you feel they did differently that enabled them to thrive into their forties?
Bernard Hopkins is definitely one fighter that comes to mind as he just fought brilliantly to a controversial draw with arguably the best light heavyweight in the world in Jean Pascal. I think his dedication to his craft and his clean lifestyle has enabled him to remain fresh as fighter in his mid to late 40’s. George Foreman would certainly be another example of this. I think in the case of George it was the maturity he acquired through his self-imposed hiatus from the sport that allowed him to compete well at an older age. In addition I think he fought smarter when he got older in contrast to the full speed ahead, knock the other guy out at all costs approach he employed in his first career. I think we will be able to include Vitali Klitschko in this category if he continues his dominance after reaching the age 40 threshold.
Comment