James Toney vs Sam Langford

[Ascended]

They seem to have some good chin in general and a lot of stamina. Those 20-40 rounders and **** seem rough.

In general vs. techniques of their era.

You see the matches I posted earlier? Don't you i posted 7matches

Those guys look like 70s-90s fighters to you. You don't see lots of angles, defense, timing, smarts, and fluidity missing? On top of their flaws, those guys just look as advanced as you? Or more advanced to you?

[Ascended]

Oh definitely, they did fight very differently in the past and it doesn't translate to the present very well at all.

What I am curious about here is more your opinion of things, tbh. I'm not really trying to say I agree or don't agree so much as get a strong understanding of your perspective first.

Because last time I just told you, film's a bad study, and this time I kinda did the same. Which is unfair, you should be given a chance to make your case without being bogged down by defending elements of your case.

That's not to say I disagree with JAB. He's doing that element already, it's covered, and so rather than dogpile I'm trying to give you a more open platform to get your thoughts out and clearly communicated.



Do you feel like present boxers would do well in eras that have no time limits, less weight divisions, horsehair gloves, crappy 30s era shoes, no neutral corners, no 3kd rules, etc?

I did agree with this one, but, in general this isn't about my approval. Homie you don't need my approval at all and you know that. This is more about getting a dissenting opinion fully opined. I just want to see with your eyes for a bit if I am able to get it through you.

Those guys in the matches I posted look like 70s-90s fighters to you?,You don't see lots of angles, defense, timing, smarts, and fluidity missing? On top of their flaws, those guys just look as advanced as you? Or more advanced to you?

I can't give you any opinion; I speak from what's on video only. I know for a fact that the average 70s-90s would destroy the past eras; it's easy to see they were way too advanced.

I don't need anybody to agree with anything I say because I can see,nobody can alter my vision with words or tell me something I know I don't see with my own vision. I see every obsolete or advanced tech when comparing eras

[billeau2]

Oh definitely, they did fight very differently in the past and it doesn't translate to the present very well at all.

What I am curious about here is more your opinion of things, tbh. I'm not really trying to say I agree or don't agree so much as get a strong understanding of your perspective first.

Because last time I just told you, film's a bad study, and this time I kinda did the same. Which is unfair, you should be given a chance to make your case without being bogged down by defending elements of your case.

That's not to say I disagree with JAB. He's doing that element already, it's covered, and so rather than dogpile I'm trying to give you a more open platform to get your thoughts out and clearly communicated.



Do you feel like present boxers would do well in eras that have no time limits, less weight divisions, horsehair gloves, crappy 30s era shoes, no neutral corners, no 3kd rules, etc?

I did agree with this one, but, in general this isn't about my approval. Homie you don't need my approval at all and you know that. This is more about getting a dissenting opinion fully opined. I just want to see with your eyes for a bit if I am able to get it through you.

That was truly a magnonious gesture. I mean that no irony, but from his response? You can see what you're dealing with. The guy can't make an argument He's looking at tape and he cannot even really enunciate what his criticism is other than speaking to some very general concepts that don't give any information to speak of. Then he becomes defensive when you actually give him a platform. Which to me tells a lot.

I remember I had a restaurant manager once when I used to work at the Marriott Marquee in New York he was interesting guy. He had managed one of the best destination restaurants in Long Island until it fell out of style and he went to the Marriott. He once told me something I never forgot. There was some old person who was complaining about something that made no sense and he kind of looked at me and you said just because somebody is old doesn't mean they weren't an evil son of a b**** when they were young and are still an evil son of a b****. Lol.

You see where I'm going with this? Sometimes it is what it is as the kids say these days. I would love it if ascended turned out to be some brilliant boxing mind who is misunderstood. Sometimes posters can surprise you. I really got to know juggernaut better when I would listen to his take on modern fighters. The guy's very very bright and it doesn't always come across because of his posting style. But if you ever want to listen to his takes on some of the fighters especially the heavyweight division these days have a lot of respect for his opinions.

[billeau2]

Angles and boxing. In martial arts generally angles can be categorized based on three measures. The first is the absolute angle one assumes to their opponent. The second is the angle assumed to the incoming attack... We're talking whether somebody is trying to grab you, throw you, or hit you. The third is angling with one specific part of your body. This is very important because a lot of very subtle angles are utilized on this level.

It is precisely this last category that is hard to know unless you know what to look for. It is also the subtle approach of professional fighters. In a boxing match, slipping punches, setting up, means angling using sometimes just my head, shoulders, etc.

If you look at tapes carefully, not simply the quality or the speed of the tape, you will see how fight is utilize this last category of angles. It is not obvious and has to be looked for.

[billeau2]

No angles? Really? Watch Walker, watch as he slips sharkies attack by angling off with his head and shoulders. There's a lot of grappling in this fight that doesn't mean there isn't angles being used or that range is deficient. Sharky meanwhile is careful to set up in a profile position. He does this so there's less target for Walker. In order to utilize his offense he has to move his head off this line by, you guessed it, creating an angle.

You just have to know what to look for.

[Ascended]

No angles? Really? Watch Walker, watch as he slips sharkies attack by angling off with his head and shoulders. There's a lot of grappling in this fight that doesn't mean there isn't angles being used or that range is deficient. Sharky meanwhile is careful to set up in a profile position. He does this so there's less target for Walker. In order to utilize his offense he has to move his head off this line by, you guessed it, creating an angle.

You just have to know what to look for.craxy

why not insult him what's the difference from what I say,oh cause I say old era are novices/trash compared not nice enough for you sensitive cult crazy members?

[Ascended]

No angles? Really? Watch Walker, watch as he slips sharkies attack by angling off with his head and shoulders. There's a lot of grappling in this fight that doesn't mean there isn't angles being used or that range is deficient. Sharky meanwhile is careful to set up in a profile position. He does this so there's less target for Walker. In order to utilize his offense he has to move his head off this line by, you guessed it, creating an angle.

You just have to know what to look for.

Where are the odd comments to him like this

[Ascended]

No angles? Really? Watch Walker, watch as he slips sharkies attack by angling off with his head and shoulders. There's a lot of grappling in this fight that doesn't mean there isn't angles being used or that range is deficient. Sharky meanwhile is careful to set up in a profile position. He does this so there's less target for Walker. In order to utilize his offense he has to move his head off this line by, you guessed it, creating an angle.

You just have to know what to look for.

Why not odd responses to him like this

You crazy idiots cult members give away you're obviously hurt by me saying what i say,I can't alter video I only described what's on video im sorry that hurts you crazy idiots

[Ascended]

8

No angles? Really? Watch Walker, watch as he slips sharkies attack by angling off with his head and shoulders. There's a lot of grappling in this fight that doesn't mean there isn't angles being used or that range is deficient. Sharky meanwhile is careful to set up in a profile position. He does this so there's less target for Walker. In order to utilize his offense he has to move his head off this line by, you guessed it, creating an angle.

You just have to know what to look for.

crazy idiots Cult members give away You're obviously hurt by me saying what I say. I can't alter the video; I only described what's on the video. I'm sorry that hurts you crazy idiots.

I even posted 7 videos yesterday showing how multiple guys all had the same obsolete tech and flaws as each other that no average amateur or midcarder had in the 1970s and 1990s, but I have been told multiple times by crazy idiots like you. The videos show those guys as not obsolete, which means you guys have bad vision and are crazy.

I don't need any of you crazy idiots to agree with my good vision i know what I see you won't change that no matter how hard you try


Why didn't you callout you're fellow cult member jab for lying when I asked him mutiple times to show or name guys who made mid in 70s-90s with the exact flaws from 30s-50s,all he kept saying for some odd reason is all era's have flaws which means he knows no one made mid/top in the years I named

you won't do that will you? every video I posted shows I'm correct they all had these flaws

Stay hurt

[JAB5239]

boxing fan and a boxing historian: ‘A boxing fan is content with just watching fights; a boxing historian needs much more. He needs to get access to the fighters and get inside accounts. Historians ask questions.
‘A fan will read that Willie Pep once won the third round of his fight with Jackie Graves without throwing a punch and believe the myth. A historian will read through the reels of newspaper microfilm from the city where the fight took place, interview spectators when possible and compare newspaper accounts.
‘This is important because history becomes heresy if the facts are not reported and spoken of in an accurate manner.
‘Would it make a difference if you knew that the newspapers of the time never reported a story about Pep winning a round in such a manner and that the fable did not emerge until decades later? Or would it matter that the actual newspaper accounts state that the third round was the most rabid of the night, saying, “A clicker couldn’t count the blows.” Would you still believe the tale? You would if you were a person eager to spread legend and predisposed to accepting stories because they agree with your particular ideas. You wouldn’t if you are a historian. You would want to know the truth and once presented with the facts would accept them as such.
The myth most often foisted today is: Fighters are “bigger, faster, stronger and better” than ever. Do they have superior fundamentals? Do they throw more punches? Are they “new and improved” and better than the legends?
The new breed spouts off about the sport’s “evolution” But the old-time greats were just as skilled in the lower weight classes as the moderns.
A swarmer then is a swarmer today, and they were much better at in-fighting. The slick boxers of that era had an even bigger bag of tricks than the TV darlings. They were better at feinting, trapping, and glove blocking.
What makes a complete fighter? Speed, power, precision punching, combinations, footwork, toughness, durability, endurance, and boxing skill. In the last 60 years of “evolution,” how many fighters have been better overall than “Sugar” Ray Robinson?
There are many myths perpetuated on boxing boards about the great fighters of the past.
“No fighters before 1980 were any good.”
“No fighters before 1970 were any good.”
“No fighters before 1960 were any good.”
“No fighters before WW2 were any good.”
“No fighters before 1930 were any good.”
“They didn’t throw sustained combination punches before 1920.”
“All fighters from the early 20th century were crude, with no semblance of skill.”
“The old-time fights were very slow-paced.”
“Because of superior nutrition and training, today’s fighters are better than those of the past.”
Why not add: The world is flat – all are myths!
Boxing training hasn’t changed much in over 100 years. Jogging, jumping rope, medicine balls, bag work, sparring, and even rowing machines have been around since the late 19th century. While there have been advances in nutrition and supplements, this hasn’t helped today's crop fight as many rounds or as often as those of the past.
One often sees fighters – especially heavyweights now -- tire before the 12th round.
Training hasn’t improved. If anything there are less qualified trainers than ever before. Joe Frazier commented in KO ****zine, March 1999, ‘These guys aren’t trained by real champions, by great ex-fighters.”
The best trainers in history were fighters who knew all the ins-and-outs of the game. Rocky Marciano's trainer, Charley Goldman, claimed to have had over 300 pro fights. Jack Blackburn, Joe Louis’ trainer, was one of the great fighters of the turn of the century and had over 160 pro fights. He fought the likes of Joe Gans, Sam Langford, and Harry Greb.
Ray Arcel, who learned from some of the greats, like Benny Leonard and Whitey Bimstein, noted shortly before his death, ‘Boxing is not really boxing today. It’s theater. Some kids might look good. But they don’t learn their trade. If you take a piece of gold out of the ground, you know its gold. But you have to clean it. You have to polish it. But there aren’t too many guys capable (today) of polishing a fighter.”
The only significant change in the game is fighters box fewer rounds. Styles have remained consistent
By the early 20th century, there were four basic styles: the out-boxers, like Jim Driscoll, Abe Attell, Philadelphia Jack O’Brien, and Benny Leonard; the well-balanced boxer-punchers, like Joe Gans and Sam Langford; swarmers, like Battling Nelson, and crude sluggers like Stanley Ketchel.
Early 20th century boxers were much better infighters than the current breed. This is due, in part, to Muhammad Ali, who rarely went to the body, and amateur rules that don’t give sufficient weight to body blows.
Some modern referees will separate fighters as soon as they get close. The John Ruiz-Roy Jones fight is an example: Every time Ruiz got close, the referee broke them, stymieing Ruiz’s ability to deal with the much-faster Jones.
With the disparity in talent, it may not have made any difference.
Boxing historian Michael Hunnicut is an avid collector of vintage fight films. He used to trade films with Jimmy Jacobs of Big Fights Inc. He’s painstakingly researched and studied the punch stats of the earliest fights available on film.
Here are some of the surprising results that will be published in a future issue of the IBRO journal:
The notion that fighters of the early 20th century fought at a slow place and their punch stat numbers were not equal to those of modern fighters can be verifiably proven false. It’s a myth!
Take a look at a well-known modern-era classic: Ray Leonard versus Roberto Duran, June 20, 1980 Montreal, Ca. Duran averaged 90-92 punches for 15 rounds -- a sizzling pace – a classic war.
A recent, more familiar fight, Gatti-Ward three in 2003, Arturo averaged 71 punches a round, according to Compubox, which is still a very fast pace.
In comparison, Henry Armstrong’s Nov 15, 1938 welterweight title defense against Ceferino Garcia, Hammerin’ Hank averaged 70 punches a round, to earn a 15-round decision.
His punch output was very good, but fell short of the torrid pace he set at his peak.
Shane Mosley threw an average of 41 punches a round in his return 12 with Oscar De La Hoya that he won by a shade in 2003. ODLH, who some ringsiders had ahead, averaged 51 a round.
Did past greats fight slower than moderns? Consider the following: One of the most action-packed battles of recent memory was the 2003 Fight-of-the-Year candidate, Vassily Jirov versus -James Toney. Jirov lost a hotly contested nod, but was the busier man, averaging 86 punches for all 12 rounds.
There have been fights in the past just as heated over greater distances.
The Battling Nelson and Ad Wolgast lightweight championship held on Feb 22, 1910 was called “for concentrated viciousness... the most savage bout I have ever seen” wrote W.O. McGeehan in the New York Herald Tribune.
Michael Hunnicut agrees, saying it is “the best fight I have ever seen on film.” They fought to the 42nd round. Nelson, a swarmer, like Ricky Hatton, averaged 85 punches a round. He threw 90 in the 30th round.
They slowed in the 39th. Nelson, the loser, threw 70. These guys threw just as many punches-a-round as one sees in a 12-rounder today, but they did it for over 40!
Here’s another myth buster. The Willie Ritchie-Joe Rivers July 4, 1913 lightweight championship match, featured a whopping 95 punches-a-round from Ritchie -- 3-5 punch combinations – before stopping Rivers in the 11th – clear evidence, he could match the intensity of anybody currently.
The final myth: fighters back-in-the-day didn’t punch as hard or as cleanly, and scored fewer early-round KO’s. Not true.
Three things must be considered. The vintage fighters fought more scheduled rounds, so the average fight lasted longer.
Fights are stopped much more quickly now. The Joe Gans-Battling Nelson fight in Goldfield would have ended in the 15th round under modern conditions. Nelson had been down twice, was bleeding and was careening around the ring, hands down, like a drunken sailor.
No way that fight would have continued today. We don’t allow people to take that kind of a beating.
Now, if a fighter half staggers when asked to walk forward after a knockdown, the fight is stopped. That’s why there weren’t as many early stoppages.
There were plenty of great punchers and boxer-punchers in the early 20th century. It was the norm, not the exception.
-Terry McGovern knocked out 10 men in a total of 17 rounds, the victims included top ranked contenders like Pat Haley, Harry Forbes and bantamweight champion Pedlar Palmer, who was undefeated.
-Joe Gans was one of the greatest fighters of any time. The San Francisco Chronicle, Sep. 28, 1904 wrote of his marvelous speed and skills, “Those who have watched Gans go through his work every day are amazed at his wonderful agility, his speed and his clean hitting ability.”
In his career, Gans scored 70 knockouts that were 10 rounds or less, and 27 knockouts that were three rounds or less, and the victims included hard hitting left-hook artist Dal Hawkins, lightweight champion Frank Erne, and the usually durable Elbows McFadden.
-Bob Fitzsimmons had 47 knockouts in his 54 wins, and although not much more than a middleweight, he knocked out heavyweight contenders Gus Ruhlin in six, Peter Maher in one, and Tom Sharkey, whom some old-timers compared favorably to Rocky Marciano, in two rounds.
-Stanley Ketchel was a murderous puncher, who scored 50 knockouts in his 54 wins, 19 were three rounds or less, and the victims included top men, like Mike “Twin” Sullivan and Philadelphia Jack O’Brien.
- Sam Langford had more knockouts than Mike Tyson and George Foreman combined. His 138 career knockouts (research by historian Tim Leone) are second only to Archie Moore on the all-time list.
These guys could punch cleanly, and with great fundamental mechanics. One can’t score so many knockouts otherwise.
To under-estimate them because they weren’t on HBO or ESPN does them a disservice. To say men are are “better” because its now, instead of then, doesn’t hold water. It’s a myth!
I recently watched a very good technician Winky Wright struggle with Sam Solimon. Soliman looked goofy on modern zoom-lensed HBO cameras. Can you imagine how funny he'd look filmed with 1910 technology? Don't look at the speed of those hand cranked films and get mislead. And most of those guys were much better at infighting than the tough Aussie, who showed how guys with amazing stamina like toughman Battling Nelson had such success.
Legendary fighters could compete with the moderns. They could fight at just as fast a pace for more rounds. This is fact.
On any playing field, the legendary fighters are the equal, or better, than modern ones. Just keep thinking Ray Robinson.