Originally Posted by Jack Dempsey
On modern tv, not much, replays, multi angles allow you to get a much better idea on a fighter than say a 1940's piece of footage would.
For example, imagine seeing a prime Dempsey on todays technology
Interestingly enough, something like this could have easily taken place in reality, athough not quite with a prime Dempsey.
One of Jack's final exhibition performances in a boxing ring was at the 1939 Chicago World's Fair. At that same event, color television was demonstrated to the public for the very first time. What might our impressions of the 44 year old Dempsey be, if we saw a videotape of his performance there, in living sound and color? (For one, we'd readily assert that the middle aged version of Dempsey was an infinitely more evolved and fluid boxer than the crude looking brawler battering Willard about 20 years earlier, as recorded on manually operated primitive film technology.)
While I'm no fan of Steve Farhood's writing, the one thing he wrote about that I found most interesting concerned the scoring of the Mike Spinks/Eddie Davis LH Title fight. When attending the match in person, he scored Spinks the winner. But later, when Farhood viewed the same bout on television, he scored Davis the winner.
This was one area where Howard Cosell actually could excel as an announcer while calling a match. He was very good at articulating the difference between what the monitor showed, and what was authentically transpiring in the ring. A hometown crowd might make a loud excited racket over their hero delivering a punch which made a lot of noise, and looked impressive on camera. But if in reality, it was blocked, or merely a grazing punch, Cosell would calmly intone that fact to his viewers.
Likewise, viewing the television rebroadcast of The Valentine's Day massacre between SRR and LaMotta is far different from watching a movie film of the action. TV, movies, or in person, three very alternative experiences of the same event.