Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


View Poll Results: Dempsey vs Never boxed crack head
Dempsey shits his pants and falls down because the crack head is black 8 50.00%
dempsey runs foward with his hands down and gets smashed with a right hand, ko at 13 second mark. 7 43.75%
dempsey loads his gloves and manages to last into the second round...but modern fighter still wins. 1 6.25%
dempsey is not allowed to fight because he was really too small to fight a 120 pound crack head. 0 0%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-30-2010, 07:41 PM   #106
Unforgiven
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,583
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Dempsey Vs. A black 120 pound Crack head who never boxed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnstown View Post
we do have reports from those who saw the fight that describe combos much like you would see elite level fighters throw today. Does that mean that those old times just made those up? and happneed to make up combos that would some day be possible to throw. Or does it make more sense that maybe they where really where throwning those punches.


It makes you wonder.
It's like those boxing manuals and textbooks from early 1900s, with a multitude of techniques that weren't even used by champions until 50 years later.
Unforgiven is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-30-2010, 07:44 PM   #107
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,407
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Dempsey Vs. A black 120 pound Crack head who never boxed

Quote:

It's like, for an example, if 8 minutes of Lewis-Tucker, 4 minutes of Lewis-Bruno, 10 minutes of Lewis-Tua fight, and the entire Lewis-Golota fight were all that survived of Lewis ..... that would be random ..... and assessments of Lewis could differ drastically depending on exactly which minutes are left, not to mention if the samples was of different fights entirely. I mean, it could be better, or a hell of a lot worse.
We base our actual assessments of Lewis on a much wider and more uniformly presented sample.
Not co-incidently, this grouping would give us a fine idea of what Lewis was like. But even if it didn't, I wouldn't say "my possible impression of Lewis will be flawed. Therefore, instead of taking this into consideration, i will throw out every single snippet of film existing from this era in making any judgement about this era" which is exactly what you do.


Quote:
Yes, and you might be surprised how rare it is. The point you are trying to prove is actually impossible to prove because we dont have equal samples from the early era. We dont have anything close to full career sets, or even full title fight footage. We have a few films.
I keep repeating this point because it's important.
It's bad method to compare your findings from a sample of 10,000 to the findings on a sample of 50.
This makes any era-era comparison impossible, and probably any comparison of two individuals where the sampling of film is not exactly the same impossible.


Quote:
I think styles have changed generally. Due to different conditions. Glove size, the standards for stopping a fight, even the need to looks flashy on TV.
Old-timers would wrestle and clinch more, and fight rugged wars of attrition, pace themselves differently, if for example they are going 25 rounds in the midday sun in some desert town in the wild west.
I dont deny that conditions and styles have changed.

But the techniques of punching and avoiding being punched were developed way back.
I dont think it advanced. I mean, do fighters today do more than slip, block, parry, duck, weave, feint, jab, hook, cross, uppercut ?
etc. etc.
The same techniques that were in the boxing textbooks over 100 years ago.
Then how do you account for the fact that boxing looks so different? You can't, because none of it is legible to you (somehow), and even if you could see, you would ignore, because the sample is to small.

There's a reason this sounds crazy.




Quote:
The method is flawed. The samples are unequal. We have loads of minutes of footage of one group, impeccably arranged in order and full context. And a few minutes randomly selected (ie. happened to have been filmed and survived) of the other group.



Okay, I'm not arguing against that, I believe footage should be studied, and assessments are worthy, but even then you can only talk about the fight you saw, or the fragment of the fight you saw. And there's simply not enough footage of the era to make the broad assessments of the era, or even of most individual fighters.
The quality of the footage diminish that even further.
Well every boxing fan i've ever spoken to on the subject disagrees with you. I've never come across someone who wants to throw hours of film straight into the bin as far as tracing technical differences goes. Strange logical constructs aside, you can understand why.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2010, 07:50 PM   #108
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,407
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Dempsey Vs. A black 120 pound Crack head who never boxed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnstown View Post
we do have reports from those who saw the fight that describe combos much like you would see elite level fighters throw today. Does that mean that those old times just made those up? and happneed to make up combos that would some day be possible to throw. Or does it make more sense that maybe they where really where throwning those punches.


I will give you an example. Earlier I spoke about Johnson tripling up the jab. This is how it would have been described in the newspaper of the time (or words to that effect). In fact, what Johnson was doing was throwing a jab, retracting, moving back, jabbing. He did this quite quickly, but a modern viewer would not consider it trippling up the jab. He would see it as "sticking out the left" or "jabbing" or "jabbing and moving". The triple jab now goes rat-a-tat, often they are punches of different lengths.

A writer might desrcibe a left jab left hook left jab. This might be left jab...hook...left jab. Or it might be rat-a-tat. We have absolutely no way to know based upon print media.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2010, 08:23 PM   #109
Unforgiven
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,583
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Dempsey Vs. A black 120 pound Crack head who never boxed

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
Not co-incidently, this grouping would give us a fine idea of what Lewis was like. But even if it didn't, I wouldn't say "my possible impression of Lewis will be flawed. Therefore, instead of taking this into consideration, i will throw out every single snippet of film existing from this era in making any judgement about this era" which is exactly what you do.
No, I dont.
Perhaps you're misunderstanding me. I dont think there's enough film to make an assessment of what did (and what didn't) exist in the era, whereas you seem to think there might be.
I think there's merely enough film to talk about what you can see on those particular films, but without extending that to generalizations on the era.


Quote:
This makes any era-era comparison impossible, and probably any comparison of two individuals where the sampling of film is not exactly the same impossible.
No, there's a tipping point, a threshold. At a certain point we have enough footage to compare or make assumptions.
Just like in surveys, exit polls, etc. where a sample of a certain size will yield fairly accurate results for the whole population, but with a inadequate sample the results would be way off.
I believe ancient pre-1905 footage is some way beneath that threshold.


Quote:
Then how do you account for the fact that boxing looks so different? You can't, because none of it is legible to you (somehow), and even if you could see, you would ignore, because the sample is to small.

There's a reason this sounds crazy.
I think a lot of the Jack Johnson-era footage is legible. Not sure about 1905 or before though.
True, the sample is still a bit small, and I'm still hesistant to make generalizations on the era, or even a fighter such as Johnson, but I can see that some championship fighting of that time looked different to anything you might expect to see on TV in 2000s, and probably for the reasons I stated, but I dont see a level of technique that hasn't yet become advanced.


Quote:

Well every boxing fan i've ever spoken to on the subject disagrees with you. I've never come across someone who wants to throw hours of film straight into the bin as far as tracing technical differences goes. Strange logical constructs aside, you can understand why.
I have no idea why you keep portraying me as wanting to throw away hours of film.

Actually, most fans would agree with me.
In summary, I'm saying we dont like to judge any fighter off of only one or two fights, or fragments of two or three, of poor quality.
In summary, I'm saying we dont like to judge any entire era off of a few scattered fights.
Unforgiven is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2010, 08:30 PM   #110
Unforgiven
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,583
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Dempsey Vs. A black 120 pound Crack head who never boxed

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
I will give you an example. Earlier I spoke about Johnson tripling up the jab. This is how it would have been described in the newspaper of the time (or words to that effect). In fact, what Johnson was doing was throwing a jab, retracting, moving back, jabbing. He did this quite quickly, but a modern viewer would not consider it trippling up the jab. He would see it as "sticking out the left" or "jabbing" or "jabbing and moving". The triple jab now goes rat-a-tat, often they are punches of different lengths.

A writer might desrcibe a left jab left hook left jab. This might be left jab...hook...left jab. Or it might be rat-a-tat. We have absolutely no way to know based upon print media.
.......... and are you saying you can clearly see Corbett throwing rat-a-tat combinations against Fitzsimmons ?

The three-punch combos Holyfield throws at Bowe are hard enough to count on the quality film we have.
I seriously doubt the Corbett-Fitz camera would have even picked up a combination like that.
That's why I say I cannot tell whether Corbett is or is not. It appears he throws a punch followed by another and another, but not sure any of that qualifies as "combination punching" rather than a sustained attack of blows.
Not that i put a premium on one over the other.
Unforgiven is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2010, 08:32 PM   #111
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,407
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Dempsey Vs. A black 120 pound Crack head who never boxed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unforgiven View Post
No, I dont.
Perhaps you're misunderstanding me. I dont think there's enough film to make an assessment of what did (and what didn't) exist in the era, whereas you seem to think there might be.
I think there's merely enough film to talk about what you can see on those particular films, but without extending that to generalizations on the era.
This is different to what you were saying but it's a lot closer to how I see things. As a crude example though, if I saw nobody from the era throwing a left hook, ever, I would deduce that the left hook was a very rare punch.




Quote:
I think a lot of the Jack Johnson-era footage is legible. Not sure about 1905 or before though.
True, the sample is still a bit small, and I'm still hesistant to make generalizations on the era, or even a fighter such as Johnson, but I can see that some championship fighting of that time looked different to anything you might expect to see on TV in 2000s, and probably for the reasons I stated, but I dont see a level of technique that hasn't yet become advanced.
How you explain differences in technique can be deemed irrelevant. If there is a difference between the way these fighters throw combination punches and the way modern fighters throw combination punches, what does the why have to do with it? Unless you believe the moment you handed Jack Johnson modern gloves, explained the modern rules, he would immediatly start fighting like a modern fighter? Of course he wouldn't. He would need time to evolve.

What I am saying to you is that this process of evolution took place throughout this era.




Quote:
I have no idea why you keep portraying me as wanting to throw away hours of film.
Because you want to throw away hours of film, perhaps?

As far as comparative processes go certainly, but to hear you talk about the oldest films we have, I don't see what value you see them as having, you say it's impossible to determin what punches are being thrown, whether combination punches are thrown, and what is generally going on in the fight in the films we've discussed. All in this thread.

Quote:
Actually, most fans would agree with me.
Most fans would agree with you that no comparison can be made? Do you know that the most subscribed threads on this forum, and one of the most popular topics next door, is exactly that? Do you know that almost every member of the forum has a strong opinion on whether or not fighters from this era are comparable with their modern coutnerparts based upon the film that they've seen?

I don't anyone, literally anyone who sees these films and goes "there is no way to know, that told us nothing".

Quote:
In summary, I'm saying we dont like to judge any fighter off of only one or two fights
Yes, we do, the general forum consists of, oh, Conservatively, 30% of posts made exactly on fighters the posters have seen only one or two fights of the protagonists.

Quote:
In summary, I'm saying we dont like to judge any entire era off of a few scattered fights.
Actually, you've said it's not possible.

For my part, i've never said "ay entire era" can be judged of a few fights, but I do say that lessons can be learned from footage you've labelled illegible, when it's clearly not.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2010, 08:43 PM   #112
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,407
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Dempsey Vs. A black 120 pound Crack head who never boxed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unforgiven View Post
.......... and are you saying you can clearly see Corbett throwing rat-a-tat combinations against Fitzsimmons ?
I saw him throw three punches in a row towards the end of the film GreatA posted, yes. This is rather typical of the regularity with which longer combinations are thrown. Most fighters fall directly into clinches after throwing a single shot, or create distance, to avoid being hit themselves. There may also be economy at work, though i'm less confident in that.

8-punch combinations in out boxing do not exist on film for this era. Nor do 7,6,5 and I do not recall having seen a 4, although it's not the sort of thing I store off the top of my head. If there ARE longer combination punches on film, they are very rare.

Yes, it is possible to find three rounds where this does not happen in modern boxing. It is also possible to find 6 rounds, I should think. But I would submit that the least busy combination puncher in high-end boxing is Wladimir Klitschko. I am very happy that he throws far more out-boxing combination punches than any fighter prior to the Driscoll fight I posted earlier, on film. Combinations of lenght were thrown almost exclusively on the inside.


This is a huge difference in technical delivery. Yes, it can be subscribed to the rules of the day. No, it is not likely that the films that survive show some of the most economic fights in that period. There is nothing in the press of the day to indicate that these fights were slow paced. In fact, the opposite is true, these were some of the most exciting fights of the day fought by the most exciting fighters.

The reason for the difference is the different techniques in attack.

The difference is there for all to see, and can be confirmed via secondry sources (which equals a primary source for you due to your dismisal of film - rendering it useless, in turn, because you have nothing to compare it with).

I'm pretty astonished that this amount of typing is required to point something out to somebody when the evidence is on YouTube...

As a final word, the third punch I saw Corbett throw was on his way inside, a shortarm blow and likely not technically outfighting. I wouldn't use that combo as a direct comparison in any area other than numeric. It was in direct response to your remark that you "couldn't tell whether Corbett punched in combination or not", having watched the film of the fight.

Quote:
The three-punch combos Holyfield throws at Bowe are hard enough to count on the quality film we have.
No, it isn't. I don't doubt I occasionally missed one, but on a big screen with a rewind button it would be really easy.

Quote:
I seriously doubt the Corbett-Fitz camera would have even picked up a combination like that.
...but I saw it?
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2010, 08:47 PM   #113
lukevader
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: Jack Dempsey Vs. A black 120 pound Crack head who never boxed

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
jack dempsey stab victim croydon^^^


not funny.

happened in real life

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]



A teenager stabbed as he made his way home from a night out has welcomed the nine-year jail term handed out to his attacker.


Jack Dempsey was randomly slashed with a knife in the early hours of the morning as he cut through an Old Coulsdon churchyard.

Razib Quraishi had followed the 18-year-old off a bus before attacking him from behind.

After seeing the 25-year-old knifeman sentenced, Jack told the Advertiser: "He's not mental but he's a danger to society.

"I'm glad of the sentence because he's got nine years. I'm just relieved it's all over."

As well as admitting last June 11's attack on Jack, Quraishi, from Rickman Hill, Coulsdon, also pleaded guilty to stabbing a 62-year-old man 10 days later in Tower Hamlets.

Jack's right hand was so badly injured he will never regain full use of it and can't open door handles with it.
 Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2010, 08:49 PM   #114
Bokaj
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,232
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Dempsey Vs. A black 120 pound Crack head who never boxed

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGreatA View Post
It's not that difficult to see what's going on in Corbett-Fitzsimmons:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Thanks! Do anyone think this fight even comes close to say Marciano-Charles, Ali-Frazier or Holyfield-Bowe in terms of skill? I think there's a huge gulf.
Bokaj is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2010, 08:52 PM   #115
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,407
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Dempsey Vs. A black 120 pound Crack head who never boxed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokaj View Post
Thanks! Do anyone think this fight even comes close to say Marciano-Charles, Ali-Frazier or Holyfield-Bowe in terms of skill? I think there's a huge gulf.
It's undeniably very different. Less skilled? I don't know about that.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2010, 09:05 PM   #116
Bokaj
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,232
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Dempsey Vs. A black 120 pound Crack head who never boxed

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
It's undeniably very different. Less skilled? I don't know about that.
For me it's very, very clearly less skilled. I think boxing developed tremendously from 1900 to ca 1930-1940. Joe Louis is on a wholly different level compared to these guys.
Bokaj is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2010, 09:09 PM   #117
Bokaj
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,232
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Dempsey Vs. A black 120 pound Crack head who never boxed

That doesn't mean I don't find this time and these fighters very interesting, though. Or that I denigrate them. They were pioneers and very, very tough guys. Can't help but replaying Johnsons story about how he took on Choynski, knowing he'd get KO'd, just to learn from him.
Bokaj is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2010, 09:26 PM   #118
Unforgiven
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,583
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Dempsey Vs. A black 120 pound Crack head who never boxed

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
This is different to what you were saying but it's a lot closer to how I see things. As a crude example though, if I saw nobody from the era throwing a left hook, ever, I would deduce that the left hook was a very rare punch.


How you explain differences in technique can be deemed irrelevant. If there is a difference between the way these fighters throw combination punches and the way modern fighters throw combination punches, what does the why have to do with it? Unless you believe the moment you handed Jack Johnson modern gloves, explained the modern rules, he would immediatly start fighting like a modern fighter? Of course he wouldn't. He would need time to evolve.
You use the terms "evolve" and "advance" in regards to "technique".
That can be interpreted as "technique has become better", although you might not mean that.
Many people on this thread, and this board, do think like that, and flat-out claim earlier fighters were unskilled brawlers, so forgive me if I take issue with those kind of statements.
If you mean modern fighters have evolved to suit the modern rules, then, yes, of course, but I do point out they do so with access to exactly the same toolbox of techniques. They just might favour some over others.

I believe Corbett and Johnson, for example, most probably did adapt their styles when fighting 4- and 6- round bouts to fighting unlimited finish fights.

Quote:
What I am saying to you is that this process of evolution took place throughout this era.
OK.

Quote:
Because you want to throw away hours of film, perhaps?


No.


Quote:
As far as comparative processes go certainly, but to hear you talk about the oldest films we have, I don't see what value you see them as having, you say it's impossible to determin what punches are being thrown, whether combination punches are thrown, and what is generally going on in the fight in the films we've discussed. All in this thread.
Yes.
I can see that Corbett is quite nimble, seems to move well, and these guys knock each other down, and Fitz's body punch KO is there too, Corbett is in distress at the end etc.
But I'm not going to pretend that any intricacies of the punching and boxing are legible, and that matters of their technique are discussable on the grounds of this film.

I mean, imagine if you were training a fighter and you were sent film of that quality to prepare for an opponent. You'd still not have much of anything to go on.

That's reality. I'm not going to pretend that these old flickery fragmented films tell us an awful lot more than they do.
And the Jim Jeffries' fights are even worse ....

Quote:
Most fans would agree with you that no comparison can be made? Do you know that the most subscribed threads on this forum, and one of the most popular topics next door, is exactly that? Do you know that almost every member of the forum has a strong opinion on whether or not fighters from this era are comparable with their modern coutnerparts based upon the film that they've seen?
Yes. And many have strong opinions on fighters they haven't seen, and haven't heard about from anyone who has seen. Based on not much at all.
I cant help that.

But most here would also not dare to have any sort of strong opinion on, say, Marvin Hagler if they have only seen a few minutes of him.
They would utterly agree with me that they need to see more to judge.

But because there's so little to see of the old-timers, everyone seems to think they have a right (or a duty) to form a strong opinion based on very little. Suddenly 5 or 10 minutes of shadowy film becomes a gateway to forming a comprehensive view of a man's style and ability.

Quote:
I don't anyone, literally anyone who sees these films and goes "there is no way to know, that told us nothing".

Yes, we do, the general forum consists of, oh, Conservatively, 30% of posts made exactly on fighters the posters have seen only one or two fights of the protagonists.
and the other 70% are clairvoyants in regular conversation with the ghost of John L. Sullivan ?

Quote:
Actually, you've said it's not possible.

For my part, i've never said "ay entire era" can be judged of a few fights, but I do say that lessons can be learned from footage you've labelled illegible, when it's clearly not.
To my eyes, the footage is not legible enough to make the statements you make.
Maybe my eyes are bad, or you've seen better quality film.
I've never denied that lessons can be learned, just not to the extent you might claim.
I said Corbett-Fitz shows "not much of anything", I dont dismiss it as totally useless and totally void.
It's better than nothing.
Unforgiven is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2010, 03:25 AM   #119
My2Sense
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,971
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Dempsey Vs. A black 120 pound Crack head who never boxed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pachilles View Post
Whats this? Am i supposed to be impressed with anything in this clip??
Yes. You said something about him shitting his pants and falling over at the sight of black fighters.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pachilles View Post
Against the cream of the crop in a boxing ring, he looks ****ing horrific.
You mean as opposed to the HOFers and world champions he's shown KOing in that clip?
My2Sense is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2010, 03:27 AM   #120
My2Sense
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,971
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Dempsey Vs. A black 120 pound Crack head who never boxed

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
What footage would you point to, say, from 1905 or before, that contains out-fighting combination punching as we would understand it?
I don't know about 1905, but we can see it at least as early as 1913, and from someone other than Benny Leonard:

BORKED
My2Sense is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013