Do you think fighters from 1900-1930 look good on film?

Well, I think Gene Tunney looks the best on film...he looks more like a modern fighter than any of them...an opinion shared by Muhammad Ali too, I might add. He stated as much on that special edition of Wide World of Sports with him and Cosell reviewing the heavyweight champs of the past.

 

OMG I know, right? So jerky and nonathletic. It's hilarious when people try to blame it on the primitive film technology of that era.

Contrast it to these two modern examples of boxing evolution

http://youtu.be/srrmj6eAFGc

 

you have to bear in mind the smaller gloves make hands up defence less effective, the footwear and ring surfaces limited the potential for dancing styles and all the infighting/wrestling was a leftover from the bareknuckle days. obviously these things evolved over the 30 year period.

fitz looks alrite for the style he fought. remember he learned his stuff from true bareknucke guys in the 1880s . wouldn't win a lot of decisions like that with modern gloves today at a high level, but for a counter puncher looking for ko's his shifts and judgment of range are effective enough.

gans has a bunch of textbook movements and punches, probably the poster boy for pre 30's technique. tunney looks good too.

langford looks good offensivley.

walker wasn't a defensive guy either but there's less skilled guys brawling at world level today

honorable mention for papke, actually looks pretty good v carpentier, murders him in close.

i can't say leonard looks awe inspiring in the tendler fight, but tendler was a rough guy and the camera was miles away so it's hard to say he looks bad either.

 

They look good to those who know how to look and what they should be looking for. They fought 15, 20, 30, 40 rounds back then. Endurance was everything. Can you imagine talking any similar size fighter from today and throwing him in with battling Nelson for a scheduled 45 round bout?

 

Baer and Schmeling looked bad enough fighting each other and that was in the 1930s.

 

Where as Max Schmeling totally took a prime Joe Louis (as fine and as fluid as any modern fighter) compleatly apart on a technical level?

 

that's NOT old school filming by any means... that's simply modern film 'glazed' over with a bit of scratch, speed and occasional jerking...

NOT AT ALL flawed, missing time, jerky, scratched, glared and again 'missing' time like MOST of the old footage.

it IS **** POOR FILM and FILMING Ability and of course 'deterioration' that doesn't allow us to see them as they really were.

2 points however...

1) your right Boxing did evolve and improve.
more accurately refined in athleticism and technic... it has also suffered too in these modern times mostly through lack of fighting, competition, boxing boards, weight dissection and todays typical BS destroying the sport. it evolved away from the turn of the century holding and wrestling as one person has already mentioned to become more like boxing as we know it.

2) MOST IMPORTANT of all here - there IS some good old footage that was obviously Filmed Right and Preserved Well that has survived and IS Available to view and it shows Quite Clearly, just how Good and NORMAL looking these fighters Were/ARE...

I suggest you see that and IF your an honest person you will have to acknowledge the quality of the fighters... there is an Australian site with LOADS of fights from the 30s & 40s where the Film is as clear and perfect as we're going to get from that era and the fighters look great.

keep in mind too they did this every other week against noted top and great fighters for years on end.

So SEE How NORMAL they look and then multiple it by 3 or 4 or 5 times even against your hero's today and ask an honest deductive question... "I wonder how many of our champions and top men today would have 'remained' among the Top, IF they had to participate in the same number of contests???"

 

when did hopkins start out ?

 

That is quite a big chunk of time to consider.

Obviously many fighters from the 20s look outstanding.

In the period from 1910-1920 most of them don't look particularly impressive, but there are notable exceptions.

If you go back much earlier than that, then none of them look particularly impressive, but would you really expect them to?

It is probably no coincidence, that a lot of these older fighters looked a lot better sparring in their 60s, as old men.

I rather doubt that they got better.

 

It's primitive boxing for the most part outside of Kid Chocolate and Benny Leonard, the sport evolved a great deal in the 30s and 40s.

Leonard, Gans, Tunney all look good but aren't the pinnacle of the sport.

 

What 1900's film have you seen of Fitz?
MacFarland was a great fighter who looks excellent against Freddie Welsh, himself no slouch.
Jim Driscoll looks terrific on film. I would say some and some, and due allowance must be given to the crude filming techniques.

 

Very few look good on film. Most look downright awful. But enough look downright legit, so that it's hard sometimes to argue about the others. Benny Leonard, Gene Tunney, Mickey Walker, Pancho Villa, Tommy Loughran, and Tony Canzoneri in the 20s look dynamite. From 1910s and before that Jack Johnson, Jimmy Wilde, Sam Langford, Joe Gans, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien etc. don't look so good.

 

Sturgeon's law applies.

 

Did you see Baer's flailing backhands and telegraphed haymakers? No sane person could watch that and praise their technique. Baer was the greater perpetrator, but also happened to win.