How much do the rarest fights sell for?

I do put a premium on it. Thats my prerogative. If I wanted to invest my time and money into collecting cheese graters, or picture frames, or belly button lint, Id probably put a premium on those things as well. This is the hobby that chose me. If you arent interested and its not that important to you then dont tell me how to spend my time or money, which is exactly what you are doing. If your concern is for the others who cant see it then let them defend themselves. And you are right. You can hate me for doing what I love all you want and I'll go on doing it. If I want to have a bonfire in front yard and roast marshmallows over burning reels of boxing film I will if thats what I love doing and neither you nor anyone else can stop me. But you dont care so its not a big deal...

 

Uhh, no, that is an absolute fact. I do this every day. I think I know film better than you, cupcake.

 

Ya I never called you names man

 

That's actually an interesting issue.

You've said that boxing film is somewhere between Pokemon cards and historically valuable artifacts -- neither one nor the other.

Would burning the film for fun be a step over the line, ethically?

 

What are you calling "historical films"? If you mean feature films (and not just home movies or even recordings of episodes of municipal cable access TV shows, which I'd hope you're not pedantic enough to be including), actual movies, released historically since the dawn of film - then no, you're wrong. Some, the ones a century old or more primarily - are lost to the sands of time, but of all the ones extant to date they are a minority. Bollywood alone churns out a thousand movies a year. Tyler Perry alone churns out a few hundred a year. That's quite a claim for you to make, that MOST films released throughout history are not available to a layperson to either rent or own on some medium (be it On Demand or through some streaming service, or a hardcopy on DVD, VHS, LaserDisc, or Betamax either through a retailer, a third party/auctioning site, or via a public library) when the opposite is true.

Now if you want to make the claim that your definition of "historical films" means old ones that you subjectively think are arbitrarily more special than the latest offerings of Bollywood or Tyler Perry, that's a different matter. And that lends some insight to you thinking your "historical boxing footage" is somehow more valuable than a fight between, say, John Ruiz and Nikolai Valuev from 13 year ago. It isn't. The fact is, 100 years from now boxing fans and historians will be equally interested to see both Ruiz vs. Valuev (as awful as it is) and whatever you have from a hundred years before it (which honestly could be just as bad, aesthetically, but you've assigned "special value" to it simply because it's old. Well guess what? Every bad fight in the last 5-10 years that was televised - and then reuploaded on a dozen YouTube accounts - will also someday be "old" and thus of that same heightened value, no?)

 

Who is Tyler Perry, and how well can he shadowbox?

 

Bottom line klompton, is that you acknowledge this happens:

...and yet the only surefire way to prevent that happening would be for all the collectors to, collectively, shake hands and say "good game, guys. Was fun for the century or so that it lasted, but the world & technology have caught up to us and now it's time to do the right thing and just fork over every minute of it to the public domain, in the interest of preservation and these fights being viewed by as many different sets of eyes as may have interest (for whatever reasons, be they academic research, sheer curiosity, somebody hunting down footage of their great-grandfather who boxed, or just for pure entertainment)". You're free to not do that, of course, all of you. But if you ACKNOWLEDGE the clear and present risk of the above happening, of stuff fading into oblivion, and you say that it happens commonly enough that it would make a diehard boxing fan throw up in their mouth if they knew the full extent, then how can you possibly blame anyone for calling you selfish for not, along with the rest of your kind, swallowing your pride and deciding to altruistically devalue something that yes, you poured lots of effort & resources into, by making it widely available for posterity? You people have a chance here to be heroes, and yet you proudly flaunt your unwillingness to.

 

Hank Kaplan, who was arguably one of the best historians living until his death in 2007 donated most or all of his entire boxing collection to the Brooklyn College.

Let me tell you how some boxing film collectors think, they will be taking out his stuff on loan, copying it and selling it.

Those who live in the Brooklyn area should check Hank's collection out. Hank of course was highly regarded in boxing as an expert and a human being. He did not brag about his collection, nor did he horde it and lash out at others. He donated it for the love of the sport.

Personally speaking unless a boxing film has a specific meaning to a family or group, I think should it should be accessible to the fans.

This content is protected

[url]https://library.brooklyn.cuny.edu/resources/[/url]

 

Not really. If you get something from someone who asks you to keep it close because they dont want it let out for whatever reason and you trust someone else with it then that trust should be honored. If you spend a lot of money on something and give it to someone you trust but ask that they dont let it out because once its on youtube its valueless then thats understandable. There are many reasons why you may not want something of yours circulated beyond a trusted group. Thats why I dont really trade or sell anymore.

 

I didnt compare it to pokemon cards.

 

I may have misunderstood, then.

I said that somebody might claim that boxing is just an unimportant hobby, like Star Wars figurines or Pokemon cards.

Alternatively, I said that someone might claim boxing is a culturally important part of Western history.

Didn't you say it's somewhere in between, in response to my post?

 

Who are you to judge the value of someones home movie under the value of a feature film, a boxing film, or any other film?? But regardless you are wrong. If you think you have free access to the majority of historical films then you have your head firmly up your ass. That point isnt even debateable. Go call to the AFI and ask them yourself if you dont believe me. Theyd laugh off the phone.

Now, if you want to game the debate as you tried to do and claim that a film of London After Midnight isnt more valuable than say Boo! by Tyler Perry then we can agree to disagree. But if for instance I decided to sell Mickey Walker-Dave Shade and a copy of Ruiz-Valuev, which one do you think is going to get snatched up first and for more money? The value of anything is dictated by supply and demand and whatever the market will bare. Being that anyone can watch Valuev-Ruiz on youtube its valueless to anyone other than network that owns its rights (and frankly Id guess they think its pretty valueless as well). Nobody can watch Walker-Greb unless they buy it. Anyone wanting it obviously has demand for it so they will pay something. Something is more than nothing. So yes, old films have more value because of their rarity than new films that plastered all over the internet. If you really think you will convince me otherwise you are barking up the wrong tree. I do this everyday and I think I have a better understanding of it than someone who thinks all of this stuff is valueless and should be free to the public. LOL.

 

Hanks film collection was pretty limited and he had nothing rare, filmwise. He would have been the first to admit this.

 

And I told you that my collection is secure so your criticism of me is unfounded. Move along.