Joe Gans VS Terry McGovern: What can you tell me? Opinions?

People who believe (key word here) that this fight wasn't fixed are just looking at the film and fitting it into a bias. Not the circumstances on the ground at the time. How the odds were affecteed, how boxing was banned from Chicago, opinions of those present, the history of Gans manager, Gans ability, etc etc. There's no true argument to be made, this was a sham! And yeah I look at it and I say maybe it's real based on the film evidence. But you have to paint the whole picture to get the truth if that's what your after. which i guess everyone believes they are , but ... well lol

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TroTAs25RkU[/ame]

www.youtube.com/eslubin

 

McGovern was much better than Herman or Nelson.

 

McGovern relied on raw power and I see nothing that should take Gans by such a surprise. Gans had good footwork and sharp, accurate punching for his time. He looks very poor here though from the very beginning.

 

McGovern was not a slug. He coudl chase his man down, and produce early KO's. Something like Tyson is you will. Nelson and Herman were not as dynamic with their hands or their feet.

If you watch the film, Gans is doing fine until McGovern catches him with a shot to the ear region. This messes up Gans equilibrium, his knees visibly buckle, then he goes down and simply can not get his balance or legs back. McGovern gives him no quarter.

 

He seems like a man looking for a soft spot on the canvas to me. Gans's famed right hand counters were nowhere to be seen, despite McGovern swinging for the fences.

Here is the real fight, not the chopped up version:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT23JRnvMR4[/ame]

5:35 was this a knockout punch?

 

Gans is by far the most impressive fighter, on film pre-1920. Although Langford runs him very close, as does George Dixon and Jim Driscoll.

 

You've seen footage of Dixon?

 

Is it legitimate fight footage, though?

 

I don't think it's a legit fight and Dixon by no means looks impressive on the film.

 

Agreed, he does not look impressive. Dixon's prime was before 1906. Believe it or not, Burns looks very good in a filmed 1st round Ko title defense.

 

You mean Tommy Burns? Do you have his fight with Gunner Moir? From what I recall the KO was impressive.

 

The footage is supposed to have taken place in 1906? Yeah, definitely strikes me as little more than an exhibition for the sake of the footage.