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

However bad Schmeling looked at earlier stages of his career, like vs Baer and as incomplete as he was vs Sharkey both times, he made up for it in spades vs Louis in '36....it was a technical master class and showed his ring IQ to be stellar, no matter how that pesky little '38 rematch went.
That being said, I still think that Tunney was something of a time traveller IMO, that's how modern and sophisticated he looked compared to his contemporaries and predecessors.

 

Loughran also looked excellent, as did Walker....and "I hear tell" that Greb did too.

 

This content is protected

 

True enough.

People identify year N, as the point where the corner was turned, albeit nobody commented upon it at the time.

The you get a significantly earlier fighter, who clowned the innovator of the year N, despite the fact that any modern amateur would pick him apart!

People often mention Gene Tunney as somebody who looks good on film, but at the time he was often being praised for his power and durability!

 

well try this then, though it's not in living colour... No it's MUCH Better than that!

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 as perfect as we're going to get from that era and the fighters look great.

 

The "evolution" of boxing thing is largely a load of bunk.

There's a limit to how much knowledge an individual fighter can acquire simply by virtue of living at a later date.
It's not like school learning, or the trajectory of technology, or warfare.

You have to go in there and fight those rounds in the same basic conditions and tools as the old timers.
You wear boxing gloves etc.

It's the same basic endeavour. An individual can become a master, but that doesn't mean you can crash course or ride on the coat tails of his knowledge simply because you were born 100 years later, like in other pursuits.

It's just fighting, fist fighting, unarmed martial art.

Like f**king.
The Karma Sutra. There aint no shortcuts because we're born 2,500 years after. To f**k like that's gonna take the same amount of rounds and practice, perhaps some natural talent too.
Oh, but we do have PEDs.
:good

 

Calm down pal

 

Something to think about is that fighters started looking better round about the same time as filming got better.

 

Film is bad.


But , yes.. the fighters look good on film that is quality.... Many of them look exceptional. I have no doubt the fighters from the past could compete today and do just as well

 

What if this was the only film we had of Ray Robinson?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=3uEvSjAAcuA

 

:goodbenny lynch is post 1930 and looks amazing.driscoll welsh and kid lewis look awful.
Louis looks modern Dempsey looks neolithic

 

Jack Dempsey looks pretty awesome in the Jess willard fight.

 

Driscoll looks awful?:huh

 

exactly that piece of film couldn't sell it to anybody.

SRR arguably the greatest fighter that ever lived? yeah right and then the SRL's and PBF's would be eons ahead of them and destroy them in any fantasy match up...

but thank God there is much more footage showing the contrary and in both areas, one that SRR IS arguably the greatest fighter who ever lived..,

but more importantly, it's NOT the fighters that are s hit, it's the FILM(ing) that is.