Are fight descriptions of old fights in books really accurate ?

quote-unforgiven-quote

true say, once i'd been through youtube a couple times i got more into esb and reading and there are so many versions of the same events it can be impossible to tell the truth(or even if any of them are true). I spent most of a couple days reading about the corbett jackson fight and I've still got some questions about it.

 

The point is, if no film or pictures of the fight exist, and all you have is a few reports - which may or may not be good and accurate - or some over-repeated tales and quotes, which are unreliable ........... you can't ponder too much over the question of what actually happened.
There's not enough substance to form a true picture of the actual fight, so it's better to always bear that in mind. We just talk about what people said and general perceptions, repeated stories etc.

 

Yep.
And think about fights you have seen - even modern ones - but ones which you saw AFTER you'd read quite a bit about them.
Very often I bet they aren't how you imagined them, or were 'led to believe' they were.

 

I disagree entirely. You can get a very good feel for a fight using reports, particularly consensus reports. I can give several examples:

First and foremost of course is the example from above, the Tunney-Dempsey fights. Those fights were listed as being one sided ass kickings that left Dempsey bloody. The originator of this thread stated that in watching the films he didnt see any blood on Dempsey's face. Yet, we can see in films that both fights are one sided and at times Dempsey takes a beating. The photos I linked above show Dempsey was indeed cut, bruised, and battered. Details you couldnt get by just watching the film and ignoring any other research material.

Another example I will give is a project I worked on several years ago. I did a restoration project on Gans-Nelson 1 in 2006 for the 100th anniversary of the bout. That film is completely chopped up and out of order. I was able to put the film back in its chronological order by utilizing newspaper accounts of the bout which matched the action almost exactly. Using those papers as a guide and watching the film at the same time really brought out a lot of details that I had not notice before (almost like a commentator pointing out details I may have missed). Thats for a fight thats 107 years old.

In most cases fight reports agree, its the odd report that sticks out like a sore thumb (George Underwood in Greb-Tunney 1 comes to mind) which can raise questions but usually you can chalk that up to a bias. Its also why I wouldnt rely on a single report but as many eye witnesses as possible.

 

but it's a good idea of what happened rather than the truth, at least thats what i'm saying, i.e I have a pretty good idea how corbett jackson went but i dont know the truth

 

Reporters then and now,tend to embellish.For the facts you would have to call the spirits from the dead who actually witnessed the fight.:admin