I assumed there was a universal understanding that Joe Gans skills are harder to see than modern fighters due to antiquated camera technology. To my surprise, this has been hotly contested. Out of the following two clips, which one makes it easier to follow the action, and the skills of the fighters? Clip A (Mayweather): https://streamable.com/8xm2b Clip B (Gans): https://streamable.com/z3cki
I didn't know Gans fought into the 1930's! That's some career! Do you know we can see you coming a mile off!lol
We can do a 1930's comparison next. I was surprised to see people argue against the 1930's camera technology having negative effects on following the action of a boxing match compared to modern footage. So perhaps my assumption is even farther off than I thought, and this is a good baseline. It also illustrates the crux of the argument, and exaggerates it for better understanding.
Has anyone suggested that modern cameras don't give better clarity, depth,perception, whatever you want to call it? Where you are going off piste is insisting that we can't still see and appreciate the old timers skills in spite of the antiquated equipment used. In effect you are arguing in isolation and to no logical purpose!
What are you talking about. That would render the entire history of this forum pointless. For the 6th time, older camera technology makes it harder to see, and appreciate all facets of the sport.
No, all that is rendered pointless here is you constant arguing with yourself! Your original problem was that as Carnera was overwhelming voted an inferior fighter to Bowe.You then cast around for excuses to explain this and seized upon the fact that old cameras were not as good as modern ones.WOW ABSOLUTELY ASTONISHING!!! Who would have thought it???? Then you were faced with the problem that literally hundreds of 1930's fighters still looked exceptionally skilled! As was pointed out to you several times! You then had to move the gaol posts by including the 1890's! Getting no joy there, you've now gone in a different direction,trying a different tack, you now say the old cameras did not give the clarity,etc that modern ones do .Has anyone contested this? You are as I said , in effect arguing alone because no one has said otherwise! Q.Do you talk to yourself overmuch?
You don't seem to want to have a dialogue in which we can level and understand each other. The way you are arguing, making vast assumptions about my intentions, leaves little progress to be made.
Absolutely, it's like my point regarding the Dempsey footage. Dempsey's most famous combination occurs in fragmented slowed down frames with his opponent's wide back blocking it from our view. Yet Dempsey is known for fast combination punching, it's a leap of faith, using ones imagination to fill in the blanks.
I can only speak as I find. I agree there is no progress to be made here because you are arguing a non existent argument. We can all see Gans is a quality operator ,would he look better with today's techniques? Yes. Does he still show enough of his class for us to confidently call him a special fighter ?Yes.
