I'd just like to point out that "herky jerky" cameras don't make SRR look crude and ****. There goes the argument some people use for old timers looking bad on film, eh?
I think the best way to tell is to watch the feet. If they move fast than it is speed up. If they mov e normally than it is in real speed.
The second certainly is I know the Abrams fight is only highlights but SRR certainly looks to get the better of it despite it being an SD
you think he's the best because you've seen some footage of fights on youtube?atsch. You should go to a library sometime and read newspapers from 1920 to find out who the best is. And when i say library, i mean fly to new york and go in the actual library. Not look things up on google and boxrec. PS: general forum is one up
Which fight were you watching? Sugar Ray was knocked down in the 2nd round, and i thought Abrams seemed to be taking up the fight, not to dissimilar to the way Frazier took it to Ali, although Sugar Ray did seem to have a good patch near the end. It is impossible to tell who won the fight on such limited footage, but both fighters looked very good. By the way, it would seem that Sugar Ray really wasnt ready for most of the top gun middleweights of the time, such as Tony Zale and Marcel Cerdan at this stage of his career. What do you guys think of George Abrams. Looking at his record, he seemed to be very underated. I think wins over Billy Soose and Teddy Yarosz, a draw with Charlie Burley and a disputed split decision with Sugar Ray Robinson tells us a lot about his class. As do his results against Fred Apostli, Tony Zale and Marcel Cerdan tell us a lot about the class of these three guys. It would have been something special to see each of these three larger guys up against Robinson. I wonder whether he would be such a consensus pound for pound great if he had fought these three guys.
