Foreman vs Lyle (early 1930s style)

No.

Think about it like this:
There are great fighters who don't look like the best technicians.
For example, Vitali Klitschko and George Foreman.
If you put these guys through a 1930's boxing production, they will look even worse. To the point where people might think they weren't any good at all. You would lose a massive amount of appreciation for them.

On the other hand, you have incredibly great technical fighters.
These guys shine through older production better but still suffer a major loss in perceived skill.

If Ali was filmed with a modern camera, he would look way better.
If he were filmed with a 1890 camera, he would look way worse.
Same with Louis, same with Dempsey.

So if you saw Carnera through a modern camera, he would probably STILL be unpopular for his boxing technique. BUT in the same way that the Klitschkos were for years. Or other good SHWs who are often chastised for their technique compared to smaller weight fighters.

"Klitschko is terrible." - Bert Sugar.
He would say the same about Carnera.
Mix it together with 80 year old camera technology, and you have a recipe for a lot of people thinking he is way worse than he actually was.

 

This validates my previous answer:

"Of course Holmes and Norton also make mistakes and of course Foreman and Lyle have some good moves, so there will always be the possibility for GIFs with such moments even though the reverse is more frequent. But that kind of argument never ends, so I won't indulge in it."

In my view, either you see the difference in technical quality or you can't or won't. I suspect you both can't and won't. At least one of those GIFs is from the end of the 15th round and Norton and Holmes still look better than Foreman and Lyle does in many, perhaps most, of their exchanges. This highlight seems to be of the later rounds, but still there's a clear difference in skill. There's really nothing more to say. As I said doing this GIF-thing can go on forever. The difference is very clear to me, it isn't to you. Let's leave it at that.

 

QUOTE="reznick, post: 18554105, member: 54206"]No.

Think about it like this:
There are great fighters who don't look like the best technicians.
For example, Vitali Klitschko and George Foreman.
If you put these guys through a 1930's boxing production, they will look even worse. To the point where people might think they weren't any good at all. You would lose a massive amount of appreciation for them.

On the other hand, you have incredibly great technical fighters.
These guys shine through older production better but still suffer a major loss in perceived skill.

If Ali was filmed with a modern camera, he would look way better.
If he were filmed with a 1890 camera, he would look way worse.
Same with Louis, same with Dempsey.

So if you saw Carnera through a modern camera, he would probably STILL be unpopular for his boxing technique. BUT in the same way that the Klitschkos were for years. Or other good SHWs who are often chastised for their technique compared to smaller weight fighters.

"Klitschko is terrible." - Bert Sugar.
He would say the same about Carnera.
Mix it together with 80 year old camera technology, and you have a recipe for a lot of people thinking he is way worse than he actually was.[/QUOTE]
You both brought up the subject of old v modern cameras,the reason being to excuse the fact that Carnera does not
look very coordinated or skilled.
I then provided examples of fighters from the same period and one, Dempsey from 10 years earlier who all look very coordinated and skilled .
I asked you to account for this and you haven't.

Modern cameras will show more depth perception and clarity we agree on this.
What they won't do is make a silk purse out of a sows ear!
Now you are moving the gaol posts back another 50 years to the 1890's when cameras were in their infancy!
You are doing this because you cannot account for how all those greats of the 30's still look great and one fighter , Carnera emphatically does not!
Both the Klits, of whom I am not a fan, were terrific judges of distance , had good footwork and punishing jabs,they also had serious power.Carnera possessed none of these attributes.
Bert Sugar was a story teller, his opinion is less valid to me than that of several posters here.

 

A slugfest is a slugfest. Whether it is filmed in color or B&W. Removing the odd frame here and there doesn't change that reality, either. An interesting aging of the audio visual experience, nonetheless.

 

It's not an excuse, it's an observation.
I'm not the guys great grandson.

You have to be seriously stubborn not to admit the negative effects of an 80 year old production.

Just because you thought the Klitschkos looked good, it doesn't change the fact that many in the boxing community, including analysis and writers, heavily criticized them as poor boxers at the beginning of their dominance. This, despite modern production. Combine this phenomenon with 80 year old camera technology, truly antiquated technology, and you get a lot of people thinking he was worse than he was.

At the end of the day he won the world heavy weight title, and defended twice. And that will remain true no matter how badly you seem to want to convince others that he was a bad boxer.

Bad boxers don't make it out the gym, let alone the amateurs, let alone the pros, let alone winning the belt. Something is seriously flawed with your logic.

 

I could name 50 heavyweights off the top of my head whom I would rate above Carnera. You ducked my question as to why my list of 1930's fighters looked great on the old films and Carnera looked like an uncoordinated oaf.Film of Jack Johnson from 1910 shows a skilled defensive genius that's 20 years earlier!
Want to answer it now?

 

Careful The Kentucky Slow Worm willh try to get you banned as he did me! When he failed, he left in high dudgeon calling the moderators a*seholes and accusing them of being in my pocket, only to slink back under his new name. He was MONGOOSE!

 

A Gingerbread Cookie?

 

I think/know you have conveniently left out the bits that included you posting," f*ck your partner,f*ck your kids and f*ck your grand children.
You also accused me of being a paed*ph*le in a particularly unsavoury post.
When you didn't get the support from the mods that you demanded ie you dictating who should be allowed on here, you accused them of being my lackey's and suggested I had something bad on them which I was using as a lever to get them to allow me to do as I liked!
As I stated you left in high dudgeon only to crawl back under an alias.
And now you haven't even got the cojones to admit who you were previously.Well I know who you were and ,more importantly. WHAT YOU WERE AND STILL ARE!

 

I gotta be honest the "old school gang" has a point. I just rewatched Froch vs Pascal and although those 2 were never the most convetnional, text book or fundamentally sounfd(in pascals case) They were both top level fighters and if that fight had happened in the 30s in Black and white we would calling them crude bums that couldnt beat anyone today. Especially froch showed a very very good jab in that fight even if his guard and punching technique doesnt look very modern

@mcvey @TheKentuckyCobra why dont you just put each other on ignore if it has gotten that ugly?

 

Froch is a great example of how 'crude' can be effective - deceptively so.

 

He says I'm already on his ignore list ,so I'd be interested in knowing how he is up to speed with my posts. FYI I offered to let bygones be bygones when he returned with his tail between his legs under his new name, but he did not reply ,so sorry , he can go f*ck himself now.