Foreman vs Lyle (early 1930s style)

Sounds alot harder to ugrade old footage than downgrade new footage

 

That wasn't my question.
Mine was, how do you account for Louis and the others I named looking excellent on film whilst Carnera defintely does not?
If the 30's cameras were the common denominator then they would all look equally as bad as Primo would they not? Since they don't I think its safe to assume it's because they were genuinely skilled whereas Carnera was not.
Why are you deliberately misreading this? Now skip the silly juvenile stuff and address my question please.

 

No need to apologize, chap. I didn't take any offense at your inquiry and I'm fine with clarifying a position, if need be. And, I know how it can get on here sometimes.

Re Baer - I think that's a fair statement to make; he was one of those guys with at least some fight-savvy rolled into his offensive style, with the type of power that could shape a bout, however ungainly. That said, the right-hand he threw and landed on Carnera for the first KD, actually doesn't look half bad (despite the telegraph)

 

The same reason that Mike Tyson looks much better on film than Vitali.
Don't see why this is hard to understand.

 

Make a highlight vid of how skilled Froch and Pascal (in HD and color) and see if no one points out their flaws.

 

But there seems to be a double standard in this regard.
Where people accept the unorthdox style fighters of today as stylistically different. Whereas old school fighters who are unorthodox, are assumed to be inferior or inadequate.

 

Don't agree. Start a thread about Naz and it will be filled with statements about how MAB exposed him. As for Pascal and Froch specifically, I haven't really seen them mentioned at all.

 

It's just a general observation I see time and time again.

If an old fighters uses low hands, he gets rediculed. If a modern fighter does it? Oh he knows what he's doing.

 

Tyson looks better on film than Vitali because he is.

 

No contemporary writers said Jimmy Slattery or Gene Tunney should hold there hands higher in the 1920's.
Low guard is often seen today but usually when fighters are out of range of it being exploited. Vitali did it all the time because he judged distance so well. Ali got away with it because he had such fast feet, he came unstuck against Cooper because he was jabbed several times, retreating all the time until he was near the ropes with nowhere to go then bang! .Ringside TV commentators routinely criticize fighters who are open to shots due to low held hands, you see and hear it on every fight program.
Don Curry pulled back from Mike McCallum with his hands momentarily out of the defensive position and got tagged.Louis did similar against Buddy Baer, but he was caught because he was watching the right that arrived first and he underestimated Baer's wingspan.

I don't know where you get this idea it is deemed okay by today's experts because these are modern fighters. ? I've watched most of Carl Froch's fights and at some point in each of them the commentator would point out how low he carries his left hand ,ditto Bob Foster in the70's.

 

Anyone ridicule Niccolino Loche?

 

Actually I see it the other way around. Things Ali (rightly) gets criticized for, aren't held against Tunney for example.

I mean, is there any debate that even greats like Ali and RJJ did some wrong things from a textbook perspective? You have to hold your hands up and admit that these guys were very successful nonetheless, but they aren't used as examples of good technique. You are much more likely to see videos espousing the technique of Louis and SRR than Ali and RJJ - and for good reason.

It's not that Ali and RJJ lacked technique - some things they did exceedingly well - it's just that their supreme talent let them get away with things normal fighters don't get away with.

Wlad constantly gets ripped for his limited repertoire. Hearns is generally accepted to have had pretty poor defensive technique. No one (until recently at least) is saying anything else than that Foreman's technique wasn't the best. Etc, etc.

These guys all had/have other assets that to a largely made up for their flawed technique in some areas, but they were flawed.

It obviously needs to be stressed, once again, that when I point to certain flaws, I don't call these guys rank beginners in any way. They obviously operated on a level no one here will ever come close to getting close to - it is only in relation to others on a similar level they can be called flawed in some areas.

 

Excellent post!

 

Or Willie Pep? Or Gans, for that matter?