It is not the job of the people making the video to be objective. They are providing information. It is the job of the person watching it to be objective. This isn't just true of highlight reels. It's true of fights. In fact, it's true of all media of all kinds. I liked the video. I like all Reznick's videos (not so much the gifs, but that's about personal taste). I enjoyed that Dempsey fouls thing too. I respect the work that goes into these things. I admire the passion that motivates people to do it. I think it's a shame for someone to run it down.
Quite the contrary. I appreciate a guy who can show skill within his particular style, whether its boxing, slugging, infighting etc. The fact is that Braddock was largely unskilled. He made tons of mistakes for a guy who eventually won a title (I contend hes easily one of the worst) and beyond that he was ignorant and incapable of adjusting or even the basic level of self reflection a fighter needs to be able to say to himself "i keep getting hit with the exact same punch every time i try that move, over and over and over. Maybe i shouldnt try that again and focus on something else." Couldnt do it. But hey, if you, in your infinite wisdom think you seem something sublime there then thats on you. You are also shallow enough that you think adding imaginary colors to a film makes it easier to see nuanceels to what the fighters are doing. Me, I say thats a symptom of the ignorance of todays youth. Arguing with someone who doesnt know jack **** about upscaling or compression or anything else related to video is pointless. Im talking to a guy who thinks you can take a video from a vhs tape and make it HD quality. That alone means you have no ****ing clue what HD even is. Weve been over this before. Ive illustrated it to you painfully using actual HD footage vs what you think is HD. Anyone here can go back and find your ignorance on full display. No need for me to beat a dead horse. You can repost what someone else does, whether its digitally remaster old footage or colorize it based on their imagination. Makes no matter to me. It just means you are riding some elses coat tails and pretending it makes you some kind of film expert. It doesnt. Dont mistake my disinterest in your ignorance as "wussing out" trust me the only reason i dont give you more of my time is because you arent worth it. If you actually knew enough to be dangerous things would be different but you are just a little boy cutting amd pasting clips together and posting them to your youtube channel. My 12 yr old does the same thing. When you actually spent your time trying to save some of this history and preserve it and gotten yourself a clue instead of wasting your time making highlight videos (lol) then we can talk. Ill see you when your film showing all of braddocks skills is done...
That just wouldn't be a good video though. Because Braddock actually used boxing skills to win his fights. The Baer performance was much more about craft and focus than blind heart. He kept Baer offset with lateral movement, positioning, timing. The key combos he lands on Baer were skilled, not sloppy. His key moments in that fight came from skill, not crude aggression. So it just wouldn't make sense. I honestly think you have much to learn with interpreting old footage. You call his Loughran performance terrible things, when it's just a classic stalker vs. outside boxer matchup. With Loughran constantly on high alert and boxing carefully with a dangerous opponent. Your Dempsey video was a response to my work? Lol, I never knew that. I would say I'm humbled, except it's kind of a steaming pile of garbage. Which is why is has a few hundred views, more dislikes that likes, and every single comment disagreeing with you. One going as far to say "This is the worst video on YouTube." Care to see the light? That you live in your own little bubble detached from the rest of the world?
Again you fail to address the examples provided of professional grade upscaling that shows a discernible improvement on quality. Just falling back on strawman you typically do. Who cares what you think about colorized film? You have a clear agenda. You are outnumbered at least 100's to 1 on this. And youre out of touch. You didn't sound so high and mighty when you couldn't figure out the most basic compression and export practices when you asked for my help uploading your Corbett footage. That stuff is second hand to any film expert. All of a sudden you are the Buddha of film? I don't doubt that you know a lot about this field. There are probably certain aspects of film preservation that you know almost better than anyone else. But if you can't figure out how to export your raw footage into an HD file for youtube, then you clearly still have much to learn. Good for him, and I hope he is much better than you at making videos. Because gee wiz you stink.
Yes, the Ron Howard film was excessively misleading. I understand Hollywood's need to be a little loose on historical accuracy for the purposes of commercialized story telling but that film was a case of going way too far. It could've been a better film without going to those lengths to twist history.
It would have been better had that miserable film of Opie's had never been made. The phrase "The Cinderella Man" was much better honored by the brilliant book (of the same name) by Jeremy Schaap. I'm sure most of you here have either read this book or are at last very familiar with it. Schaap outdid himself IMHO. Factual, exciting, well written and Max Baer is treated with the respectful memory that he deserved in that horrible movie as well.