Interesting article on early 1900 fighters

Great article and as a fan of MMA many of these same things happened with the pioneers of the sport, but every once in a while one of those old guys comeback and need a pay check only to get smashed. It's sad but it's true. Evolution happens in every sport and the origionals almost without exception get left behind.

 

Despite what it says about correct speed and the film being clear, the state of technology still does affect our impression about movements of people. If you take a look at some of the films of Lumiere brothers or Georges Melies from 1890s or early 1900s, the movements of people do look unnatural somewhat. I'm not talking about skills, mind you, just the movements.

 

Who if you don't mind me asking? Also kudos to you for having what it takes to tell the truth.:good

 

These articles are full of errors.

Fitzsimmons was not 35 when he meet Corbett, he was 33.

Corbett never knew what a combination was the article says??? These guys must have failed to see the lighting like Combination he landed to floor Fitzsimmons.

I tend to doubt they understand the film technology of the time, which was grainy, was often shot at a distance, and usually ran slow.

 

Whether the article is 100% accurate or not, to me it makes sense on many levels and in fact mirrors my thoughts closely.

When reading about fights going 30+ rounds you don't really believe they could do that fighting at (for lack of a better phrase) modern pace do you?

It simply defies logic. It also defies logic that 170lb great fighter could beat a 225 great fighter, absent a lucky punch, so therefore the obvious conclusion is that that the 170lb fighter is a much better fighter than the 225lb fighter he beat, meaning I don't think there were many big skilled fighters back in the day.

I'm not even close to being a boxing historian, but I do think the 30+ rounds that fighters went, very likely meant that there was not many combinations thrown, if any, and that the pace had to be very slow..hard to think of anything else that makes much sense.

I think this is an extremely good article and I think the author even defined when the sport made a great leap forward. (Dempsey).

 

Yes. See Battling Nelson vs. Ad Wolgast. There are others. While I do generally agree that the pace was slower, remember they often fought outdoors and had many rounds to go. No one runs a longer race at a faster pace than the shorter race.

It depends on the skills of the 170lb fighter and his power, doesn't it?
I think Kovalev could KO 225-pound men, and there's a fellow called Arthur Beiterbeiv on the way up at light weight that hits as hard or harder. Heck GGG if he caught a heavyweight could KO him too. The story is GGG sparred with Povetkin and worked him over big time.

The rules, equipment and venues were different. None of which favored older timers throwing 40+ punches a round. There was a lot of clinching and wrestling back then, which takes, even more, stamina than throwing punches that limited the action. The equipment was poor in terms of the gloves protecting the hands, as a result of both, body punching was more prevalent. Fighting outdoors or in non-ac rooms was part of the struggle.

The filming technology was terrible and makes it hard to anyone to look good unless you are closely watching what is happening.

I think the article is pretty bad on Corbett vs Fitz, as I own 26 minutes of it and you can clearly see skills and ability.

Jeffries vs Sharkey II is a poor bootleg film and rather short.

The article would have been better if they did better research and showed the moments in the films they were talking about.

The only trouble is the people alive who saw the action before and after Dempsey said many of the fighters in all weight classes pre-Dempsey were better than those post Dempsey. How can you explain this? You can't dismiss it.

What we have here is bad film quality and people who are being shown selective clips are formulating a flimsy opinion on stuff they aren't familiar with.

 

Good reply. My only comment is that I did say the skill of the 170lb verses the 225 was the deciding factor. You added power to the equation, which I agree with.

With respect to post-pre Dempsey comparisons, I think the article referred largely to the heavyweight division, or at least that was my impression.

Yes, the article could have been better, but nevertheless, it does add a lot of insight, especially to those with little knowledge of the time period. I would imagine those who have studied this period in detail, might get little or next to know new knowledge from that article. But over all I think it's a worthy discussion to have and it's a good starting point.

 

Absolute majority of long fights, 30 rounds or more, turned into snorefests very quickly, with fighters just walking around the ring and throwing very few if any punches, sometimes a round going with just 1 or 2 punches thrown by either, literally.

 

No doubt bouts of longer distance change the pace .. no human being could fight twenty plus rounds at an accelerated pace .. it s like a mile race vs a quarter mile race .. different events .. that being said while the sport evolved at different times , making jumps in some more than others, there were men for sure fro back in the day like a Langford or a Gans that could have dominated at any time ..

 

Bingo. This couldn't be said more. Many young kids imagine the past in black and white.
You think Ancient Greeks imagined the past in black and white? Media is powerful, and effects perception dramatically.

Try a simple experiment. Try to find two boxing fights, one from the 20's, and one from now. Try to find two punches that do similar damage in way of snapping a head back. Observe how you feel watching an identical punch from a 20's camera, versus a 2016 camera.

And we've heard this thing about the absence of combos in these old fights. But what happens when you look closely, is you realize that someone like Willard landed several 4+ punch combo at Dempsey before getting knocked down.

 

I think there is a simple explanation for this topic.

Styles have changed with the culture. And these old styles look especially strange when coupled with janky camera technology. Add that to unrealistic expectations of perfection, and you get this article.


I believe that if you have the exact same Corbett vs. Fitzsimmons bout, but in 1080HD 2016 production quality, people would have a huge respect for these guys. They would consider them very good fighters.