Interesting Jack Johnson article by Monte Cox

Agreed.

 

Some look better than others but almost all are victims of poor film .. the frames per second, the quality, ect ..

 

Reading and/or quoting write-ups about fighters, penned many decades after their career was over, doesn't make one a historian.

 

Maybe you need your eyes checked. Those guys look excellent to me.

Just with Gibbons, I can see him feint with the left, turn his opponent with a a feint and step around, do some very tricky counters, brilliant inside work with his right uppercut, use excellent head movement at times.

Maybe it's lost on you, not me.

 

To paraphrase the philosopher Eric ****erson, just because you pay someone money and call them a professional does not mean they are any good.

 

I just never thought too highly of his articles, he's mostly quoting secondary sources, that's not being a historian. It's like if I were a student in a university and I was writing an essay, just quoting the books I found in the library, because: 1) I didn't have time to do my own research; 2) I didn't fully understand what I'm writing about, so I couldn't give my own opinion about it or come up with new ideas/knowledge. Writing a dozen essays like that wouldn't make me a scientist/expert, I'd still only be an apprentice, or just a fan of boxing history in this case.

 

If you are saying this and standing behind it then I have to question the quality of YOUR film not the quality of existing films on these guys that are actually in good shape and projected at the right speed. Just because you apparently dont have a good quality film of these guys where their movements arent fluid and they look like an old chaplin film dont assume we all dont either.

 

No, a person who "just becomes interested in the game" isnt a historian and obviously doesnt have enough information to suddenly be writing articles on the subject. He damn sure isnt a historian. Thats like saying: "Im a historian on WW2, I just got interested in it yesterday." And then saying "20 years ago I came into WW2 as a historian thinking it was an unjust war, over the years my professional opinion changed." Ridiculous.


And comparing yourself to a historian is ridiculous. If you think you are a historian on ANY subject you need to kill yourself because youve wasted your life.

 

I've watch these films since the early 70s as well as everything on YouTube. They all exhibit movement that is unnatural. If you have "special" versions these are not available to the general public. Revisionist opinions of these fighters abilities have been based on the version the general public has been watching not special versions.

Again Johnson like Dempsey, Louis, Marciano and Ali were ALL ATG fighters with ATG characteristics.

 

There is no such thing as a special version. But if those films are poor quality imagewise and transferred at the incorrect speed then you get what you are talking about. But the original films for the most part are as clear as a photo from that era and when projected/transferred at the correct speed look fine. Its a myth born out of ignorance that all those films from that era are herky jerky like the old chaplin films. Even the old chaplin films werent originally viewed sped up. The problem arises because silent films were shot anywhere from 13 to 18 frames per second. When sound came along it was projected at 24 fps. When these old films were projected and transferred from the 1930s through the 80s or so, most people in their ignorance did so at 24fps which in effect sped these films up dramatically. Thats what you are talking about but that isnt really a true representation of these films quality.

As for peoples opinions based on those poor versions, well, thats like watching gone with the wind on a snowy b/w tv and claiming it wasnt a great film as a result. Or reading a book thats got pages torn out and claiming it sucks when you can go out and get a complete one.

 

I'm not sure, I understand the "Charlie Chaplin argument"!

Each of the oldtimers we watch in silent black & white of course boxed a certain way in their own distinctive style... just like boxers do today. Wouldn't that style be the same, whatever the quality of the film? I mean, take someone like Johnson - with that strange lean-back stance, the excessive feinting, the catching of punches in front of you with open gloves, etc. If the fights we have of him had been filmed with modern equipment, would he look completely different - or would he look the same, only clearer?

Or what if we had that last Ketchel-Papke fight on high quality film? Would that reveal two skillful technicians - or would it still look like two cavemen, pushing each other around for 20 rounds?

Of course there is old film of such poor quality, that you can barely see what is going on (like Jeffries-Sharkey), but we also have old film that may not be very good - but good enough to get an idea of what the boxers actually looked like.

One such film is the Burns-Squires fight. Again, the quality is pretty bad, but good enough to let us see what is happening. Sure, it's a very short clip, but what we see, is a champion who looks, like he knows what he's doing - and a challenger who looks, like it's the first time he has ever set foot in a ring! So even in cases of poor quality film, it's still possible to distinguish good from bad. Old black & white film doesn't make good fighters look like Chaplin!

 

It would absolutely look completely different. You're not getting the whole picture with old footage.

Think about it like this. The better the equipment, the less friction there is between you, and the actual moment being filmed. With the oldest equipment, you get the most amount of friction. Add on top of this the complete absence of sound design, and other production assets, and that friction is even greater.

 

Naturally, humans are subjective creatures of emotion. We don't watch boxing with the cold ****ysis of robotic machines. I try really hard, and it's difficult. If you want to compare Lennox Lewis to Jack Johnson, you have to watch a Lewis fight with discipline. You have to see beyond the color, the saturation, the angles, the quality, the sound, the advertisements, the bright red gloves, the fancy looking shoes, and the vibrant satin shorts. You have to dull your senses, and see everything as a shade of grey. Only then can you make better comparisons.


As wacky as it sounds, a nifty little technique is to squint your eyes when watching footage. It reduces the effects of good production. Sometimes by seeing less, you can see more!