Jack Dempsey Vs. A black 120 pound Crack head who never boxed

Well, I cant say with any certainty from that film whether Corbett is definitely throwing combos or definitely not throwing combos.

 

No, I just used the footage I found. I apologise if I found the wrong stuff.
I dont think GreatA's version is "so much better" anyway, it's all pretty bad if we're honest.

I've already said I dont rate the film. I said at the start that combinations are described in reports, and they also are described in textbooks or interviews with old-time fighters.
You seem to be into the old film more than I am.
I cannot give examples, I think the film is very very bad, and mostly irrelevant.

You seem partially defending blanket statement assessments regarding the technique of the era on what can or cannot be seen on the little footage available of that era, by stressing "the film doesn't show it".

Actually, Holyfield-Bowe 1 was the first footage I looked at to compare combination punching, because frankly I thought it would feature a decent amount. You may think I've been searching to find stuff lacking in combos, but not so.
As for Holmes, I thought your criticism of Johnson for only doubling and tripling the jab and not hooking off it was harsh. I've heard people criticize Holmes unfairly for not hooking enough off his jab too.

And besides, the point is, the samples of the early era are few and far between, we have what amounts to a few films (of relatively horrible film quality) in comparison to the tens of thousands of fights (in great quality) we have seen in the modern era in their entirety.

Of almost every great fighter post-1970 I've seen hours upon hours of high quality footage, and tend to remember the good stuff they do.
I'm sure if we randomly spliced out 10, 20, 40, even 50 minutes of their careers, and obscured the quality of the film, messed up the speed, we could easily be left with some **** than even under instense study wouldn't reveal all their skills, techniques and ability. Even with a dozen or so fighters we'd be lucky to be left with any of the real good stuff.
And that's why I've even brought up the issue of modern footage.

Well, there's nothing wrong with that. But even if I had as much faith in the accuracy of the "decoding" process as you do, it still doesn't lead to much knowledge of the era as a whole. The filmed sample of the era is minimal, and quite random.

 

unfrgiven you are a known tinter. The film is not irrelevant, you can clearly see the style and the single punch clinch attacks. The leaning backwards whilst hopping forwards and the gaurd all over the place

 

If you say so.
I know Corbett throws combos anyway.
But you also stated "The film there is just doesn't show modern combination punching." ........ yet Corbett is (apparently) blatantly throwing two and three punch combos ?

What is "modern" combination punching ..... and how often do the moderns use it ?

 

Well, McGrain says the film shows Corbett "so obviously throwing two and three punch combo's in this footage as to be blatant".

You say, "you can clearly see the single punch clinch attacks "

I say the film isn't clear enough to see much of anything.

 

Its like McGrains a Christian, i'm a Muslim, and you're a buddhist

good form, bra

 

pac KO mayweather

 

In the absence of footage we have to rely on reports. Yes, some of the footage is that bad, but I'm not talking about reports that contradict any specific footage, so there's no conflict.

The film is of the best in the world, sure, and I acknowledge that. But it's quite a random sample that has survived.


It's like, for an example, if 8 minutes of Lewis-Tucker, 4 minutes of Lewis-Bruno, 10 minutes of Lewis-Tua fight, and the entire Lewis-Golota fight were all that survived of Lewis ..... that would be random ..... and assessments of Lewis could differ drastically depending on exactly which minutes are left, not to mention if the samples was of different fights entirely. I mean, it could be better, or a hell of a lot worse.
We base our actual assessments of Lewis on a much wider and more uniformly presented sample.

Yes, and you might be surprised how rare it is. The point you are trying to prove is actually impossible to prove because we dont have equal samples from the early era. We dont have anything close to full career sets, or even full title fight footage. We have a few films.
I keep repeating this point because it's important.
It's bad method to compare your findings from a sample of 10,000 to the findings on a sample of 50.

I think styles have changed generally. Due to different conditions. Glove size, the standards for stopping a fight, even the need to looks flashy on TV.
Old-timers would wrestle and clinch more, and fight rugged wars of attrition, pace themselves differently, if for example they are going 25 rounds in the midday sun in some desert town in the wild west.
I dont deny that conditions and styles have changed.

But the techniques of punching and avoiding being punched were developed way back.
I dont think it advanced. I mean, do fighters today do more than slip, block, parry, duck, weave, feint, jab, hook, cross, uppercut ?
etc. etc.
The same techniques that were in the boxing textbooks over 100 years ago.

The method is flawed. The samples are unequal. We have loads of minutes of footage of one group, impeccably arranged in order and full context. And a few minutes randomly selected (ie. happened to have been filmed and survived) of the other group.

Okay, I'm not arguing against that, I believe footage should be studied, and assessments are worthy, but even then you can only talk about the fight you saw, or the fragment of the fight you saw. And there's simply not enough footage of the era to make the broad assessments of the era, or even of most individual fighters.
The quality of the footage diminish that even further.

 

Good.
Just dont make me watch Corbett-Fitz again.:fire :good

 

:rofl

This content is protected