Muhammad Ali through old camera technology

Relative to what your build up implied. Why should he "look better" when he is in his 6th pro fight? The guy looks great. You claim he looks "woefully inadequate compared to more modern fighters. I disagree.

One doesn't have to see the pupils of Ali's eyes to see if he looks great on this film.

You also stated "He doesn’t look prepared to fight the likes of Tommy Morrison, Buster Douglas, Lennox Lewis, etc." Again, he is in his sixth pro fight. Why or how could he possibly be expected to look ready for these guys?

As it is tho he looks superb. Better than some established ATG's via the same film standard.

 

I agree, that this film doesn't do Ali justice.

However, the quality of the film is extremely poor! And you're probably right: When we see flashes of his brilliance, it's probably more a case of us knowing who we're watching… rather than being blown away by what we're actually looking at.

But there are lots of film available of the old-timers, in much better quality than this. Take, for example, the Ketchel-Papke fight. Though by no means top quality, you can at least make out what is going on.

Now my question is this: if we had modern quality film of this fight, would Ketchel and Papke look any better? Would they suddenly be transformed into two boxers, with at least some skills… or would they still look like two tough-guys, pushing and showing each other around for 20 rounds?

And what if all we had of the Ali-Williams fight, was film of the same modest quality as the Ketchel fight? Would it be something completely different, that looked just awful - or would we still be able to recognize, that Ali was more than just your average boxer?

In my opinion, if old footage is at all watchable - I don't really understand the argument, that the old-timers would look much different (better!), if they had been filmed in modern quality. Sure, it would be more enjoyable to watch them in HD... but would their style/way of fighting not be the same?

 

I won't argue that the camerawork in the Ketchel fight was better than in Ali-Clark... and from a technical point of view, the latter fight was maybe "better" filmed (though from too far away). I'm not really into the art of filming, so when I say the "quality" of the Ketchel film is better… I simply mean, that it's easier to see, what is going on, and therefore get a feeling of what the two fighters are all about.

If you honestly think both Ketchel and Papke look "really good"… well, that's an opinion you're entitled to. But I couldn't disagree more. I think they look pretty bad!

Yes, yes... more subtleties can of course be observed in a modern HD fight film. I get that! But do you really think, that the BASIC way old-timers fought 100 years ago on film, would be changed dramatically if only the film had been better?

 

My bad.....you are correct.

 

Bloody hell. rez. Another thread on film quality? You're on the wrong forum. You should join a camera board.

Some of us like SRR. Others SRL. You? Your all time no1 is an SLR!

 

Here are a couple of the exact things you said.

Virtually no-one is agreeing. Clay does not look as such. One doesn't have to see each trickle of sweat to appreciate just how good he looks. Sure it is muted but one can still see he a talented fighter.

Plenty of old school fighters look fantastic even when compared to today's crop. Plenty also look crap, including some of the better guys. You could say some of them do look woefully inadequate comparative to today.

Well the 6 fight novice you've used as an example is hardly the Ali we know. Still looks damn good tho.

One hardly needs to look with a keen eye to see some flashes of brilliance. It's blatantly obvious.

He does look superb. He had one heckuva amateur career and progressed quite rapidly thru the pro's. He's accomplished even at this point but not a patch on what he was to become. The lightning fast hands, reactions and reflexes (as well as some good hitting power) are all on display. He had that very early on.

More to the point - if he can look so good even at this juvenile stage why don't many others who were supposed to be guns look similar and better. Some look great, but again others not so much. Old tech doesn't automatically make someone look useless.

I can see things better for sure. This still doesn't nullify the fact that Clay looks superb on the older film. The old film didn't automatically render him unimpressive or crap.

Yes but again see the above.

But there's plenty enough to see this kid is a real talent.

 

But no-one has said or claimed all the underlined. Many have said Ali looks fantastic, or like a beast or whatever. You've taken this and run off on a tangent and fabricated the above. No-one has neglected common sense and no-one is going above and beyond to disagree with you.

The fact of the matter is that Clay looks extremely impressive in the footage you presented.

 

I think it's more a case of he always believed the quality of old films or should i say lack of it makes the older brigade look a lot lot worse than they are. In many cases i would agree, others not so much etc. Like yourself i dare say.

Remember he has thrown a lot of clips at us where he has cleaned the footage up and tried to convey to us that the clip (once cleaned up) then represented clear proof that fighter x or y or z had a high level of skill.

For sure he has debated many times that he has seen great skill and ability in older uncleaned footage while others went heavily the other way. That was more of battle of opinion tho. Many cleaned up clips were presented and again it was a battle of opinions.

It's safe to say this thread didn't achieve his desired result.

 

Exactly mate, exactly.