Nat Fleisher's Top 10 Heavyweights

Wrong.

 

If you are not using film, you have to rely on memory.

So I disagree a hundred per cent.

I think everyone on this board has a better idea of what sort of fighters Johnson and Jeffries were on July 4, 1910 than most of the old sportswriter "experts" would have in the 1930 to 1960 era. They would have to rely on memories up to half a century old. Anyone here can go over to you tube and see a very clear film of the fight that has been cleaned up and projected at the proper speed.

 

Why are you arguing the point with me, I didn't make the list? Corbett isn't on my list, not now and wasn't then.:huh

NB The Courtney affair was an exhibition devised by Thomas Edison after John L Sullivan demanded too much money.

.BTW Moore and Maxim were lhvy's as were Lesnevich,Barone,Satterfield,Bivins really.

 

"Even the best silent film era footage appears as if every third frame is missing."

No, it doesn't. Show me where every 3rd frame is missing in Dempsey-Sharkey.

Or Johnson-Jeffries, Johnson-Willard, Dempsey-Willard, Dempsey-Brennan,

If it it looks like every third frame is missing, it is because every third frame is missing, which is not true of every film by any means.

Obviously, the modern multi-camera films of fights is better, but even a film from the 19th century shows what was happening.

*aside--I am more into film history than boxing history, and am really getting into watching silent movies. If you buy a good copy, they look as good as when they were filmed.

I recently watched film of the coronation of Tsar Nicholas II, and it was very clear and everyone moved as smoothly and naturally as you could want.

Truthfully, modern film preservation techniques means we are seeing better and clearer films than folks probably did at any time since these films were new.

 

"Why are you arguing the point with me"

Because I disagree with the point.

I thought that was the reason for this board.

"Lesnevich, Barone, Satterfield, Bivins"

and their weights versus Choynski, Fitz, and Mitchell?

 

Like I said if it was just Fleschier's memory then I would say alright just an old man romanticizing his times, but its not. All of the old school sports fans and writers didn't see much difference between their generation and the next. They also thought that plenty of them would be dominate just like they were in their own times. As for the memory not all old men have poor memories plenty can remember those fights like it happened yesterday. Heck, some of those old guys like Chappie and Charlie Goldman were training world champions in the next generation. Even Goldman said that Stanley Ketchel had the best left hook and Jack O Brien was the shiftiest fighter he ever saw. Now on film neither shows much, yet Charlie Goldman still thought they were amazing. I find it hard to believe a great boxing mind like Goldman who even trained the next generation would be so biased and so wrong.

 

Reason123

I remember an article written by Jacobs back in the 1980's in which he showed Cus D'Amato films of Canzoneri and other fighters he saw in his youth, and Cus admitted that his memory of them was wrong. They weren't in fact as skilled as he remembered them being.

And D'Amato was a good trainer also.

 

I think he meant physically strong but you got to remember those were still the years before heavy weight lifting and roids. Oscar was a very strong guy (see the Frazier fights) but the strength did not protect him from pin-point punchers like Ellis and Ali but Oscar had an awkwardness that troubled Ali. Foreman was really the first of CA type muscles Big Arms but he had zero stamina that came with the territory....Dundee and Ali knew those big arms/wide swings burnt a lot of gas

 

I simply said Charles does not belong on a top ten all time heavyweight list imo.I never mentioned Corbett .Go argue with yourself , or some one who is sufficiently interested . atsch

 

He made a similar comment about Jose Manuel Urtain.

"Nat Fleischer the editor of The Ring said, " No man who ever held the world heavyweight title could match Urtain's feats of strength."

 

I have to agree with this :good

 

Yes, but still plenty of people who saw the old timers like Goldman would've agreed with him about the old timers. I just don' think we should be so quick to assume. Not all the old timers agreed with Nat but they all also didn't think that the old school fighters were any better or worse than the next. Its all just one man's opinion anyway I"m sure plenty of people still think that Canzoneri was a good skillful fighter.

Also, Corbett does look bad on film yet Tommy Loughran said that Corbett knew all of his tricks and knew what he was doing even when his opponets corner men didn't even know what was happening. Doesn't sound like a primitive fighter to me and people who saw Corbett and Tunney spar were very impressed with Corbett at that time. Heck even that film of him and Tunney. On newer camera makes Corbett look better than what he does during Corbett Fitz film.

 

My mistake.

I forgot to ignore your posts. Hopefully I'll remember in the future.

 

You get the wrong end of the stick ,argue at cross purposes ,and its my fault?

Ignore my posts ? You do that ,you f*cking clown.

 

I prefer to make my judgments through a combination of studying actual film up close, comparing records and achievements and discussing and comparing my opinions with others who have been doing likewise for sometime.. I find this to be a more accurate and effective means of evaluating fighters across eras as opposed to reading the opinions of long dead men who shared their views in 1960 of fights they "recall" watching in 1920.. And if we're honest, old men who grew up close to the turn of the century are not always the best source of open minded - unbiased opinion.