Papke-Carpentier footage.

Who in Christ's Kingdom rates him in the top 10 all time at heavyweight on any occasion past the promotion of the Dempsey farce?

 

Heavyweight? Nobody. Lt heavy...Rose, Fleischer, Morgan. On occasion you will see him listed today but rarely.

 

Oh, I misread your "lt" to be an "at"... At least that's understandable.

No one would rank him top ten today and not be laughed at. If I am not mistaken, there had only been a true light heavy class for a few years when he came into prominence. That doesn't make much of a history. Loughran's words are just not enough for me. Guys ike Fleischer, who was basically a Dempsey fluffer, would of course blow up Carp's value for the most embarrassing and fawning purposes...

 

Silly...morgan and rose I suppose were in Fleischers back pocket? Nat did not rate Dempsey the best.

 

So Nat Fleischer who saw thousands of fights Seamus, and I suspect somewhat more than you did was a Dempsey "fluffer" [hello Samuel Johnson} ? For your less informed information, Fleischer always rated Jack Johnson, Jeffries and Fitz ahead of Dempsey...It galls me to think that you or I for that matter can hold a candle to the ringside knowledge of Nat
Fleischer...Fleischer was kind enough to answer my letter to him when I was in the Navy,asking him advice as to me learning to be a cub reporter...

 

That Carp was rated highly by Fleischer, Rose and Morgan isn't surprising, as they were all young men, when the Frenchman was active. We shouldn't read too much into this.

 

This is true. He was just a kid though but the 5 year layoff for the war can't have helped.
Still, I believe he was an excellent boxer. Tommy Loughran seemed to think so.

 

I'm referring to the Loughran interview in Heller's In This Corner, where he elaborates a little on Carpentier's skills and ability, and wonders how great Carpentier must have been at his best.

I find it hard to believe that he would feel the need to make all this up in an interview given in 1972 .... just so he could "cover his ass" and alibi an under-performance to an interviewer who wasn't even around then !

But klompton said that's a "fact". So I'm wrong.

 

Absolutely agree. I once took a new fight and imported it to sony vegas and I changed it to black and white and made it grainy and I changed the framerate from 30 pictures (frames) per second to 15 pictures per second and the film looked completely different. Almost entire punches are missing if you lower the framerate like that. The whole action looks strange, slow, lagging - just as in most old films.

 

Thank you. I've been watching these old fights since the 70's. As the years go by and I watch them more and more via YouTube I can pick out the subtle moves that are just hard to see with silent films. The one I keep going back to is the KD prior to the ko in round two of Dempsey Firpo. I suggest everyone pull up that bout and watch that punch sequence carefully. Now....Dempsey is throwing combinations like this the whole bout but with this KD both men are in position that it can be readily observed. Dempsey attacks bobbing towards Firpo. Firpo backs towards the ropes. Dempsey weaves, throws a feint that freezes Firpo for a split second. Dempsey then throws his favorite combination...right to the heart and left hook to the chin. What makes this important to view is the shortness and compact nature of the punches. Indeed these were 6 inch blows thrown textbook. It's something you do not see a hwt do today.

 

B, relative to your post about old hand cranked films distort the abilities of old time great fighters....I just saw a 9 minute film clip of Mike Gibbons training doughboys in WW1... The Army film is so clear and it shows the
amazing boxing skills of the great Mike Gibbons sparring....Now I KNOW why this great oldtime fighter Mike Gibbons is a top HOF fighter...
Too bad I can't transfer this 9 minute clip to ESB...Too bad...

 

Yes I saw that video on Youtube also several weeks ago. Gibbons was a great fighter but then again that's known history the last 90 years. How could it change?

 

Because there is no Jack Dempsey today...Lean and mean...

 

There are lots of them and they fight at lightheavy and cruiser.

This guy sums my thoughts on Fleischer. I could and will when I have time elaborate further...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/126210-why-did-the-boxing-world-ever-listen-to-nat-fleischer

 

I don't have a huge problem seeing the subtleties of fighters in most old films. The problem is I also see the glaring weaknesses.