Sam Langford vs. Joe Jeannette fight film on-line

Haha, the prepare yourself in whatever religion or belief you hold dear. In almost all cases, I prefer to let the films, and primary sources rule, which can greatly differ from opinions or out of context quotes. In this case of Langford vs. Hauge, I agree with McVey.

I also think Klompton is one of the best posters here. He has done his own homework, and has some areas of specialty that I do not.

I have never heard of Jeanette vs. Carpentier film that is out there. If McVey has it, he can post a picture of it here by simply playing it on his TV and taking a photo of the action with his camera, then posting the photo's on the web.

 

As do a lot of others

 

as already asked, why is Wlad a southpaw? and how does he keep getting up repeatedly from a Sam Langford knockdown?

First one is fine, but after 12 it gets stupid......

 

Excellent taste .. she is amazing !!!! :good

 

I think thats all fair enough, but would you be fair enough to enlighten us to what is out there though? It would be fascinating to know

Maybe you could run a Dutch Auction, where by charging $50 per head to forum members perhaps, when it hits the magic total of 1000 or whatever your target number release the footage for viewing, obviously you would need a considerable number of interested parties

 

I said I had seen clips ,I never said I owned it, if I did, it would be up for all to enjoy, I get a kick out of discovering clips ,and a bigger one in sharing them, when I found the Tunney Corbett footage ,[not a rarity, but something not everyone had seen], I immediately posted the link on here. An occasional poster here possesses a vast library and has sent me several films free, posted at his own expense from another continent, he asked me to keep them to myself and I gave him my word so they will remain so they are not priceless gems , but reasonably rare footage.

 

I think Klompton KNOWS that Langford-Hague and Jeanette-Carpentier are out there, he's just trying to ascertain whether some of you guys really have access to them, or info on where to find them. He's only 95% convinced you're bullshitters, and the 5% doubt is what pre-occupies him.

He's obviously a seasoned and serious collector. When you hear a guy like that saying things like, "impossible !" and "it doesn't exist !", you can be sure it's something he's still looking for.

 

I don't know. Sounds pretty much the same principle as having museums and art galleries, or reproducing art works or books for mass consumption.

If it matters to you whether the films outlive your time on this earth, for example for viewing by future historians of boxing and to exist as valued items in their own right, then it matters that people other than yourself get to benefit from your efforts.
If it doesn't matter then at least you are being consistent, but it could certainly be construed as selfishness.

 

Agreed.

It's the rationalization of this fetishistic behavior that I find a bit repulsive.

Whatever, I can sleep well at night having never seen crappy footage of Langford beating up a hopeless Hague.

 

I disagree for the simple fact that reproducing a picasso in a book does not detract from the inherent value of the painting. An even better analogy is baseball cards. You could argue that to copy a one of a kind baseball card and publish it for public consumption is the right thing to do. Yet the actual card, like a painting, is where the value lies so a copy is not going to detract from that value, even if it is widely traded. However, in a film, particularly fight films, the value lies not in the actual original film but in the information it holds. Thus, widely distributing that devalues it. Think about music for an example. What happened to the CD industry when music became widely traded on the internet: It tanked. Because the value is in the information, not the little silver disc. If people cant respect that then they should expect that information to be withheld.

As for Seamus comment: Why should a fighter personally have to sign over his rights to a film to me? He signed over any and all rights to the film the day he agreed to be filmed in return for money. He got his pay. He has no more claim to that film and neither do his descendants. Thats a weak argument. Furthermore, it matters not if its in the public domain. Simply because something is in the public domain doesnt mean that the public has an inherent right to that information. It means that the public or person who has that information in their possession can use it as they see fit. i.e. if I see fit do nothing with it, or heat my house by burning it in a furnace, or choose to publish it, I have the right to do so.

 

your example of handing out money is inaccurate; money is finite, the film is not, and can be enjoyed by you and others time and time again.

You are quite clearly part of the capitalist philosophy; do what you can for yourself, and **** the rest. You fight for your corner, and keep what you get for just you.

Its people like you that are the reason we can't watch these films, and ironically, that you have to fight tooth and nail to just watch a film of someone boxing. Of someone hitting another guy in the face.

A decision is made early; be part of the greed system, or don't be apart of it. You have made your decision and that's cool.

 

But who cares about its value? All this talk of value of the film. Just share the film with people who love it.

If everyone just shared the stuff for everyone else's enjoyment, that would be far better than the silly game people play over value and one-up-manship.

**** value, and share things is what I say. See I bet you love that world, that world of value and wheeling and dealing.

 

My point is that footage is not licensed. You have taken it upon yourself to decide the ultimate dissemination of this material. Whether this is a reflection of character, some would say yes, some no. But you are right, it is your choice. On some levels you have the right to do as your please. But you do not operate in an ethical vacuum.