Thil vs Apostili 1937...

Agreed. I guess the 1930s film technology only prevents us from discerning the brilliant technique and dazzling skills of men over 185 pounds (and who aren't Joe Louis or Max Schmeling)?

 

So you're saying that 1930's fighters are not unevolved.
But the ones over 185lb are?

 

So the lighter weights were evolved.
But the heavyweights were not?
In the same time period?

 

Makes you wonder what gyms the 1930s heavyweights were learning boxing in.
If they'd ever bumped into a middleweight or welterweight of the era they might have been taught some modern techniques.

Unfortunately, size segregation existed in those days. Men over 185 pounds were rarely allowed to enter the normal public places.

 

Right. Garcia lost to both Ross (WW) & Armstrong (a Ltweight) at the lower weights, but drew with Armstrong (maybe a "bad decsion" against Hank) in a MW title defense. Shows the quality of talent that was around in the lighter weights in the late 30's and early 40's.


"On September 23, 1937 at the Polo Grounds in New York history was made when four championship bouts were featured on one fight show entitled the Carnival of Champions. Barney Ross defended his Welterweight Title defeating Ceferino Garcia in 15 rounds by decision. Lou Ambers retained his Lightweight Title defeating Pedro Montanez by 15 round decision. Marcel Thil lost his Middleweight Title when he was stopped by Fred Apostoli in 10 rounds. Harry Jeffra won a 15 round decision and the Bantamweight Title defeating Sixto Escobar. All eight great fighters on one card."

 

And Garcia was the man who went on to dethrone Apostoli at middleweight too !

 

Bump

 

Great point compadre.

 

Wow this is amazing

 

Yes, on the whole.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue to be honest. Mayweather existed in the same timeframe as Samuel Peter. Doesn't make Peter any less crude than he appears on film, does it?

You're essentially taking criticisms aimed at one or two fighters in a higher division and arguing those criticisms as if they were applied blanket fashion over the whole era. Sounds like a massive strawman to me.

@The Kentucky Cobra, care to weigh in?

 

The unevolved technique of old-school fighters is a "massive" strawman?
You must be kidding right?

 

#143

The above post might shed some more light on my opinions on classic era. At the moment this whole thread is arguing something which neither myself nor, I suspect, KoolKevin or Pat M ever said.

 

I'd like a quote to where I said that. My criticisms of the 1930s have primarily focussed on the heavyweights, namely heavyweights like Baer, Galento and their ilk, men who were legitimately crude and technically poor.

 

You had good fighters and bad fighters in every era. Im not sure about Thistles point that bad film makes good fighters look bad. Every fighter in bad film isnt a great fighter and isnt suddenly going to look great on modern film. This film is a horrible example of that argument because in the four fights you have 7 men competing who at one time or another held championships, several of which are in the hall of fame. You cant just say: "this film makes them look great" because we have other films of guys like Garcia, Ross, Thil, Ambers, and Apostoli in varying qualities and they all look good in those films as well. Nevermind the fact that ive never heard anyone say any of these guys look crude or unskilled.

 

Same