Jim Jacobs-Nat Fleischer debate

[jj5000]

Was their debate about the merits of modern fighters versus old time fighters printed in The Ring or taped in any way ?

[raylawpc]

Published in Ring Magazine.

[Rover]

Published in Ring Magazine.

Could you kindly provide a summary of the debate?

[raylawpc]

Based on his study of the fights in his film collection, Jacobs thought the modern fighters were superior; the old timers were primitive in style and technique. Nat liked the old timers, and didn't need to look at fight films. He could still envision the old timers "in my mind." And, he argued, Jacobs shouldn't believe his own eyes because the poor quality and technology of the films made the old timers appear primitive when they actually weren't.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Hard to argue with the point about the film. I still marvel how fluid Benny Leonard was on the type of film that exists.

[Rover]

Based on his study of the fights in his film collection, Jacobs thought the modern fighters were superior; the old timers were primitive in style and technique. Nat liked the old timers, and didn't need to look at fight films. He could still envision the old timers "in my mind." And, he argued, Jacobs shouldn't believe his own eyes because the poor quality and technology of the films made the old timers appear primitive when they actually weren't.

Thanks.

[Bundana]

The boxers of your youth are bound to leave a bigger impression "in your mind", than those you watch later in life... so for Fleischer to prefer early 20th century fighters, is only natural. However, his love for the old-timers was so pronounced, that his all-time rankings became a joke.

By the time he died in 1972, he had found no room in his heavyweight top-10 for Ali. Ok, so he hated Ali... but no Archie Moore or Ezzard Charles at light heavyweight! Really? It's like that in every division, and I'm afraid I can't take anything he said seriously. I mean, Bob Fitzsimmons the 3rd greatest heavyweight ever??... what a joke!!

[jj5000]

Fleischer began attending fights in 1899 so I am curious about how many times he saw Bob Fitzsimmons in action. What was Jacobs' response to the argument about the poor quality of old fight films making it hard to properly evaluate the old-timers ?

[Rover]

The boxers of your youth are bound to leave a bigger impression "in your mind", than those you watch later in life... so for Fleischer to prefer early 20th century fighters, is only natural. However, his love for the old-timers was so pronounced, that his all-time rankings became a joke.

By the time he died in 1972, he had found no room in his heavyweight top-10 for Ali. Ok, so he hated Ali... but no Archie Moore or Ezzard Charles at light heavyweight! Really? It's like that in every division, and I'm afraid I can't take anything he said seriously. I mean, Bob Fitzsimmons the 3rd greatest heavyweight ever??... what a joke!!

Ali not a top 10 heavy?
Fitzsimmons #3?
Wow.
(Though the 1972 death preceded Ali's regaining of his crown.)

[dempseyfire]

When one looks at film (not at hyperspeed and slowed down) of say, Jack Johnson or Benny Leonard or Joe Gans or Ad Wolfgast, one can see tons of skill and all the moves "modern" fighters make and more. Jacobs without any boxing experience and with pre-concieved biases often didn't understand what he was talking about, I don't care how big his fight collection was.

[raylawpc]

Fleischer began attending fights in 1899 so I am curious about how many times he saw Bob Fitzsimmons in action. What was Jacobs' response to the argument about the poor quality of old fight films making it hard to properly evaluate the old-timers ?

I don't remember. I read it over 40 years ago . . .

[Rover]

Fleischer began attending fights in 1899 so I am curious about how many times he saw Bob Fitzsimmons in action. What was Jacobs' response to the argument about the poor quality of old fight films making it hard to properly evaluate the old-timers ?

I don't remember. I read it over 40 years ago . . .

You still seem to remember a lot of it.

[Bundana]

When one looks at film (not at hyperspeed and slowed down) of say, Jack Johnson or Benny Leonard or Joe Gans or Ad Wolfgast, one can see tons of skill and all the moves "modern" fighters make and more. Jacobs without any boxing experience and with pre-concieved biases often didn't understand what he was talking about, I don't care how big his fight collection was.

So after having watched thousands of films of old-time boxers, Jacobs didn't understand what he was talking about, and wasn't really qualified to discuss this subject?

[Rover]

When one looks at film (not at hyperspeed and slowed down) of say, Jack Johnson or Benny Leonard or Joe Gans or Ad Wolfgast, one can see tons of skill and all the moves "modern" fighters make and more. Jacobs without any boxing experience and with pre-concieved biases often didn't understand what he was talking about, I don't care how big his fight collection was.

So after having watched thousands of films of old-time boxers, Jacobs didn't understand what he was talking about, and wasn't really qualified to discuss this subject?

So is one qualified to look at film of, say, 70s fighters when that fan wasn't around for those fighters?
Is the issue timing (quality of the film) or inherent bias?

[dempseyfire]

When one looks at film (not at hyperspeed and slowed down) of say, Jack Johnson or Benny Leonard or Joe Gans or Ad Wolfgast, one can see tons of skill and all the moves "modern" fighters make and more. Jacobs without any boxing experience and with pre-concieved biases often didn't understand what he was talking about, I don't care how big his fight collection was.

So after having watched thousands of films of old-time boxers, Jacobs didn't understand what he was talking about, and wasn't really qualified to discuss this subject?

So is one qualified to look at film of, say, 70s fighters when that fan wasn't around for those fighters?
Is the issue timing (quality of the film) or inherent bias?

No one doesn't have to "be there" at all. But Jacobs' argument seems to be "clearly, when looking at the films those fighters were less skilled" and I think people with greater boxing knowledge than himself would disagree with that, whether they were around during that time or not.
And while yes people usually have some tinge of rose-tinted glasses, that level of bias is often exaggerated. For example, Ray Robinson, Joe Louis, Emile Griffith, Henry Armstrong, Gene Tunney etc. were all recognized as all-time greats while they were still fighting by the majority of scribes. Ditto with Ali, although some old-timers, like Fleischer, couldn't shake off their inherent dislike of the loud-mouthed Louisville Lip (who also had the draft dodger label pinned in the late 60s) to have a real objective analysis.

[jj5000]

Just to clarify, it was raylawpc who wrote that he read the Jacobs-Fleischer debate over 40 years ago. I have not read it. My comments about Fleischer were in regard to his book 50 Years At Ringside.

[klompton]

Ive never really understood Jacobs position. I love watching old films and I see a high degree of skill in the old fighters. In fact, I think they were more subtle which can get lost in the grainy old films, shot from far away in black and white, that jump around and are projected at less than ideal speeds not to mention the decay and damage that some films exhibit.

I did a restoration project on Gans-Nelson 1 for the anniversary of the fight and was surprised at just how impressive both fighters were. Ive always thought Jack Johnson looked like a difficult proposition for anyone based on his Bernard Hopkins-like tactic of a slowing a fight down to his pace and making the opponent fight his fight. Sam Langford looks great, Tommy and Mike Gibbons look fantastic. Packey McFarland and Ted Kid Lewis look great. Mike O'Dowd looks great. Mickey Walker looks as modern as anyone today, in fact I think he'd tear through most of the best fighters between 147 and 160.

Now I agree that guys like Corbett and Fitzsimmons look awkward but even then Im not so sure they wouldnt have been great fighters today. You never know how a fighter is going to fare against anyone until hes actually in the ring with them. Who would have ever thought a crude, wild swinging, beer drinking smoker like Mayorga would beat a polished, durable jabber with height and reach advantages and a decent amount of pop like Vernon Forrest?

[Boilermaker]

Klompton,
I posted this question of Fitzsimmons footage on your other thread but you missed answering it (or ignored me ). But i was wondering, is this footage which is the clearest i have ever seen, something which you and / or others have, or is it something ESPN have enhanced themselves. Or is the original film quality very close to as good as this. I would love to know if the full fight was available similar to this. I also wonder if some of the other older fights (eg Jeffries fights) have been enhanced by someone in a similar way as it is so much better than the you tube clips most of us see.

http://espn.go.com/sports/boxing/featur ... ip-lineage

[klompton]

Most of the old footage exists in a better quality than what we are used to seeing. This is because the copies that are generally publicly traded and on youtube do not come from the original print, they are multi-generational copies (meaning they lose something each time they are copied), and they were originally not transferred from film to video under the best circumstances.

[Boilermaker]

Thanks.

I would love to see the whole fight, or even just the famous solar plexus punch in the Quality that was posted.

Looks like i might have to take the kids to Uncle Klompton's place on the next US trip. Any chance you could dress up as Mickey Mouse and put on some ears, might make it easier to sell to the kids

[gilgamesh]

Hard to argue with the point about the film. I still marvel how fluid Benny Leonard was on the type of film that exists.

Yeah it's really sad how many legends of the sport are essentially lost in time when it comes to their legacy and all that. I have a hard time watching and enjoying fights from too far back. Generally fights from the 1920's or further back are hard to watch for me, with a few exceptions. Some of the video on Joe Louis' bouts hold up surprisingly well from the 1930's and 40's, hell even the video of fights from the 70's often leaves something to be desired...I still seek out footage of the guys from the 50's on up if I can though...generally if it's much further back than that I just read about the fighters in question.

[klompton]

Thanks.

I would love to see the whole fight, or even just the famous solar plexus punch in the Quality that was posted.

Looks like i might have to take the kids to Uncle Klompton's place on the next US trip. Any chance you could dress up as Mickey Mouse and put on some ears, might make it easier to sell to the kids

I have a good copy of the fight but my copy is not pristine. Im sure the ESPN copy is better than mine.

[Bundana]

When one looks at film (not at hyperspeed and slowed down) of say, Jack Johnson or Benny Leonard or Joe Gans or Ad Wolfgast, one can see tons of skill and all the moves "modern" fighters make and more. Jacobs without any boxing experience and with pre-concieved biases often didn't understand what he was talking about, I don't care how big his fight collection was.

So after having watched thousands of films of old-time boxers, Jacobs didn't understand what he was talking about, and wasn't really qualified to discuss this subject?

You could have a huge collection of art. It won't make you a painter though.

And you can read lots and lots of books, but that won't make you a writer. So... what exactly is your point?

[Ezzard]

They both knew a lot about boxing. They had different opinions. Neither of them always got it right.

[klompton]

I think it should also be said that Jacobs was a guy who enjoyed stirring the pot for his own amusement. I would not be a bit surprised to find out he said he a lot of what he said about old time fighters to get a rise out of people.