Jim Jacobs-Nat Fleischer debate
Re: Jim Jacobs-Nat Fleischer debate
Cus Damato agreed with Jacobs' position. If I remember correctly, they were most critical of the fights from the pre-1920's,especially the late 19th century and first decade of the 20th.
-
SaadOffTheDeck
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 19602
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38
Re: Jim Jacobs-Nat Fleischer debate
It's a shame so many of the great fights from the 40's aren't readily available. I'm not sure why, perhaps Klompton could clue me in?gilgamesh wrote: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.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Hard to argue with the point about the film. I still marvel how fluid Benny Leonard was on the type of film that exists.
I'm guessing it's because of all the film used on the war.
Re: Jim Jacobs-Nat Fleischer debate
There really wasnt a lot being film in the 1940s outside of the heavyweight division and even that is pretty sparse.
Re: Jim Jacobs-Nat Fleischer debate
One of the best articles I’ve ever read regarding the “Old Timers vs. Modern Timers” was printed in a one-off magazine on the heavyweight champions. The lead article was titled: “Psst! Want to know a secret about the old time champions?” or something to that effect (I’ll have to dig the magazine out of mothballs).
The writer claims to have heard many old time writers rhapsodize about the greatness of the pioneers and came to believe that they possessed superhuman qualities that the modern fighters couldn’t match. What changed his mind was a session of watching films on an invite from Jim Jacobs himself, who had invited several of those writers to watch films of many of the fighters they had canonized.
Evidently, Jacobs presented the films without the titles and made no comments during the playing of the films. Until…..
During the playing of the Fitzsimmons-Corbett film, which was “wonderfully clear, and played at the correct speed”, one of the writers watching the film (hard to believe he didn’t recognize the fighters if he was an expert—or was it that he didn’t want to believe his eyes?) made a comment about the ineptitude of the two men in the ring. “Who are these bums?” “Is that Jerry Lewis?” and other derisive remarks. Jacobs announced, “Gentlemen, you are watching James J. Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons.” There was a brief silence, during which time Jacobs whispered to the writer of the article, “Watch. They’re going to say there’s something wrong with the film.”
Sure enough, as if on cue, a voice called out, “There’s gotta be something wrong with the film.”
Jacobs put on film after film, with the writers saying things like “That’s not so-and-so” or “So-and-so didn’t fight like that” as they watched incredulously.
Later, Jacobs became openly derisive. “Wanna see why they called Terrible Terry McGovern ‘terrible?’” Each of the legends of the first two decades of the 20th century (and, incidentally, of a sport that had only departed the barbarism of the bare-knuckle era in 1892–how far could the science/art advance in such a short time, without true mass-medial to demonstrate or initiate advancement?) were shown to be far less than their legends had made them—with two exceptions: Jack Johnson and Sam Langford. Still, Johnson’s layback and wait for a mistake and counter and then clinch style left something to be desired. Langford fought more like a modern fighter. Relentless pursuit and effective leading or countering, with tremendous power and killer instinct.
The writer opined that the first fighter that you didn’t need to say, “There’s something wrong with the film” when watching him was…..Jack Dempsey.
Obviously, anyone who’s seen a speed corrected version of Benny Leonard against Lew Tendler recognize an amazing technician blessed with great reflexes and a very nimble brain. Jimmy Wilde looked to be a very dangerous proposition against Pancho Villa until Villa dropped him on his face after a tremendous shot. Tony Canzoneri, Sammy Mandell and Gene Tunney also showed just how far and fast skills and technique had advanced. And who’s to say that FILM ITSELF wasn’t responsible for much of the advances? Because filming became more common and could be more widely disseminated.
The writer claims to have heard many old time writers rhapsodize about the greatness of the pioneers and came to believe that they possessed superhuman qualities that the modern fighters couldn’t match. What changed his mind was a session of watching films on an invite from Jim Jacobs himself, who had invited several of those writers to watch films of many of the fighters they had canonized.
Evidently, Jacobs presented the films without the titles and made no comments during the playing of the films. Until…..
During the playing of the Fitzsimmons-Corbett film, which was “wonderfully clear, and played at the correct speed”, one of the writers watching the film (hard to believe he didn’t recognize the fighters if he was an expert—or was it that he didn’t want to believe his eyes?) made a comment about the ineptitude of the two men in the ring. “Who are these bums?” “Is that Jerry Lewis?” and other derisive remarks. Jacobs announced, “Gentlemen, you are watching James J. Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons.” There was a brief silence, during which time Jacobs whispered to the writer of the article, “Watch. They’re going to say there’s something wrong with the film.”
Sure enough, as if on cue, a voice called out, “There’s gotta be something wrong with the film.”
Jacobs put on film after film, with the writers saying things like “That’s not so-and-so” or “So-and-so didn’t fight like that” as they watched incredulously.
Later, Jacobs became openly derisive. “Wanna see why they called Terrible Terry McGovern ‘terrible?’” Each of the legends of the first two decades of the 20th century (and, incidentally, of a sport that had only departed the barbarism of the bare-knuckle era in 1892–how far could the science/art advance in such a short time, without true mass-medial to demonstrate or initiate advancement?) were shown to be far less than their legends had made them—with two exceptions: Jack Johnson and Sam Langford. Still, Johnson’s layback and wait for a mistake and counter and then clinch style left something to be desired. Langford fought more like a modern fighter. Relentless pursuit and effective leading or countering, with tremendous power and killer instinct.
The writer opined that the first fighter that you didn’t need to say, “There’s something wrong with the film” when watching him was…..Jack Dempsey.
Obviously, anyone who’s seen a speed corrected version of Benny Leonard against Lew Tendler recognize an amazing technician blessed with great reflexes and a very nimble brain. Jimmy Wilde looked to be a very dangerous proposition against Pancho Villa until Villa dropped him on his face after a tremendous shot. Tony Canzoneri, Sammy Mandell and Gene Tunney also showed just how far and fast skills and technique had advanced. And who’s to say that FILM ITSELF wasn’t responsible for much of the advances? Because filming became more common and could be more widely disseminated.
Re: Jim Jacobs-Nat Fleischer debate
One thing that I noticed when I was watching some old films on youtube was just how far Dempsey seemed to be in front of his contemporaries in regards to a modern technique and style. I would include Tunney within that list, Tunney was great no doubt but he looked to me as someone who relied more on physical gifts rather than someone who had excellent technique. Not that Tunney was the first or the last fighter to have fought like that.
Re: Jim Jacobs-Nat Fleischer debate
Funnily enough, I was thinking about this subject at the weekend and watched a load of fights from different decades.p4p1 wrote: ↑19 Nov 2023, 19:59One thing that I noticed when I was watching some old films on youtube was just how far Dempsey seemed to be in front of his contemporaries in regards to a modern technique and style. I would include Tunney within that list, Tunney was great no doubt but he looked to me as someone who relied more on physical gifts rather than someone who had excellent technique. Not that Tunney was the first or the last fighter to have fought like that.
Agree that Dempsey seemed to make a big advance. His balance and approach to defence appears more 'modern'.
Also agree Tunney looked more in the old timer category: forearms at the waist and parallel and pulling back from shots.
Seems like there was a lot of evolution in boxing styles in the 30s and 40s. For what it's worth, to me Billy Conn seems like an example of someone between older and newer styles, from the bits I've seen of him anyway.
Re: Jim Jacobs-Nat Fleischer debate
I've been reading a lot about Jacobs in old newspapers lately. When he exhibited his films in the early 1960's, several writers agreed with him that the fighters Ketchel, Corbett, FItzsimmons, Jeffries and Jack O' Brien were pathetic in their technique and ability. None of the writers I read agreed with the argument that the film quality was too blame .
-
Ambling Alp II
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 15097
- Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31
Re: Jim Jacobs-Nat Fleischer debate
There are lot of things in play here.
Some people are biased towards fighters of their era and have preconceived notions of how the sport has "evolved". i.e the guy before my time were not nearly as good.
Some fighters from way back don't look that good. Sometimes it is at least partially because the film was not that good.
On the other hand, sometimes the guys do look on film from way back, at least if you know what to look for.
As for Tunney and others holding their hands low: If you have the natural talent to do, it you should do that. If you can get out the way fast enough, it actually makes sense because your hands are more free to do something offensively. It would work for Ali, Holmes, and Jones. Would not work for most fighters. It worked for Tunney.
As for fighters getting better or not over time: I think it goes something like this in not only boxing but other sports:
The sports improved dramatically in the first couple of decades. New strategies and techniques etc, are figured out. In boxing, that would basically be in the late 1800s . Then the rate of improvement, slows for a while. Then eventually, it stops getting better at all.
In boxing, at one particular time the heavyweight division might be great, sometimes terrible, and most of the time somewhere in between. However, another weight class would be great when the hw division was down or bad when the hw divisions was up. All told after the first two or three decades, counting all weight classes, the sport was at about the same level decade after decade. after decade.
Some people are biased towards fighters of their era and have preconceived notions of how the sport has "evolved". i.e the guy before my time were not nearly as good.
Some fighters from way back don't look that good. Sometimes it is at least partially because the film was not that good.
On the other hand, sometimes the guys do look on film from way back, at least if you know what to look for.
As for Tunney and others holding their hands low: If you have the natural talent to do, it you should do that. If you can get out the way fast enough, it actually makes sense because your hands are more free to do something offensively. It would work for Ali, Holmes, and Jones. Would not work for most fighters. It worked for Tunney.
As for fighters getting better or not over time: I think it goes something like this in not only boxing but other sports:
The sports improved dramatically in the first couple of decades. New strategies and techniques etc, are figured out. In boxing, that would basically be in the late 1800s . Then the rate of improvement, slows for a while. Then eventually, it stops getting better at all.
In boxing, at one particular time the heavyweight division might be great, sometimes terrible, and most of the time somewhere in between. However, another weight class would be great when the hw division was down or bad when the hw divisions was up. All told after the first two or three decades, counting all weight classes, the sport was at about the same level decade after decade. after decade.