BoxRec

.... meaning, when did boxing fights start to look more or less as they look today?

Imo, in the 1930s boxing looked quite modern. In the 1910s it didn't, with the exception of individual fighters like Sam Langford.

Thus some time in the 1920, perhaps?

Joe Louis.

Tantum wrote:Joe Louis.

Good call, although Schmeling or Tunney look already pretty modern to me.

Almost everyone seems to peg that distinction to the advent of the motorized and somewhat synchronized movie cameras which became prevelant in the 20's. Quite a coincidence, huh?

The Great John L wrote:Almost everyone seems to peg that distinction to the advent of the motorized and somewhat synchronized movie cameras which became prevelant in the 20's. Quite a coincidence, huh?

True. But then, Sam Langford looks modern even with old cameras, and I guess Corbett vs. Fitzsimmons would look odd whatever camera is used

HenryK wrote:

The Great John L wrote:Almost everyone seems to peg that distinction to the advent of the motorized and somewhat synchronized movie cameras which became prevelant in the 20's. Quite a coincidence, huh?

True. But then, Sam Langford looks modern even with old cameras, and I guess Corbett vs. Fitzsimmons would look odd whatever camera is used

Please define "modern"?

The Great John L wrote:

HenryK wrote:

The Great John L wrote:Almost everyone seems to peg that distinction to the advent of the motorized and somewhat synchronized movie cameras which became prevelant in the 20's. Quite a coincidence, huh?

True. But then, Sam Langford looks modern even with old cameras, and I guess Corbett vs. Fitzsimmons would look odd whatever camera is used

Please define "modern"?

Please define "beauty".

My criterion is whether one could picture a top-level fight from then to take place like this also today. Pre-1920s, one often sees a rather upright stance, arms stretched out, much distance between the fighters, relatively limited footwork and head movement. All these features strike me as relatively unmodern.

HenryK wrote:Pre-1920s, one often sees a rather upright stance, arms stretched out, much distance between the fighters, relatively limited footwork and head movement. All these features strike me as relatively unmodern.

So you really haven't seen much footage of fighters pre 1920?

The Great John L wrote:

HenryK wrote:Pre-1920s, one often sees a rather upright stance, arms stretched out, much distance between the fighters, relatively limited footwork and head movement. All these features strike me as relatively unmodern.

So you really haven't seen much footage of fighters pre 1920?

Except for the "much distance between fighters" (I don't know that means - pre-1920s some of these guys looked like Greco-Roman wrestlers rather than boxers), it sounds like he's seen a lot of pre-1920s footage to me.

There have been modern-looking fighters going at least as far back as the '20s, like Benny Leonard.

But I'd say the modern era didn't get into full swing until the mid or late '30s with fighters like Henry Armstrong and Barney Ross, and then became pretty much universal by the '40s.

HenryK wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

The Great John L wrote:Almost everyone seems to peg that distinction to the advent of the motorized and somewhat synchronized movie cameras which became prevelant in the 20's. Quite a coincidence, huh?

True. But then, Sam Langford looks modern even with old cameras, and I guess Corbett vs. Fitzsimmons would look odd whatever camera is used

Please define "modern"?

My criterion is whether one could picture a top-level fight from then to take place like this also today. Pre-1920s, one often sees a rather upright stance, arms stretched out, much distance between the fighters, relatively limited footwork and head movement. .[/quote]

Sounds like most fighters circa 2009 to me.

By around 1905-1910 boxing had pretty much made its full transition from the bareknuckle era, the transition was very quick. Some further changes just as larger gloves and shorter fight durations have made other changes over time as well but nothing incredibly substantial.

The Great John L wrote:

HenryK wrote:Pre-1920s, one often sees a rather upright stance, arms stretched out, much distance between the fighters, relatively limited footwork and head movement. All these features strike me as relatively unmodern.

So you really haven't seen much footage of fighters pre 1920?

Not quite sure what's the purpose of this comment but I guess you will know.

dempseyfire wrote: Sounds like most fighters circa 2009 to me.

Maybe at heavyweight

The Great John L wrote:Almost everyone seems to peg that distinction to the advent of the motorized and somewhat synchronized movie cameras which became prevelant in the 20's. Quite a coincidence, huh?

That's the smartest thing we'll ever hear on this subject. DempseyFire, in the past, has made the point that the Klitschkos, had they been around in, say, Willard's day, would look a lot worse --- & be rated accordingly --- if they were only seen via hand-crank, & not in Hi-Def. Fair point, though it escapes most of the kids in Current Scene, for whom Boxing started the day they were born (late-80's or more recently).

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

The Great John L wrote:Almost everyone seems to peg that distinction to the advent of the motorized and somewhat synchronized movie cameras which became prevelant in the 20's. Quite a coincidence, huh?

That's the smartest thing we'll ever hear on this subject. DempseyFire, in the past, has made the point that the Klitschkos, had they been around in, say, Willard's day, would look a lot worse --- & be rated accordingly --- if they were only seen via hand-crank, & not in Hi-Def. Fair point, though it escapes most of the kids in Current Scene, for whom Boxing started the day they were born (late-80's or more recently).

Funny enough, I was rewatching the end of Vitali-Gomez the other day while thinking about the upcoming fight with Haye, and if Vitali didn't look like a CARBON copy of ol' Jess in that fight with both hands down, stiff-straight, throwing out left jabs then I'm a monkey's uncle. Jess didn't have Klitschko's left hook but Vitali lacks Willard's uppercut.

Thing is, across all eras you see different styles. Stanley Ketchel no better sums up the style of the '1905 boxer' anymore than Ricardo Mayorga sums up the style of the '2002 boxer' . . .all eras had sluggers, stylists, boxer-punchers. Pre-1915 you did see more tactical infighting/grappling but that was laregly due to the longer distances of the fights. Looking at the likes of Jim Driscoll, Benny Leonard, Mike Gibbons, and even Bill Tate you can see fighters that could easily be fighting in 2009 let alone 100 years earlier.

HenryK wrote:.... meaning, when did boxing fights start to look more or less as they look today?

- Jack Dempsey ushered in modern boxing to complement the post WW1 euphoria and business expansion known as the Roaring 20s.

Starting in 1918, Doc Kearns ran him around the northeast corridor appearing in a long series of exhibitions as he was promoted as the title challenger and heir apparent to Big Jess. Newspapers and fans went wild over this darkly handsome, brooding, no quarter slugger who popularized the dramatic KO as he swept out the dreary era of No Decision contests that had been the norm. Mike Tyson would later copy the Dempsey persona and style to a T to set his own records as he created his own frenzy in his own inimitable fashion.

There was now more media build up to Dempsey fights which became a standard. His style was new enough to be compelling and effective enough to still in popular use today. He transcended boxing as an entertainment and celebrity figure and his fights transcended into mega-events. They set new gate records and are still the majority of all time top gate rocords.

He also stirred in an international flavor by fighting the champions of France and Argentina. Doc Kearns and Tex Ritter deserve a lot of credit for making the fullest use of his talents for the most part even if they all had a falling out by the end when it all unraveled.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

HenryK wrote:.... meaning, when did boxing fights start to look more or less as they look today?

- Jack Dempsey ushered in modern boxing to complement the post WW1 euphoria and business expansion known as the Roaring 20s.

Starting in 1918, Doc Kearns ran him around the northeast corridor appearing in a long series of exhibitions as he was promoted as the title challenger and heir apparent to Big Jess. Newspapers and fans went wild over this darkly handsome, brooding, no quarter slugger who popularized the dramatic KO as he swept out the dreary era of No Decision contests that had been the norm. Mike Tyson would later copy the Dempsey persona and style to a T to set his own records as he created his own frenzy in his own inimitable fashion.

There was now more media build up to Dempsey fights which became a standard. His style was new enough to be compelling and effective enough to still in popular use today. He transcended boxing as an entertainment and celebrity figure and his fights transcended into mega-events. They set new gate records and are still the majority of all time top gate rocords.

He also stirred in an international flavor by fighting the champions of France and Argentina. Doc Kearns and Tex Ritter deserve a lot of credit for making the fullest use of his talents for the most part even if they all had a falling out by the end when it all unraveled.

Don't forget the secret fight up in Canada against Jack Johnson.

This era starts when BRR says it starts and not one minute before.

I challenge anyone here to prove otherwise.

...and for what it's worth Dempsey seems a good point to claim...I'd tend to go along with it, but Collins appears to be pointing out (may i be so bold as to interpret?) that this may be a rather subjective call.

If enough folks buy into the concensus then the sheer numbers alone may well be compelling and may lay credible claim that they are the gestalt "prevailing wisdom" on this matter.

I'll go along with Candyass Rob and say Dempsey looked 'modern'.

Though if it was all down to the type of camera used, how come Dempey looked great in those old films and Willard looked like a big brave but rather untalented and badly co-ordinated guy?

Now if I was to apply Occams razor to that question...

I'd say the Dempsey-Tunney fights were thoroughly modern, but then if you go forward a little while, I see a lot of non-modern aspects to, say, the Carnera-Baer fight. I think a lot of the reason for that is the rules used in the two fights. The Dempsey-Tunney fights used the modern rules with regard to neutral corner and all that, whereas Baer was already flinging wild haymakers at Carnera before the giant could even get his hands up after rising from one of the 11 knockdowns he suffered. And that's before you consider the fact that Carnera was clearly on one foot and could barely stand under his own power, but the fight was allowed to continue long after the injury...something that would not happen today, even when a fighter is way ahead like I thought Carnera was to that point.

There are some guys (Langford was mentioned) who go way back, but would I think hold up very well in modern eyes. There isn't a lot of great video on Jim Jeffries, especially not at his best, but I saw a video on youtube of him training before his original retirement, and he actually looked surprisingly similar to Muhammad Ali....which was surprising considering he was known as sort of a plodding slugger. Then again, who knows how accurate the frame rate of the film was...

I'd say it was modern for all practical purposes sometime around the start of Joe Louis' reign.

Collins2000 wrote:I'll go along with Candyass Rob and say Dempsey looked 'modern'.

Though if it was all down to the type of camera used, how come Dempey looked great in those old films and Willard looked like a big brave but rather untalented and badly co-ordinated guy?

Now if I was to apply Occams razor to that question...

Collins, you are not allowed anything with sharp edges while walking the halls here, (to much of an insurance risk) And your reference to the sweetness of my anatomy is disturbing, unless you are sans testosterone and highly attractive.

Also....I humbly suggest that you stop stirring stuff up from the bottom of the bowl and then turn around and complain to others about what you see floating on top. It's a lazy and slovenly way to conduct yourself. Your very actions may explain why granberry feels you were the one that created the floating deposits. Though I suspect you suffer from chronic constipation and could not possibly be responsible for that which he is complaining about.

BoxBuzz wrote:Also....I humbly suggest that you stop stirring stuff up from the bottom of the bowl and then turn around and complain

Rob, your sanctimonious preaching is falling on deaf ears, mate.

I consider you to be the ultimate hypocrite in here, in case you were in any doubt.

Also, why not post something about boxing now and then?

For instance, you could have a go at the trivia questions occasionally posted. You used to brag about being a boxing historian so those questions should be meat and drink to you.

If you asked DeWitt Van Court – a name largely forgotten today – he’d tell you that the modern era began with Jack Dempsey. As a young man, Van Court trained under Walter Watson at the San Francisco Olympic Club and then became one of the premier trainers in California. In his book, The Making of Champions in California, he comments upon, and criticizes, the changes wrought by Dempsey and the fighters of Dempsey’s generation.

Film historian Jim Jacobs claimed in a 1969 Ring Magazine article that the first fighter to use combinations in a sustained and purposeful manner was the Great Benny Leonard. That would certainly coincide with Dempsey's arrival on the scene.

I believe, though, that we also see improvement in footwork and shortening of the punches through the 30s and 40s, too - especially with African-American fighters like Joe Louis, Ike Williams and Ezzard Charles.

Collins2000 wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Also....I humbly suggest that you stop stirring stuff up from the bottom of the bowl and then turn around and complain

Rob, your sanctimonious preaching is falling on deaf ears, mate.

I consider you to be the ultimate hypocrite in here, in case you were in any doubt.

Also, why not post something about boxing now and then?

For instance, you could have a go at the trivia questions occasionally posted. You used to brag about being a boxing historian so those questions should be meat and drink to you.

#1. Never been in doubt about your judgment of me, I love a good laugh and can't resist going off topic more often than not.

#2 I posted about boxing that one time remember? you made fun of me....so now I'm shy....hope your proud of yourself.

#3 I have contributed to some trivia along the way via my brother, so's to escape your critical retorts. But just so's you know, you said very nice things, agreed and considered me a genius for being in agreement with you.

Now quit stirrin' it up 'round these parts by attempting to besmirch my otherwise sterling reputation.

Its easy for me, when they stopped having twenty bajillion rounds in a fight. Kinda like when baseball went to the modern mound distance (from 50" to 60'6 from the plate). Its easy to compare any regulated 15 round fight. To me it has nothing to do with fighting style and I think its being unfair to the guys who weren't widely televised.