BoxRec

Guys I am curious how many of you have favourite fighters who you
have never seen fight, this generally refers to the old time guys.

For example i know a few people who rate Jim Jefferies and John L Sullivan highly as all time great HW, and seriously feel they could beat most modern champs. I am curious to know whart they base this on, apart for a love of nostalgia.

In all honesty, I have seen snippets of Bob Fitzsimmons, Jefferies, Corbett and Burns in fights and saw nothing that impressed me so as to proclaim them as supreme warriors by todays standards. Where does this come from ?

Kym

You have to take into account the quality of the film. It's usually not in real time, poor picture quality, and of course was in black and white.

It's too much of a coincidence to think that fighters got better as soon as film got better.

Another thing to take into consideration is that as you have said you have only seen snippits of them.
This is a trap that people often fall into. They see only a little bit of someone and assume that the guy fights like that all of the time.
Imagine if the only fights of Felix Trinidad fight were the Hopkins and Wright fights. You would probably conclude that he couldn't fight at all.
then watch him against Joppy or one of his other impressive fights. You would then probably think he was almost unbeatable.

Film is important, but you also have to look at the fighter's record (taking into consideration the quality of his opponents' and the stage he and his opponents were at the time).
Newspaper articles, magazine articles and books can be helpful as well.

Granted, but the qualitry of opposition and the fights themselves are based on news paper accounts and heresay...so how is this a better guideline to base things on.

Fights DO get better with time and with the developtment of motion picture. Fighters are more and more aware of there image and marketability on TV and for PPVs, something that Jefferies or Sullivan never had to worry about.

Also another fact, is that as more fighters and coaches themselves had access to more fights and fighters on films, and this exposes one to different styles and elements of the fight.

I know that me personally for my fights (MMA) having access to opponents fights, sparring or even people who have similiar styles to them has helped me prepare for the fight.

Just by watching fights, one can pick up so much and incorporate it into there own game.

This is a HUGE factor in the developtment of the fight game.

My original question is however, is how people rate and base there opinions on fighters who they have never seen fight.

For example...when you read or hear something along the lines that Sullivan would KO Holyfield.

Yet when you actually see ANY film of them, whether being a kinescope or preliminary film, outside of the speed, technically they look horrible.

For example, I have read that Fitzsimmons 'solar plexus' punch to Corbett was such a fantastic technique and that even by todays standards that fight exhibits how great both men are. I have the highlights of that fight, and that punch is far from being like the one that Hopkins landed on De Lahoya.

I know I am going to offend and may come across as disrectful, but this is just my thoughts.

Thanks again.

kym

One thing you have to remember is that these guys reached the top fighting in the style of that day.

The gloves they used back then, the rules between the ropes and the crowd watching dictated a different approach to the game.

The cream of that day, just like today was all that reached the top..(even if some have been forgotten)

I have fave fighters who have very little if any fight film surviving...Ezzard Charles, Harry Greb...their record speaks for itself and fight reports fill in other gaps.

You see Charles is also one of my favourite fighters also, and I have quite a few clips, highlights and even a couple full fights of his.

Those are the reasons for me liking him, once i had seen him fight and got to know a bit more about the man. That however does not mean I think he could beat a prime Tyson or Bowe etc.

Kym

I was wondering if anyone knows if film exists of fights between Zora
Folley vs. Machen, Liston, Cleroux, Jones or Harris?
also, the Chuvalo- Cleroux fights? I have always wanted to see them, but am unaware if they exist? I sure haven't come across them.

I have recently become very interested in Eddie Booker an outstanding and often overlooked fighter.

Yet I have never seen him fight.

bill.lockhart wrote:I was wondering if anyone knows if film exists of fights between Zora
Folley vs. Machen, Liston, Cleroux, Jones or Harris?
also, the Chuvalo- Cleroux fights? I have always wanted to see them, but am unaware if they exist? I sure haven't come across them.

I saw a brief bit of one of the Chuvalo-Cleroux fights, so at least one of their fights was filmed by someone. The question is where is that film? If you know someone who knows George, maybe they can ask him.

Cap

John L. Sullivan is my ALL TIME favorite fighter to never been filmed, that is of course, if you dont consider the Corbett-Sullivan "street clothes" exhibition of sorts with Jim Jefferies as 'referee' when the men were in their 60's.

...i'd like to see elmer ray....curtis hatchetman sheppard....tiger jack fox....maxie rosenbloom.....just for starters...

Obviously there is a lot of film of them, but I wish there was more film of Robinson as a Welterweight and Charles as a Light Heavyweight. I have seen clips of Robinson at Welterweight, but its not much. I've only seen around 10 seconds of film of Benny Leonard, I'd love to see more of him, I'm not sure how much film exists of his fights.

I Feel Fine wrote:I've only seen around 10 seconds of film of Benny Leonard, I'd love to see more of him, I'm not sure how much film exists of his fights.

Here's about 10 minutes of his fight with Lew Tendler

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rfQwLykgKGE

J-C wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:I've only seen around 10 seconds of film of Benny Leonard, I'd love to see more of him, I'm not sure how much film exists of his fights.

Here's about 10 minutes of his fight with Lew Tendler

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rfQwLykgKGE

Wow, thanks.

I'm a fan of both Barbados Joe Walcott and Holman Williams yet I have never seen them fight. But I have read a lot about both fighters so you get an idea of what type of fighter they were.

I am a fan of Harry Thomas, who fought Joe Louis for the heavyweight championship, on April 1, 1938 in Chicago Stadium. Almost all of Louis' championship fights exist, but this one does not, and I always wondered why? Wouldn't a Louis championship fight be worth filming at the time? I have never seen a fight of Harry Thomas on film, and not sure if there is one.

It does seem odd, considering Louis was practically the most watched fighter in the world, and the majority of his fights were filmed while he was on the rise as a contender, and especially as a champion and beyond.

I am sure film exists somewhere, or it did at one time.

Yes, Thomas was a minor contender, but Nathan Mann was not a household name, and he fought Louis before Thomas. Look at the heavyweight title fights before Thomas, they were all filmed. I searched the world over, and was told the film doesn't exist. Louis had already had a couple of defenses, which were all filmed, and to decide not to film a Joe Louis fight during which he was champion just boggles me. I do not old out hope that this fight exists, because it Jacobs couldn't find it, it does not exist. This fight was indoors in Chicago stadium, maybe an indoor fight at that time presented filming problems. Also, Thomas was implicated in fight fixing during his fights with Schmeling and Adamick, so maybe this film, which Thomas said was not fixed, was quietly put out to pasture without any copies being made.

Decagon wrote:Meh. Harry Greb never got filmed, even though many fighters who weren't nearly as good were.

I heard somewhere that he was filmed but nobody has the film.

Robinson wrote:Granted, but the qualitry of opposition and the fights themselves are based on news paper accounts and heresay...so how is this a better guideline to base things on.

Fights DO get better with time and with the developtment of motion picture. Fighters are more and more aware of there image and marketability on TV and for PPVs, something that Jefferies or Sullivan never had to worry about.

Also another fact, is that as more fighters and coaches themselves had access to more fights and fighters on films, and this exposes one to different styles and elements of the fight.

I know that me personally for my fights (MMA) having access to opponents fights, sparring or even people who have similiar styles to them has helped me prepare for the fight.

Just by watching fights, one can pick up so much and incorporate it into there own game.

This is a HUGE factor in the developtment of the fight game.

My original question is however, is how people rate and base there opinions on fighters who they have never seen fight.

For example...when you read or hear something along the lines that Sullivan would KO Holyfield.

Yet when you actually see ANY film of them, whether being a kinescope or preliminary film, outside of the speed, technically they look horrible.

For example, I have read that Fitzsimmons 'solar plexus' punch to Corbett was such a fantastic technique and that even by todays standards that fight exhibits how great both men are. I have the highlights of that fight, and that punch is far from being like the one that Hopkins landed on De Lahoya.

I know I am going to offend and may come across as disrectful, but this is just my thoughts.

Thanks again.

kym

I tend to think of it like this...

Am I trying to decide who was the best fighter or who had the best technology at their disposal?

As has been said, the cream always rises. In certain eras it was harder to rise because there was more competition. This is why, IMO, when it comes down to it, it is who you fought and how you did that counts more than anything else.

In response to ambling alp's first comment...

I just had a tremendous idea...

The idea that poor filming has caused the old time fighters to look poor is not a new one...


Why not record some new fights with old time cameras??

A fight like, Mayweather - Hatton, for example...

Watch it in both recordings, to see the difference.

back to the topic.....i have always been curious about tippy larkin. from what i've read and heard he was a superb boxer, not too bad a puncher but had a glass chin. a match he had with billy graham, early in the latter's career has been written of as one of the great skillful boxing matches ever.

There are film on most of the fighters mention. More than just a few snips.

Tommy Burns has his fight with Jack O Brain, runs a hour long, plus the complete fights with Gunner Moir and Squires. So your looking at about a hour and 35 mins total in Burns in action in the fights he won. Not counting Jack Johnson.

Benny Leonard, I have the first Lew Tendler fight complete. All 12 rounds. Pretty neat to see. Also past his prime Benny vs Jimmy McLarin. So maybe 39 mins of film total on Benny.

Jim Jeff in his PRIME does have snips. Sharkey, runs a few mins, and Rulan runs a round.

Harry Greb was film. I know the Walker Greb fight was film. I seen the fight pics poster lol. For about a nickel or so you can get into the theater and see the fight. Now Greb's fights seem to have been lost because of time.

Other early fights was Joe Gans vs Battling Nelson, Britt vs Nelson 2, Ritchie Vs Rivers 1911 title lightweight title fight. Corbett Fitz 5 rounds, Fitz Lang, and even Sullivan sparing with Corbett, and hitting the speed bag. You can tell more with that mock sparing with Corbett though than the speed bag. Sullivan was so crazy at hitting the bag he lost his hat lol.

Archie Moore once told me that Charlie Burley was the best fighter he ever fought. I know a lot of guys stayed away from him. Is there any film of him?