Pre footage fighters

As most will know that on here we have the big fans of the oldies, some of which rank some fighters right up there even though they haven’t even seen some footage of them. Not a dig, the amount of reading and background they have read up on these fighters and know about them sometimes astounds me. But the question is how much weight can you put into an old paper clippings, interviews etc, after all these are only one person opinion after all?

Take today’s boxing as a example and zoom 200 years into the future all footage of all fighters has been lost. Do we really go off old jim watt commentary? what about a frank warren article from the sun? What about a interview with amir khan talking about himself in third person? Now i know i have picked some of the worst examples to make my point but imagine some of the opinions you would form from these. Boxing more than any other sport can split opinion, only have to look on here about certain fighters to know that it’s a struggle to figure out fighters we have seen lots of let alone nothing of.

Sometimes in sport ex pro's word is given too much weight because they were good at the sport. Look at pele and maradona the two greatest footballers of all time. you listen to them talk about football though and they don’t half talk some rubbish (hows the African world cup winners going pele?) and boxers after getting punched in the head for a living are not exempt from this.

Usually when talking about the real oldies i stay away as i have always been more one to who likes to watch and to have seen the fighters we debate about. ali was fighting way before i was born but i have still seen nearly all of his fights so feel that im able to structure my own opinion free from bias (although a lot of the documentaries will edge one way or the other and can lead to bias) same with tyson, around his pomp i was only a young kid but have seen loads of him.

So how much when you read a old clipping do you put weight into what they said and can a fighter without footage be made into something he's not through nostalgic views and a biased clipping? Can you avoid bias or notice if there’s a particular like or dislike for a fighter from reading pieces on him? Do you feel pre footage fighters suffer or gain from coming from the era there from?

It is tricky compelling because what also needs bearing in mind is that very often in the era of newspaper decisions journalists would accept backhanders from promoters to give their guys decisions and so right ups could be a little unreliable. However what also needs bearing in mind is whilst there are guys like Burley or Greb for who there is almost no footage in almost all cases there is decent footage of guys they fought and beat and so we can see from the calibre of guys they beat how good they must have been.

Also worth remembering there have been some truly terrific books written in recent years about a lot of the old timers. I am a big fan of the books Adam Pollack has done on the early heavyweights and as anyone who has read any of Pollack's works will know he approaches the subjects with almost forensic levels of research, utilising any number of source materials and so with a little effort to seek out these books and a fairly heavy financial investment you can get a pretty decent impression of their relative merits and fighting styles.

It's difficult, especially when you consider a lot of newspaper writers were on the take, just as officials and boxers. But it's rare to not be able to watch a boxer or any of his opponents. Their words should be taken in the context of the times they were written, rather than applied to modern standards. Even if you hear from respected boxers, not all know their history, and for a trainer you don't know all the context of their comments. Between everything you can normally build a reasonable picture though.

cheers jeff will try and take a look, should also say that having read my post im not as anti to the oldies as i sound. just playinga bit of devils adovcate to see what peoples opinions are

rowley wrote:It is tricky compelling because what also needs bearing in mind is that very often in the era of newspaper decisions journalists would accept backhanders from promoters to give their guys decisions and so right ups could be a little unreliable. However what also needs bearing in mind is whilst there are guys like Burley or Greb for who there is almost no footage in almost all cases there is decent footage of guys they fought and beat and so we can see from the calibre of guys they beat how good they must have been.

Also worth remembering there have been some truly terrific books written in recent years about a lot of the old timers. I am a big fan of the books Adam Pollack has done on the early heavyweights and as anyone who has read any of Pollack's works will know he approaches the subjects with almost forensic levels of research, utilising any number of source materials and so with a little effort to seek out these books and a fairly heavy financial investment you can get a pretty decent impression of their relative merits and fighting styles.

Pretty much how I feel, and I would add that it is valuable to cross refer as many sources as possible. If they all sing from the same hymn book it makes it pretty authoritative, in my view. It also is invaluable if we read the opinions of authors concerning fighters we haven't seen and then to read the opinions of the same authors with regard to those whom we have.

Boxing history is no different to the history of any other subject. In most cases we can ' follow a bloodline ' and cross refer our findings.

compelling and rich wrote:Take today’s boxing as a example and zoom 200 years into the future all footage of all fighters has been lost. Do we really go off old jim watt commentary? what about a frank warren article from the sun? What about a interview with amir khan talking about himself in third person? Now i know i have picked some of the worst examples to make my point but imagine some of the opinions you would form from these.

I'd say that calling those Watt, Warren and Khan references the "worst examples" is putting it mildly! The three men in question there, given their roles and capacities, can't realistically be compared to an impartial trainer whose work has spanned fifty-odd years, or a man such as Fleischer whose role it was to cover the sport of boxing in detail and without bias (the 'without bias' bit, again, something which does not apply to the three examples you've given there).

It does rile me a little bit that this 'no film = no good' phenomenon gets thrown around so much, and is such an elastic theory these days, with many twisting it and changing it's parameters as and when they see fit. I can understand if someone is dubious on bestowing all-time greatness on a fighter they've never seen, don't get me wrong, but at the same time most who do so are still happy to proclaim Robinson as the finest pound for pound fighter of all time, despite their being next to no footage available of his glorious Welterweight pomp. Again, a bit of consistency is needed. If a lack of footage is so detrimental to a fighter's greatness, then those who claim so simply can't have Robinson as the all-time number one, as the huge majority of film available of him only concerns his Middleweight exploits which, while still fantastic, would never make him a candidate for the all-time top spot without his achievements at 147 lb.

As most accept that there are truly great fighters in any era, I don't think it's so unreasonable to simply believe the testimony of those who saw them in action and / or worked with them.

think the problem with me is that i have grown in the tabloid generation where theres as much rubbish talked about the sport as there is good stuff. same with the tv companies, if you werent with sky its like you dont exsist. could be a massive fight but if it werent covered by sky then nothing then but throw haye v harrisson down your throat every day all day. there isnt many british media guys i respect in boxing, probably why i find it hard putting so much faith in the older journos

The other thing which should be considered is back in the day boxing was far more popular than it is today and the coverage in the press reflected this, apologies on relying on Pollack again but in the run up to heavyweight fights papers regularly covered not only the fights but their training camps. Is possible to know who they sparred with, how many miles they ran each day, how long they were in camp and their diets in preparation for fights. Couple this with exhaustive round by round reports of the fights and you can get a fairly comprehensive picture of these guys without the need for footage

jeff, thats gives you a great background knowledge but how do you put across speed in words. its something that has to be seen. reading about roy jones in his prime and seeing him were two totally different things

Newspapers and reports about fights don't even tell you half the story.
Reading some reports of current boxing matches and then watching the fights yourself make you see that a lot was missed out, some parts downplayed and others exagerated.

the only thing there D4 is that when the coverage was so litttle they were alot more in depth because they had to. journalists are lazy now because everythings on tv

Seeing isn't always believing, either.

We've all seen Calzaghe, and yet some swear he's an ATG, while some are equally vehement that he was only a notch or two above mediocre.

In any event, there aren't too many of the ATGs from the early twentieth century onwards of whom film doesn't exist.

HumanWindmill wrote:
Pretty much how I feel, and I would add that it is valuable to cross refer as many sources as possible. If they all sing from the same hymn book it makes it pretty authoritative, in my view.

I think this point from HumanWindmill is key for articles about the old fighters. If you can find many differrent varied sources, then it can only lend weight when judging the fighters of old.

HumanWindmill wrote:Seeing isn't always believing, either.

We've all seen Calzaghe, and yet some swear he's an ATG, while some are equally vehement that he was only a notch or two above mediocre.

In any event, there aren't too many of the ATGs from the early twentieth century onwards of whom film doesn't exist.

True, but then at least it's your opinion, rather than your interpretation of other people's opinions.

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Seeing isn't always believing, either.

We've all seen Calzaghe, and yet some swear he's an ATG, while some are equally vehement that he was only a notch or two above mediocre.

In any event, there aren't too many of the ATGs from the early twentieth century onwards of whom film doesn't exist.

True, but then at least it's your opinion, rather than your interpretation of other people's opinions.

What do you think of radio coverage ?

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Seeing isn't always believing, either.

We've all seen Calzaghe, and yet some swear he's an ATG, while some are equally vehement that he was only a notch or two above mediocre.

In any event, there aren't too many of the ATGs from the early twentieth century onwards of whom film doesn't exist.

True, but then at least it's your opinion, rather than your interpretation of other people's opinions.

What do you think of radio coverage ?

Very rarely listen to sport on the radio. Better than nothing if you are travelling but would prefer to watch myself. I often find a game is different when watching to the impression I got of how it unfolded when listening. Which is how it's likely to be from another person's written words.

HumanWindmill wrote:Seeing isn't always believing, either.

We've all seen Calzaghe, and yet some swear he's an ATG, while some are equally vehement that he was only a notch or two above mediocre.

In any event, there aren't too many of the ATGs from the early twentieth century onwards of whom film doesn't exist.

I would trust my eyes over some journalists words, everytime.

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Seeing isn't always believing, either.

We've all seen Calzaghe, and yet some swear he's an ATG, while some are equally vehement that he was only a notch or two above mediocre.

In any event, there aren't too many of the ATGs from the early twentieth century onwards of whom film doesn't exist.

I would trust my eyes over some journalists words, everytime.

I might, also. However, I wouldn't trust my eyes over the opinion of Gene Tunney, who fought Harry Greb, or Dempsey, who sparred with him.

I believe that that would be arrogant.

HumanWindmill wrote:I might, also. However, I wouldn't trust my eyes over the opinion of Gene Tunney, who fought Harry Greb, or Dempsey, who sparred with him.

I believe that that would be arrogant.

Depends what you are trying for. If you want to get a picture of how good he was for his era or in comparison to their other opponents, then their opinions are great, if used with caution. However, it doesn't do you too much good for wider comparison purposes, or fantasy fights.

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Seeing isn't always believing, either.

We've all seen Calzaghe, and yet some swear he's an ATG, while some are equally vehement that he was only a notch or two above mediocre.

In any event, there aren't too many of the ATGs from the early twentieth century onwards of whom film doesn't exist.

True, but then at least it's your opinion, rather than your interpretation of other people's opinions.

What do you think of radio coverage ?

Very rarely listen to sport on the radio. Better than nothing if you are travelling but would prefer to watch myself. I often find a game is different when watching to the impression I got of how it unfolded when listening. Which is how it's likely to be from another person's written words.

When I was a kid we often had the big fights screened the night after they happened. They were almost always on radio ' live ' the night they happened. I would listen to them on the night and watch them the night after. I never saw too many disparities, and the one which does stick out as being an exception was the Cooper v Bugner fight, in which the radio commentary by Fred Valander was markedly superior to the TV commentary by Harry Carpenter, in my opinion.

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I might, also. However, I wouldn't trust my eyes over the opinion of Gene Tunney, who fought Harry Greb, or Dempsey, who sparred with him.

I believe that that would be arrogant.

Depends what you are trying for. If you want to get a picture of how good he was for his era or in comparison to their other opponents, then their opinions are great, if used with caution. However, it doesn't do you too much good for wider comparison purposes, or fantasy fights.

It most certainly does if they give their views in the matter, and especially so since Tunney and Dempsey lived until the late seventies / early eighties. Futch and Arcel, likewise. Besides, there's no right or wrong, here. We are discussing a belief system.

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Seeing isn't always believing, either.

We've all seen Calzaghe, and yet some swear he's an ATG, while some are equally vehement that he was only a notch or two above mediocre.

In any event, there aren't too many of the ATGs from the early twentieth century onwards of whom film doesn't exist.

I would trust my eyes over some journalists words, everytime.

I might, also. However, I wouldn't trust my eyes over the opinion of Gene Tunney, who fought Harry Greb, or Dempsey, who sparred with him.

I believe that that would be arrogant.

Primary evidence always trumps secondary evidence.

It is not like you don't understand boxing, and you not sure what to look for.

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Seeing isn't always believing, either.

We've all seen Calzaghe, and yet some swear he's an ATG, while some are equally vehement that he was only a notch or two above mediocre.

In any event, there aren't too many of the ATGs from the early twentieth century onwards of whom film doesn't exist.

I would trust my eyes over some journalists words, everytime.

I might, also. However, I wouldn't trust my eyes over the opinion of Gene Tunney, who fought Harry Greb, or Dempsey, who sparred with him.

I believe that that would be arrogant.

Primary evidence always trumps secondary evidence.

It is not like you don't understand boxing, and you not sure what to look for.

Well, I don't consider PPV figures to be a reliable means of judging a fighter, either. You do. The difference is that I'm happy to allow you your means of forming an opinion. I believe that the means by which avid fans of boxing history arrive at their opinions are perfectly valid and sound, and do not require justification.

In any event, I'll say again that very few of the ATGs slipped through the net unrecorded.

Just to play devils advocate D4 say there was little footage of Ali. What would you consider a better indictor of his actual abilities. Countless news reports of his fights with Williams, Patterson and Liston or actual video footage of his fights with Holmes, Berbick and Spinks?

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I might, also. However, I wouldn't trust my eyes over the opinion of Gene Tunney, who fought Harry Greb, or Dempsey, who sparred with him.

I believe that that would be arrogant.

Depends what you are trying for. If you want to get a picture of how good he was for his era or in comparison to their other opponents, then their opinions are great, if used with caution. However, it doesn't do you too much good for wider comparison purposes, or fantasy fights.

It most certainly does if they give their views in the matter, and especially so since Tunney and Dempsey lived until the late seventies / early eighties. Futch and Arcel, likewise. Besides, there's no right or wrong, here. We are discussing a belief system.

Manny Steward is one of my favourite trainers, and knows boxing about as well as anyone alive. However, sometimes he gets it completely wrong. He thought the Martinez vs Williams II knockout was a right hand and after the replay didn't think Martinez had tried it earlier in the fight. He had Williams completely dominating until that point. If I listened to him without the picture I'd have gotten the wrong impression of the fight completely.

However watching the basic abilities of th era does make you wonder just how good the oldies were..

However they didn't have access to the training, coaching and nutrition the guys have now..

They were pioneers and as such need to be weighted favorably however I'll agree it's too favorable in some cases..........

my guess is that most of the oldies get battered now as they were...question is with the training these days how good would they be now......

It's not a level playing field.

Scottrf wrote:
Manny Steward is one of my favourite trainers, and knows boxing about as well as anyone alive. However, sometimes he gets it completely wrong.

Which would be precisely why I said it is important to cross refer sources.

rowley wrote:Just to play devils advocate D4 say there was little footage of Ali. What would you consider a better indictor of his actual abilities. Countless news reports of his fights with Williams, Patterson and Liston or actual video footage of his fights with Holmes, Berbick and Spinks?

I would take all 3 into consideration but put more weight behind news reports, since they would be the most impartial and there would be a greater ranger of them.

The Holmes, Berbick and Spinks fights will tell you how he was at the end of his career not in his prime.

So in this instance secondary evidence is of greater value than primary evidence. To quote

Primary evidence always trumps secondary evidence.

rowley wrote:So in this instance secondary evidence is of greater value than primary evidence. To quote

Primary evidence always trumps secondary evidence.

No because there is no primary evidence to tell you about how good a prime Ali is, only primary evidence on how he was at the end of his career.

Surely if the Boston publicationwas covering a fight with a Bostonian in..it might be hard to put weight behind it....

Secondary would be better for this guy Rowley anyway....He refuses to rate Floyd with his eyes so what hope has he got.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Surely if the Boston publicationwas covering a fight with a Bostonian in..it might be hard to put weight behind it....

Secondary would be better for this guy Rowley anyway....He refuses to rate Floyd with his eyes so what hope has he got.

Maybe it just you that has been reading the propaganda.

D4thincarnation wrote:

rowley wrote:So in this instance secondary evidence is of greater value than primary evidence. To quote

Primary evidence always trumps secondary evidence.

No because there is no primary evidence to tell you about how good a prime Ali is, only primary evidence on how he was at the end of his career.

Similar to Robinson, then. There is some footage of his welter exploits, but very little. However, there is a huge amount of stuff from his days at middle and, as 88Chris points out, his days at middle, great though they were, would probably be insufficient to see him the overwhelming majority pick as greatest of all time.

Problem is which secondary source do you believe.....Fleischer didn't rate the greatest and thought Dem[psey would beat him...

The last Walcott-Charles fight had some journalists saying Ezzard was robbed whilst some had Walcott comfortably ahead...

Too simplistic a theory...

Primary will always be the best evidence...but unfortunately you haven't got that in some cases..

So record and longevity needs to be weighted higher..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Surely if the Boston publicationwas covering a fight with a Bostonian in..it might be hard to put weight behind it....

Secondary would be better for this guy Rowley anyway....He refuses to rate Floyd with his eyes so what hope has he got.

Bit harsh Truss, have never said I don't rate Floyd so have no idea where that has come from. I have said I don't agree with you he is a top ten guy, but I am not unique in thinking that. I rate him but can't go overboard on a guy who in what could be his pirme is a part time fighter and with no desire to revisit the debate for whatever reason has failed to face the most qualified challenger he has out there.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Problem is which secondary source do you believe.....Fleischer didn't rate the greatest and thought Dem[psey would beat him...

The last Walcott-Charles fight had some journalists saying Ezzard was robbed whilst some had Walcott comfortably ahead...

Too simplistic a theory...

Primary will always be the best evidence...but unfortunately you haven't got that in some cases..

So record and longevity needs to be weighted higher..

So, again, we must cross refer the sources.

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

rowley wrote:So in this instance secondary evidence is of greater value than primary evidence. To quote

Primary evidence always trumps secondary evidence.

No because there is no primary evidence to tell you about how good a prime Ali is, only primary evidence on how he was at the end of his career.

Similar to Robinson, then. There is some footage of his welter exploits, but very little. However, there is a huge amount of stuff from his days at middle and, as 88Chris points out, his days at middle, great though they were, would probably be insufficient to see him the overwhelming majority pick as greatest of all time.

I never said you should discount that evidence, it just that first hand evidence is always better.

He wasn't talking about you jeff, that's just his 'alternative' grammar.

d4 never went to public school I imagine..

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

rowley wrote:So in this instance secondary evidence is of greater value than primary evidence. To quote

Primary evidence always trumps secondary evidence.

No because there is no primary evidence to tell you about how good a prime Ali is, only primary evidence on how he was at the end of his career.

Similar to Robinson, then. There is some footage of his welter exploits, but very little. However, there is a huge amount of stuff from his days at middle and, as 88Chris points out, his days at middle, great though they were, would probably be insufficient to see him the overwhelming majority pick as greatest of all time.

I never said you should discount that evidence, it just that first hand evidence is always better.

Why is it ?

I don't mean to be rude, but you've seen Mayweather. Nobody in his right mind would say that you have been able to form a reliable opinion of his abilities.

Flogging a dead horse there..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Flogging a dead horse there..

Ha !

You reckon ?

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

rowley wrote:So in this instance secondary evidence is of greater value than primary evidence. To quote

Primary evidence always trumps secondary evidence.

No because there is no primary evidence to tell you about how good a prime Ali is, only primary evidence on how he was at the end of his career.

Similar to Robinson, then. There is some footage of his welter exploits, but very little. However, there is a huge amount of stuff from his days at middle and, as 88Chris points out, his days at middle, great though they were, would probably be insufficient to see him the overwhelming majority pick as greatest of all time.

I never said you should discount that evidence, it just that first hand evidence is always better.

Why is it ?

I don't mean to be rude, but you've seen Mayweather. Nobody in his right mind would say that you have been able to form a reliable opinion of his abilities.

My opinion on him is spot on.

I always call his fights right and I even said he could get a late KO against Hatton.

HumanWindmill wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Flogging a dead horse there..

Ha !

You reckon ?

What would you prefer, do read reports about Tunney and Dempsey talk about Greb and read some journalist view of his fights or see all of his fights yourself?

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

rowley wrote:So in this instance secondary evidence is of greater value than primary evidence. To quote

Primary evidence always trumps secondary evidence.

No because there is no primary evidence to tell you about how good a prime Ali is, only primary evidence on how he was at the end of his career.

Similar to Robinson, then. There is some footage of his welter exploits, but very little. However, there is a huge amount of stuff from his days at middle and, as 88Chris points out, his days at middle, great though they were, would probably be insufficient to see him the overwhelming majority pick as greatest of all time.

I never said you should discount that evidence, it just that first hand evidence is always better.

Why is it ?

I don't mean to be rude, but you've seen Mayweather. Nobody in his right mind would say that you have been able to form a reliable opinion of his abilities.

My opinion on him is spot on.

I always call his fights right and I even said he could get a late KO against Hatton.

Don't let's go there. If I were of a mind I could dig out example after example of your trashing Floyd and his ability. This is at odds with the overwhelming informed opinion.

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Flogging a dead horse there..

Ha !

You reckon ?

What would you prefer, do read reports about Tunney and Dempsey talk about Greb and read some journalist view of his fights or see all of his fights yourself?

I'd like to have seen them build the Pyramids, too. Sadly, it wasn't filmed.

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Flogging a dead horse there..

Ha !

You reckon ?

What would you prefer, do read reports about Tunney and Dempsey talk about Greb and read some journalist view of his fights or see all of his fights yourself?

I'd like to have seen them build the Pyramids, too. Sadly, it wasn't filmed.

So is that a yes to watching Greb's fights?

And some of them were filmed.

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Flogging a dead horse there..

Ha !

You reckon ?

What would you prefer, do read reports about Tunney and Dempsey talk about Greb and read some journalist view of his fights or see all of his fights yourself?

I'd like to have seen them build the Pyramids, too. Sadly, it wasn't filmed.

So is that a yes to watching Greb's fights?

And some of them were filmed.

The film has been lost. There is no surviving film of any Greb fight.

D4thincarnation wrote:

rowley wrote:So in this instance secondary evidence is of greater value than primary evidence. To quote

Primary evidence always trumps secondary evidence.

No because there is no primary evidence to tell you about how good a prime Ali is, only primary evidence on how he was at the end of his career.

So you're quite happy to clearly contradict your prior statement of ooh, all of ten minutes earlier?

So back to the question, which is it Windy.

What Grebs fights, or reading journalist views on his fights and comments from Tunney and Dempsey.

Which would give you a more rounded view of Greb as a fighter?