Pre footage fighters

by compelling and rich Mon 16 May - 11:03

First topic message reminder :

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?

by Scottrf Mon 16 May - 13:27

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

He didn't contradict, the primary evidence isn't of his prime, but the secondary evidence is. He only said relevant secondary evidence is more relevant than irrelevant primary evidence. If the primary evidence was of his prime, I'm sure he'd prefer that.

by **HumanWindmill** Mon 16 May - 13:33

D4thincarnation wrote: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?

I have tomes of stuff concerning Harry Greb, D4.

It has been a labour of love to go through it all, cross referring, hunting down new accounts, etc., etc., and I have no hesitation that the research has been thorough enough to form a very good opinion of the man. Of course, I wish I could see him in action. It would be a great thrill but, sadly, I cannot and must therefore make do with what I have.

Each of us has his obsessions, after all.

by D4thincarnation Mon 16 May - 13:44

HumanWindmill wrote:
D4thincarnation wrote: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?

I have tomes of stuff concerning Harry Greb, D4.

It has been a labour of love to go through it all, cross referring, hunting down new accounts, etc., etc., and I have no hesitation that the research has been thorough enough to form a very good opinion of the man. Of course, I wish I could see him in action. It would be a great thrill but, sadly, I cannot and must therefore make do with what I have.

Each of us has his obsessions, after all.

It was a hypothetical question.

When you watch a film or listen to some music, it beats someone telling you about the film and telling you about the band.

It is a simply answer for me, I would want to watch the fights.

by **HumanWindmill** Mon 16 May - 13:47

D4thincarnation wrote:
HumanWindmill wrote:
D4thincarnation wrote: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?

I have tomes of stuff concerning Harry Greb, D4.

It has been a labour of love to go through it all, cross referring, hunting down new accounts, etc., etc., and I have no hesitation that the research has been thorough enough to form a very good opinion of the man. Of course, I wish I could see him in action. It would be a great thrill but, sadly, I cannot and must therefore make do with what I have.

Each of us has his obsessions, after all.

It was a hypothetical question.

When you watch a film or listen to some music, it beats someone telling you about the film and telling you about the band.

It is a simply answer for me, I would want to watch the fights.

Good for you.

by BALTIMORA Mon 16 May - 14:01

How many times have you watched a film based on a recommendation and later wished you'd not bothered?

by D4thincarnation Mon 16 May - 14:03

BALTIMORA wrote:How many times have you watched a film based on a recommendation and later wished you'd not bothered?

Exactly my point, going by other peoples view you don't get the full picture, that is why watching the film or the fight is the best way to judge either.

by Imperial Ghosty Mon 16 May - 17:25

But surely our own opinions upon watching a fight can be swayed by an ingrained like or dislike for a fighter?

by Rowley Mon 16 May - 17:44

The Mighty Atom wrote:But surely our own opinions upon watching a fight can be swayed by an ingrained like or dislike for a fighter?

I think everyone on here is clearly mature enough to avoid such pitfalls

by **HumanWindmill** Mon 16 May - 17:49

rowley wrote:
The Mighty Atom wrote:But surely our own opinions upon watching a fight can be swayed by an ingrained like or dislike for a fighter?

I think everyone on here is clearly mature enough to avoid such pitfalls

Yes, all level headed and impartial chaps, so we are.

by AdZacO Mon 16 May - 18:30

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.

I am baffled by this. So first hand experience is not as good as their sparring partners or oppositions word? First sparring partners are part of a team, and part of their job is to big people up. As for opposition, most decent humn beings after defeat will point out what they did well, never mind say they are good to justify the loss, and maybe make some excuses.

Anyone who has studied history at a standard grade/GCSE level or higher knows that first hand evidence is easily the most reliable.

Also for you to take their opinion over your own, is really saying that you don't have enough knowledge to form a better opinion than the second hand evidence. Which means that either your knowledge of the other person is far superior and they have zero bias, or that you lack any knowledge or understanding of boxing (which is obviously not the case)

I mean it only gives you knowledge of that fight, so you can judge how quick they are, how good their ring generalship is, how good their footwork is. How good their chin and power is can be inconclusive as you need more info about both the fighters. But after viewing all their fights, will always be greater than reading multiple sources about the fights.

Now the only advantage reading about the fight, it might give some more info about opposition which would put the fight into context, but lets put a hypothetical, reading about the fights from 2 sources, including info about their opposition, or watching every fight of the fighter, and all their oppositions fights, which gives the better idea of how good they were?

by **HumanWindmill** Mon 16 May - 18:38

AdZacO 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.

I am baffled by this. So first hand experience is not as good as their sparring partners or oppositions word? First sparring partners are part of a team, and part of their job is to big people up. As for opposition, most decent humn beings after defeat will point out what they did well, never mind say they are good to justify the loss, and maybe make some excuses.

Anyone who has studied history at a standard grade/GCSE level or higher knows that first hand evidence is easily the most reliable.

Also for you to take their opinion over your own, is really saying that you don't have enough knowledge to form a better opinion than the second hand evidence. Which means that either your knowledge of the other person is far superior and they have zero bias, or that you lack any knowledge or understanding of boxing (which is obviously not the case)

I mean it only gives you knowledge of that fight, so you can judge how quick they are, how good their ring generalship is, how good their footwork is. How good their chin and power is can be inconclusive as you need more info about both the fighters. But after viewing all their fights, will always be greater than reading multiple sources about the fights.

Now the only advantage reading about the fight, it might give some more info about opposition which would put the fight into context, but lets put a hypothetical, reading about the fights from 2 sources, including info about their opposition, or watching every fight of the fighter, and all their oppositions fights, which gives the better idea of how good they were?

My last comment was tongue in cheek, and a little bit of sparring with D4, AdZacO.

Of course, primary evidence is to be preferred, and mercifully we have plenty of it by which we can see the majority of legends, all the way back to the beginning of the twentieth century.

Much harder when, as in the case of Greb, there isn't any footage, but then careful research helps us to form a picture.

by manos de piedra Mon 16 May - 18:42

I think you have to very careful when forming opinions based on third party sources. Its never going to be the same as actually forming your own opinion based on first hand experience or observation.

Trying to form a realistic opinion on many of these pre footage fighters is as much an excercise in analytical history as it is boxing. You need to go off lots of sources and check their credibility. Its dangerous to take things on face value. Certain authors might have their own agenda to make a cetain fighter appear better, to make money, to use creative licence, to pick and choose what evidence to include, have their own personal favourites etc, certain quotes and opinions can be taken out of context and so forth.

Its rare that you get a a completely impartial trainer or writer in any sport. They may know ore about the sport and the finer details than the aveage fan but I find they are just as prone to the same human factors as the average fan. Sometimes moreso given how close they are to the sport and certain fighters.

I take with a pinch a salt the writings and opinions of even certain respected figures within the sport. Nat Fleischer for instance. I disagree or find myself confused with so much of what he says that Ive almost given up on putting any real weight on his opinions. I find his stuff to be very subjective and lacking impartiality. Because he was around so early, and was billed as the guy who had seen every champion from Jeffries to Frazier, I feel he tries to paint past fighters in a better light in order to increase his own standing as an expert. But some of his opinions, analysis and choices are baffling.

by **HumanWindmill** Mon 16 May - 19:36

manos de piedra wrote:I think you have to very careful when forming opinions based on third party sources. Its never going to be the same as actually forming your own opinion based on first hand experience or observation.

Trying to form a realistic opinion on many of these pre footage fighters is as much an excercise in analytical history as it is boxing. You need to go off lots of sources and check their credibility. Its dangerous to take things on face value. Certain authors might have their own agenda to make a cetain fighter appear better, to make money, to use creative licence, to pick and choose what evidence to include, have their own personal favourites etc, certain quotes and opinions can be taken out of context and so forth.

Its rare that you get a a completely impartial trainer or writer in any sport. They may know ore about the sport and the finer details than the aveage fan but I find they are just as prone to the same human factors as the average fan. Sometimes moreso given how close they are to the sport and certain fighters.

I take with a pinch a salt the writings and opinions of even certain respected figures within the sport. Nat Fleischer for instance. I disagree or find myself confused with so much of what he says that Ive almost given up on putting any real weight on his opinions. I find his stuff to be very subjective and lacking impartiality. Because he was around so early, and was billed as the guy who had seen every champion from Jeffries to Frazier, I feel he tries to paint past fighters in a better light in order to increase his own standing as an expert. But some of his opinions, analysis and choices are baffling.

I agree with pretty much most of this.

Cross reference is everything, as far as I'm concerned. In researching somebody like Greb I looked for footage of his opponents in action. That being done, I tried to find the accounts of those who shared the ring with him, and especially the opinions of those whom I have seen fight, such as Loughran, Tunney, etc. Then look to the newspaper archives from the publications of major cities to find as much contemporary press as possible. In Greb's case I excluded the Pittsburgh newspapers because he was a Pittsburgh native. New York Times, Chicago Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, etc., etc., would be my targets. The archives which would be particularly relevant would be those in the days leading up to and following a big fight, such as Greb v Walker, or one of his fights against Tunney. Thereafter, I'd look to the historians, and select those who have written about fighters I have seen, and whose opinions I have learned to trust, and find out what they had to say about Greb. Then every tiny snippet, from trainers to sparring partners and Heaven knows what else, all the while cross checking my findings, in an effort to build a composite picture.

In the subject of Greb, who is a source of particular fascination for me, I've been doing it for years and will probably still be doing it years from now. Everybody has his hobby, after all.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Mon 16 May - 19:38

Windy the internet can be used for so much more do you know their is porn on the internet? Smile

by Rowley Mon 16 May - 19:38

Admire your commitment Windy, am a lazy sod personally, wait till someone writes a decent book about them

by Rowley Mon 16 May - 19:39

prettyboykev wrote:Windy the internet can be used for so much more do you know their is porn on the internet?

At his age. Windy is still recovering from the time Ava Gardner showed a bit of thigh in a film.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Mon 16 May - 19:40

rowley wrote:
prettyboykev wrote:Windy the internet can be used for so much more do you know their is porn on the internet?

At his age. Windy is still recovering from the time Ava Gardner showed a bit of thigh in a film.

Pre footage fighters - Page 2 3497602689

by **HumanWindmill** Mon 16 May - 19:45

Very good, guys.

I really should have thought before writing that lot. Sitting .... duck .......etc.

Watch your backs. I owe each of you one.

by Sponsored content

Pre footage fighters

Pre footage fighters

Re: Pre footage fighters

Re: Pre footage fighters

Re: Pre footage fighters

Re: Pre footage fighters

Re: Pre footage fighters

Re: Pre footage fighters

Re: Pre footage fighters

Re: Pre footage fighters

Re: Pre footage fighters

Re: Pre footage fighters

Re: Pre footage fighters

Re: Pre footage fighters

Re: Pre footage fighters

Re: Pre footage fighters

Re: Pre footage fighters

Re: Pre footage fighters

Re: Pre footage fighters

Re: Pre footage fighters

Re: Pre footage fighters