Jim Jacobs shows writers footage of the old timers

In a sense it sounds like the telephone game theory.
It appears these writers were only repeating opinions of other boxing analysts while adding their own spice to the point that they were "Super Human".
It was only until they saw the footage of these fighters themselves that they realized their knowledge was lacking up to the point that they couldent even recognize these fighters.
Good article.

 

Very curious.

 

I remember reading the full article many years ago... where I recall, they were shown a clip of Young Griffo. I wish that still exists, and that we can see it some day - I've always wondered, what he looked like in the ring!

 

Yes, I remember that article.
I found it hard to believe that the “writer “ in question, accepting that he was a knowledgeable boxing man, failed to recognise the rather distinctive looking Fitz and Corbett.
Anyway, Jerry Lewis was in Paramount’s VistaVision presentations in the 60’s

 

C

Could have been terrible quality footage in the decades before restoration was practical.

 

It takes 2-4 decades for the techniques in a sport to develop to their fullest extent.

Look at MMA today compared to 30 years ago.

in NBA, Jordan is widely regarded as the best player ever and he debuted 37 years after league began.

guys like Langford, Dempsey, Tunney pushed techniques forward. These techniques were then taken to a more refined level by the likes of Louis, Tyson and Conn among others.

For example, Tyson took Dempsey’s style but added to it by holding his hands high and using consistent bobbing and weaving. Dempsey was brilliant but him holding his hands low left him open at times.

I consider Dempsey the first great heavyweight on film, Langford the first great light heavy/ cruiser, Tunney the first great slick boxer etc. I am sure I am missing a few names though.

the likes of Jeffries, Fitz, Corbett all deserve to be remembered as legends of the sport. Just because their techniques wouldn’t hold up against later fighters doesn’t mean they are not ATF’s. we can only judge them by the standards of their day.

On the other hand, I am convinced that the likes of Langford, Dempsey and Tunney had the techniques to be top fighters today.

 

Jimmy showed them his Greb collection and that’s why Harry doesn’t figure in all-time P4P rankings prominently for a couple decades after.

 

Most people now fail to realize many of the writers and fighters back then never saw the boxers they often wrote and talked about.

Jim Jacobs brought all these people together to show them films he was able to search for and find.

It's not like everyone had films of Jim Corbett readily available that they could view any time they liked.

Jim Jacobs and Bill Cayton "found" most of the films of the old timers like Corbett and Fitz we can watch today ... packaged them ... and made them available to the public.

I have the article referred to in the original post. It's from a one-off magazine they put out on the history of the heavyweight champions. It came out in early 1980.

I've always found the article kind of ironic because there's also an article written by Jim Jacobs on the Holmes-Shavers title fight, where he totally eviscerates Holmes and Shavers for both being so sloppy and out of shape that they both were exhausted by the end of the fight.

And he spoke about how they weren't nearly as good as the greats. (In 1979, people still didn't know what to make of Holmes.)

Now Larry Holmes is considered to be among the best heavyweights who ever lived.

Which just goes to show how people can look at the same things and have completely different views.

 

So Jim Jacobs corrected the speed of his old boxers film collection?

Interesting that he had the equipment to do so.

 

MMA is an example but you must understand boxing is much older then Langford, Tunney and Dempsey. Louis learnt everything he knew from Blackburn - when did Chappie fight?

If anything Tyson might’ve been less skilled then Dempsey, I’d need to hear a better argument then holding your hands up and moving your head more when both things aren’t a sign of what you may think.

M Tyson stood square - feet side by side almost his head was the closest thing to his opponent. MT hand no balance in the clinch/inside (See Mathis and EH bouts) his style limited parrying and forced Mike to move his head too much and it’s why he lost to Douglas and why he’d always have lost to Evander.

On the other hand Jack Dempsey hid behind his left shoulder standing sideways - even shot Gene T said JD was the hardest fighter to hit with his right, all he found was elbow and shoulder.

JD consistently punched on the move instead of after (though Tyson could at times) and is credited with some very interesting manoeuvres that I’ve never seen performed today - though you’ll see another “primitive” boxer in Ketchel come close if you watch.

All his movements got him out of trouble and into position for a punch with full leverage, if you watch where his weight sits throughout and during a fight you’ll see a really clever guy at work.

 

Good post. I need to rematch some Dempsey footage and then compare it to Tyson. It’s been a long time since I looked at any footage of the mauler. I am glad for this forum; it’s nice to be challenged sometimes since it makes you reconsider some things.

 

Yes, J92, Dempsey often had that shuffling style as he moved forward, but on his toes, one foot forward at a time. I also see similar foot movement from Fitzsimmons in the Corbett fight, though Fitz was more upright. Yes, I see some similarities with the Ketchel's shift as it is explained in the literature as well.

By the way, Eddie Marino fought during the early 1900s (3 x vs Abe Attell) and trained and managed Al Hostak in the '30s and '40s. He taught Hostak to distribute his weight and shift like Ketchel, and that's a major reason for Al's punching power. I think that's one reason Dempsey was so impressed with Hostak when he kayoed Freddie Steele in one round using the shift. Billy Petrolle shuffled like Dempsey too.

With the shuffle, you always have your weight distributed so you are ready to punch hard with either hand. You can throw the left hook as you move your right foot forward, or a right hook or cross as you move your left foot forward to gain more leverage and weight behind the punch.

As far as hands being held low, it's a debatable point whether it's helpful to a fighter or not. It depends on the style of fighting a fighter chooses at any point in time, IMO. Holding hands low can be effective to lure an opponent into position for a counter.

There are a some guys on this Forum that know and teach the nuts and bolts of this stuff. I just bring it up to provide some historical context. I hope my discussion passes muster with the understanding of the guys that know boxing technique way more than my layman's understanding. I spent a few months hanging around a boxing gym when I was 16 or 17, but I really didn't learn anything then.

 

Dempsey certainly looked the part - def. not out of place when viewed through a modern lens.

Still, looking “modern” doesn’t necessarily always equate to be being better than other contemporaries or near contemporaries or being better equipped for future eras.

The perennial crude slugger will often have their day, progress in the sport notwithstanding - just as Firpo did against Jack (though yes, Jack was rusty and not ideally active and he did emerge victorious when the smoke cleared, though still clearly wobbly when his hand was raised).

I don’t agree with this view but per the vision, some might say that prime Dempsey exhibited “better” leg mobility than the later era Louis.

Therefore, the argument might extend to the belief that Louis didn’t fully reflect a progression in the sport - but the crux is - how effective was Dempsey’s greater movement compared to Louis’ less often seen economy and millimetre perfect judgment?

I think the vision of Louis on film and his career stats tell us the answer to that question.

Some observers inexplicably accuse Louis of appearing low tech or not modern. Whaaat?

My guess is that because they don’t see Joe bouncing around like some mods (all be that movement not being particularly effective) and Joe perhaps not exhibiting the output of some current day fighters (whose connection rates aren’t as high or true as Louis’ were) they figure that Joe’s style is old hat.

Well, I would say FAR from it - and I would love to see a Joe Louis clone come on to the scene today - I personally think such a fighter would a cut a swathe through the HW divisions much less talented behemoths - and do so in exciting fashion.

You won’t see any mods fighting like Jack Johnson - but imo, that doesn’t instantly rule out Johnson’s potential to be effective among the mods - of course, that’s also allowing for some stylistic tweaks and increased output from Jack. He successfully adapted himself to his own era - he would do same in future eras.

He held a lot, true, but that’s because it was allowed, so therefore he could.

How different to Johnson was Ali’s approach in the 2nd Frazier fight? By holding and stifling Joe, Ali took the path of least resistance - as Jack often chose to do - but of course we rarely see Johnson at his full potential on film - because, amongst his peers, he prevailed so easily - why do more?

So, in the rematch, Ali didn’t have the time or inclination to have a war with Joe, certainly not like the one that later came in Manila. Ali was fast tracking himself to Foreman and regaining the title - no point inviting any possible glitches on the way there.

When he wasn’t holding, but instead on the offensive (albeit in brief bursts) , Johnson displayed a vast array of skills and elite hand speed that would def. translate successfully into the sport today.

It’s been mentioned before but Johnson’s fast, two fisted, multi punch barrages that sent Willard from one side of the ring to another looked pretty mod. in my book and would certainly still be viable in the modern arena.

I love the old timers but I seriously don’t wear rose tinted glasses when assessing them - but I’ll def. give them their just dues where appropriate.

I understand that Fury may not have been at his best, but look at NgAnnou’s approach against him.

No superfluous bouncing around, just moving in relatively flat footed, hands up, carefully defending and picking his shots. Tbh, I really liked the look of it.