Turn of the century round robin non-champs

[Dr. Z]

[QUOTE=mattdonnellon;n31771131]Laing, Dunkhorst, Byers, O'Donnell all good shouts. Can't for the life of me see Killen as a 1890's fighter, much as I like and rate him in the 1880's. McAuliffe handed him his ass in 1889, he had one fight in 1890, a shambles against the average Joe Sheedy and one contest in 1891, October 11 against the poor Bob Ferguson who went life and death (literally) with Pat before he was knocked out in six.Killen was dead ten days later.[/QUOTE


>>> Killen appears to have been drunk, and fell an injured his shoulder in that fight.

Killen reportedly entered the fight intoxicated and missed so wildly on his punches while drunk, that he fell and dislocated his right shoulder in the 2nd round, hence fighting the remainder of the fight with his left only--Source: Pittsburgh Post 9-25-1889 in interview with Killen's trainer for the fight, Tom Madden. Killen was against the ropes and bent over when McAuliffe delivered an uppercut with his left that put Killen down for the second and last time.

Killen beat a pretty good Cardiff, who appears to have beaten one John L Sullivan in a fight ruled a draw. Cardiff was un-undefeated when Killeen knocked him out.

Northwest Heavyweight Title
Incorrectly listed in previous records as KO 5. Cardiff was knocked out cold by a Killen right hand in the fourth round according to Minneapolis Evening Journal 6/26/1888. "Cardiff was out for 16 seconds before he regained his feet." Both men wore two ounce gloves. Weights according to St Paul Daily Globe.

In his other " loss " Killen was jobbed!

Having knocked down Thompson 4 times, Killen is DQ'd when the crowd enters the ring. Most newspapers of the time recorded this fight as a victory for Killen, given the farce of the decision by the referee, as the reason the crowd rushed the ring was in protest to Thompson's handlers repeatedly carrying him back to his corner to be revived, and the referee's repeated slow counts.

Those are his two losses. One will drunk, the other pure BS. Essentially he was undefeated while sober and not robbed of the decision. He died young and was viewed by many as a bigger John L Sullivan who hit even harder!

Here is a good write up on the man. I will start the tourney this week now that we appear to have enough voters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Killen

[Ivich]

- - Edison was the money man and Rector his #1 guy tasked with such a difficult undertaking. When they first attempted to film Fitz/Corbett in 1895 Dallas, the TexGuv sounded the alarm as Legislature made boxing illegal.

I've got the original London Bridge I keep in a cardboard box I'm willing to sell you for $100 if you believe one moment after a week, nay a year of delays brought about by the Texas Legislature, heavily armed Texas Rangers, and Militia alloyed with 1000 Mexican troops deployed to stop the fight, with tens of thousand$ of Edison money on the line, that when opportunity came to film, all of a sudden Rector soils his shorts and turns his back?

He's quoted the day before the fight that after all those delays he was still ready for a go.

Your geographic map looks like something put together by 3rd graders. The Mexican side across from Langtry is where the channel runs that carved out 100-150' tall cliffs. The Texas side is the low side that in more pacific rivers is rich bottomland farming. There are photos of the sturdy pontoon bridge running out to the island that off loaded tons of lumber to build the facility. The equipment was already set up under the elevated film shack. Judge Bean had 4 large tarps surrounding the Jersey Lilly stocked with kegs of fresh beer and the Judge's ready made victuals with hard drinks served inside or bottles purchased for outside. The sports carroused as only turn of the century sports of the day could, firing off shots in the air and anything that moved outside their celebrations.

The filming conditions as I previously mentioned were misty mixed with streams of setting sunlight in the early twilight. There is looped Langtry road running from the Jersey Lilly out to the site called Torres Ave with a view site called Eagles Nest within view of the island, problem being the Rio Grande has been pumped so dry it disappears underground for stretches, so the river bed is now heavily populated by bushes and trees that mask elevations.

The fight lasted one minute at best, and afterwards Enoch had an invitation from the bordering Mexican Governor to film a bullfight in Juarez that he took up. That was under vastly more civilized conditions, yet I see no evidence of that bullfight the last time I checked the National Film archives.

The RailRoad on his journey back east runs through Houston, not Galveston, Your quote betrays the limitations of modern interpretation of events. Enoch was not a photographer for that trip, and oddly though we have the photographs of the pontoon bridge, spectators, the ring, and weatherproof film shack, I have yet to see a photo of the fighters for that one minute slice of time that a Brownie Camera could've easily captured.

I'll repeat for hard of hearing, the fight was filmed, but seems to have disappeared from modern view, the reasons being it was lost in the travel or mail, it was damaged after the fact from often horrific conditions in this part of the country, or it was filmed over by the bullfight whether purposely for being not viewable, or accidentally, but that don't explain what happened to the the Bullfight film...only in boxing, folks!

Not filmed, and held in Mexican territory and no Mexican troops were present they were too far away and could not get there in time to prevent the fight happening.



The train journey took the spectators to Langtry, Texas. Then they crossed the river on a makeshift bridge made just for the event. They also had to trudge their way through ‘500 yards of sand and mud’ according to The New York Times, to reach a bridge made especially for them to cross the river.

Maher looked tired around the eyes down to his recent sickness, but apart from that both men were in great condition. Reports vary of the weights, but Maher was as high as 180lbs, Fitz no higher than 167lbs.
And yet, there was another twist to the tale. With sporadic rainfall, the financial backers declared that the light was too bad and they would be unable to film the bout.

How would the fight film have even looked? The Edison Kinetoscope was the camera pegged to film the shootout, and it was a primitive piece of kit by modern standards.

A year before Fitzsimmons and Maher squared off for the second time, a Kinetoscope camera had filmed contest between Mike Leonard and Jack Cushing. You can see from this footage that it would be desirable to see a fighter as great as Bob Fitzsimmons in this quality, even if a comparison to modern high-definition footage would be a short one (and not the point either). For those who have reading difficulties lol

[QueensburyRules]

Not filmed, and held in Mexican territory and no Mexican troops were present they were too far away and could not get there in time to prevent the fight happening.



The train journey took the spectators to Langtry, Texas. Then they crossed the river on a makeshift bridge made just for the event. They also had to trudge their way through ‘500 yards of sand and mud’ according to The New York Times, to reach a bridge made especially for them to cross the river.

Maher looked tired around the eyes down to his recent sickness, but apart from that both men were in great condition. Reports vary of the weights, but Maher was as high as 180lbs, Fitz no higher than 167lbs.
And yet, there was another twist to the tale. With sporadic rainfall, the financial backers declared that the light was too bad and they would be unable to film the bout.

How would the fight film have even looked? The Edison Kinetoscope was the camera pegged to film the shootout, and it was a primitive piece of kit by modern standards.

A year before Fitzsimmons and Maher squared off for the second time, a Kinetoscope camera had filmed contest between Mike Leonard and Jack Cushing. You can see from this footage that it would be desirable to see a fighter as great as Bob Fitzsimmons in this quality, even if a comparison to modern high-definition footage would be a short one (and not the point either). For those who have reading difficulties lol

- - The film would've looked like the film of 1897 Fitz/Corbett fight...duh!

Oh really, they went to Langtry? Pray tell us how you arrived at this monumental moment of EUREKA?

500 yards of mud and sand, NY Times, Mexico, special bridge for you to cross but you unable because it's a bad dream for you with mud and sand sucking your special ancient modern standards petticoats into the Mexican morass with ghost Mexican Troops...priceless.

[mattdonnellon]

image.pngimage.pngimage.png

I suspect I am wasting my time but I'll try...BTW the word photographer was used back then to describe the early moving camera operators, but your understanding betrays the limitations of modern interpretation of events.Note the location of the interview with Rector; Dallas. I await some concrete proof that the bout was filmed (all one and A HALF minutes) and until then, hang on to your bridge.

There is none so blind as those that will not see...

[mattdonnellon]

[QUOTE=Dr. Z;n31771816]

Laing, Dunkhorst, Byers, O'Donnell all good shouts. Can't for the life of me see Killen as a 1890's fighter, much as I like and rate him in the 1880's. McAuliffe handed him his ass in 1889, he had one fight in 1890, a shambles against the average Joe Sheedy and one contest in 1891, October 11 against the poor Bob Ferguson who went life and death (literally) with Pat before he was knocked out in six.Killen was dead ten days later.[/QUOTE


>>> Killen appears to have been drunk, and fell an injured his shoulder in that fight.

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


Killen beat a pretty good Cardiff, who appears to have beaten one John L Sullivan in a fight ruled a draw. Cardiff was un-undefeated when Killeen knocked him out.




In his other " loss " Killen was jobbed!




Those are his two losses. One will drunk, the other pure BS. Essentially he was undefeated while sober and not robbed of the decision. He died young and was viewed by many as a bigger John L Sullivan who hit even harder!

Here is a good write up on the man. I will start the tourney this week now that we appear to have enough voters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Killen

You are arguing against a strawman. My point is not that Killen wasn't good, he was excellent, IN THE 1880'S...

[Ivich]

- - The film would've looked like the film of 1897 Fitz/Corbett fight...duh!

Oh really, they went to Langtry? Pray tell us how you arrived at this monumental moment of EUREKA?

500 yards of mud and sand, NY Times, Mexico, special bridge for you to cross but you unable because it's a bad dream for you with mud and sand sucking your special ancient modern standards petticoats into the Mexican morass with ghost Mexican Troops...priceless.

You know I misjudged you Queenie,I've always believed you made these nonsensical claims purely to elicit a reaction,but now I am starting to believe you really have accepted these fairy tales as true!
Your answer to every primary source of information that totally destroys your infantile claims is to make up some pidgin baby talk that has no point,rhyme or reason,and is just meaningless gabble.

[Ivich]

image.pngimage.pngimage.png

I suspect I am wasting my time but I'll try...BTW the word photographer was used back then to describe the early moving camera operators, but your understanding betrays the limitations of modern interpretation of events.Note the location of the interview with Rector; Dallas. I await some concrete proof that the bout was filmed (all one and A HALF minutes) and until then, hang on to your bridge.

There is none so blind as those that will not see...

Yes you are wasting your time.You can lead Queenie to water, but you can't make him think!
He has no knowledge of boxing, nor does he harbour any ambition to attain one,his only reason for being here is to see his name next to some idiotic self composed doggerel,

[Ivich]

Good idea to exclude Jackson, he would be an obvious winner. I don't think Cardiff or Kileen are relevant to the period 1890-1902, Patsy had three fights in that timeframe and lost the lot, Kileen too was dissipated and had no worthwhile wins. An obvious replacement from that side of the range would be Joe McAuliffe who defeated both. At the other end I'd respectfully suggest "Denver" Ed Martin to complete your 16. The new wave of Root, Gardiner, Ferguson, O'Brien, McVey were just edging in around 1902 but truly belong to the next period.
Oh, and I just spotted Mitchell in there, he had at best two gloved fights after 1887, a blowout of overmatched Upham and a retirement fund fight with Corbett. Replacement suggestions? maybe Hall, Creedon, Joe Kennedy, Peter Felix? It's your gig.

Killen had 1 fight in1890 v Joe Sheehy.2-1-1
1 fight in 1891 v Bob Ferguson 1-1-1
10 days after the Ferguson fight he was dead . As you say he has no relevance to this period.
Hank Griffin made his debut 1891 the year Killen died, matching them then is absurd.

[QueensburyRules]

image.pngimage.pngimage.png

I suspect I am wasting my time but I'll try...BTW the word photographer was used back then to describe the early moving camera operators, but your understanding betrays the limitations of modern interpretation of events.Note the location of the interview with Rector; Dallas. I await some concrete proof that the bout was filmed (all one and A HALF minutes) and until then, hang on to your bridge.

There is none so blind as those that will not see...

- - Kinetoscopes were hand cranked in the beginning and apertures manually operated as well. Weather would not affect them while sheltered in a waterproof shed built for the fight. Facts are that through much of the silent movie era projectors were also hand cranked as operators would often back up film to replay exciting parts that resulted in those sections of the fight being overly worn for future viewers.

Charged? You saying they were electronically operated in the day when batteries failed more often than they worked and electric motors with the same reliability?

I cannot deny your captions call in question whether the fight was filmed, but after all the considerable expenses over the years to make the film needed to record a full feature event, that Edison would fail by using an unreliable recording system at the moment beggars belief. There were 3 Kinetoscopes, not just one for reference, and there is a photo of the filming shack with 3 openings in place, and not a single one worked?

Really?

Nobody can prove the fight was in Mexico or the US, but most assuredly it was in the middle of the river with Mexico and the US in constant dispute over those borders that change with every swelling and drying of the river which is why the fight took place. The Rangers recused themselves, and there were no Mexican troops because of the stealth of Stuart using the train and even if present they'd be unable to scale down a 100' sheer canyon wall.

Says he filmed the bullfight, so filmed or not, fight and bullfight met the same fate it appears.

[Marchegiano]

- - Kinetoscopes were hand cranked in the beginning and apertures manually operated as well. Weather would not affect them while sheltered in a waterproof shed built for the fight. Facts are that through much of the silent movie era projectors were also hand cranked as operators would often back up film to replay exciting parts that resulted in those sections of the fight being overly worn for future viewers.

Charged? You saying they were electronically operated in the day when batteries failed more often than they worked and electric motors with the same reliability?

I cannot deny your captions call in question whether the fight was filmed, but after all the considerable expenses over the years to make the film needed to record a full feature event, that Edison would fail by using an unreliable recording system at the moment beggars belief. There were 3 Kinetoscopes, not just one for reference, and there is a photo of the filming shack with 3 openings in place, and not a single one worked?

Really?

Nobody can prove the fight was in Mexico or the US, but most assuredly it was in the middle of the river with Mexico and the US in constant dispute over those borders that change with every swelling and drying of the river which is why the fight took place. The Rangers recused themselves, and there were no Mexican troops because of the stealth of Stuart using the train and even if present they'd be unable to scale down a 100' sheer canyon wall.

Says he filmed the bullfight, so filmed or not, fight and bullfight met the same fate it appears.

Oh I can handle a bit of this one.

celluloid film was very sensitive to humidity and water. very well may have tried to film and lost the recording in the same day.

Have you ever heard of any claim to anyone ever viewing a playback? It's possible the boys showed up and said nope, not worth our time and did nothing. It's also possible they said well we are here and ready so let's have a go and filmed but could not stop the film from degrading. It's also possible it was out there, but I think given two historians in this thread alone claim it was never filmed that's probably the most likely.

celluloid now is not like celluloid then. Well, it is, celluloid is a plastic, but what's different is the photosensitive emulsion. It used to be a gelatin. You could rub the silver right off with you hands. It'd a bit like trying to bake in a storm. It can be done, certainly these days, but it isn't as easy as but you have a house though and certainly was not as easy then as now.


My two anyway.