Tweet
I've seen some of the famous old fights a lot of people say are the best ever and I don't get it. I just watched the Dempsey Firpo fight on YouTube and I didn't find it exciting at all. I reckon this was mostly due to the terrible quality, and this is the case with all the old fights I've seen - you can't make out what's going on half the time! I accept that these guys were tough as nails but aside from that I'm underwhelmed every time I watch an old 'classic'. It's got so I only watch fights from about 1970 onwards. I can understand really old geezers preferring some of the old fights because maybe they remember them first hand but I don't get why a lot of younger people have these old fights/fighters in their top 10s. Have they got access to better quality versions of these fights or are they just toeing the party line?
-
-
old fights was filmed with one camera fixed at the back of the arena using black & white flicker-filming (Charlie Chaplin) whereas today we use over 60 cameras at ringside with super-slow motion zoom lenses in HD color showing panoramic views from every concievable angle including overhead and using state of the art sound systems..as a comparison for you i suggest you get hold of the 1961 fight between Gene Fullmer vs Benny`kid`Paret and compare the action and quality of ability and punching to say the Sergio Martinez vs Kelly Pavlik fight from 2010 with both fights fought at 160lbs for the Middleweight championship of the world with a 50yrs split. then come back and tell us old is not better -
Yes, the Fullmer Paret looks like a very good fight from the round or two I just watched on YT, but that's my point. The quality of the Fullmer fight is okay so you can make a judgment about it, but if you go back to before WWII for example the stuff is pretty much unwatchable. How can anyone really evaluate the likes of Johnson, Dempsey etc when you can't see what's happening?Comment
-
Probably because your viewing it solely from an entertainment perspective. While film quality is lacking it's not like you can't see what's going on in most of them or see what the fighters are doing. You may have to concentrate a bit more but that's not much of chore is it?Originally posted by McBean View Post
BTW, not all black and white footage is bad quality. See the Robinson-Basilio thread from earlier this week. From my perspective color doesn't really enhance you ability to see what's happening.
PoetComment
-
older is not 'better'. nor is it worse. It depends on the specific fighters and their eras(which change constantly).
there have been countless examples of old, shot fighters from one era finding success in newer ones.
although I understand you not being able to judg fighters when you can barely make out whats going on in the film. I still also have that problem, which is why I rarely am able to judge fighters from the 20s or earlier.Comment
-
Originally posted by sonnyboyx2 View Post
60 cameras?
what broadcasts are you watching?
do you even go to fights?
almost all networks use the same configuration
there are two overhead cameras
and two shoulder mounted cameras on the apron (outside of the corners on either end of the broadcast team)
these are generally the only cameras with live feeds.
rarely there will be floor level ringside cameras with a live feed
and also rare are ringside cameras that are shooting film for a later date (say highlights, 24/7 documentary footage, etc.,)
60 cameras, dude?
do you honestly expect hbo to have a 60 man camera team flying all over the country?
they fit the whole crew in a truck / van, lol
cmon dude
dont lie to these people. most of them will believe anything about boxing if they think you know what you're talking about
where did you hear that?Last edited by New England; 03-08-2011, 08:52 PM.Comment
-
60 may be an exaggeration, but from attending dozens of live fights that have been broadcast on PPV, Showtime, HBO or ESPN I can say for a fact that there are many more than you describe. At least a dozen if not more, and all with the ability to zoom in which the camera's from the early part of the century didn't seem to be able to do. Any way you look at it camera's are much more sophisticated today allowing fans to see things in minute detail compared to other era's.Originally posted by New England View PostComment
-
it is you who obviously has never been to a live fight.. yes 60 cameras (not 60 cameramen) are used for a fight to film a fight with the magnitude of say Holyfield vs Bowe II they even had an airship in the sky to film from above with their camera catching the infamous "Fanman" you describe a small hall boys club show not a World Heavyweight Title fight by HBO... thats laughable your claim they fit all there equipment into "A VAN".. at the Lewis vs Ruddock fight in Earls Court HBO had 2 LOW-LOADERS with the BBC having 2 also.. maybe the camera crew van was inside lolOriginally posted by New England View PostComment
-
Boxing is boxing, if you know what your looking for it will allways be there whether it be sharkey vs jeffreis or pacquaino vs mosley........Originally posted by McBean View Post
i mean like if your watching a old film where Person A punches at Person B and nothing seems to connect people assume they were just throwing wild punches and they suck at boxing becasue they are old......but if your watching a new film where person A punches person B and nothing seems to connect we see that person B narrowly slipped the punch.....
guess what....thats the same thing person b did in the old film too of course because its grainy and has fewer frames per second we just assume they suck instead of assuming they are doing the same things any other boxer would have done........everything is still there as long as you know what your looking for.
you can watch jeffreis vs sharkey and see jeffries leaning on him and holding him by his neck just like ali does vs fraizer.....if you understand what your watching its all there.Last edited by Spartacus Sully; 03-09-2011, 03:00 AM.Comment
-
Comment