View Full Version : I dont get Harry Greb's boxing Record


The Hate Giver
03-28-2010, 05:18 PM
Just looking at Harry Greb's record at boxrec & it has his record 103-8-3 draws then it has another set of record called NEWSPAPER DECISIONS:

157-12-15 draws.

What is that?

How can we accurately judge a fighter we have not seen fight?

GJC
03-28-2010, 06:42 PM
Just looking at Harry Greb's record at boxrec & it has his record 103-8-3 draws then it has another set of record called NEWSPAPER DECISIONS:

157-12-15 draws.

What is that?

How can we accurately judge a fighter we have not seen fight?
Newspaper decisions were quite a feature in that era, no decision was made by the referee so they went with the majority of newspapers reporting.
Re judging a fighter you haven't seen you just have to take a view maybe read some writers who did see them and whose opinion you respect and also take into account fighters that they beat who you have seen. Regarding Greb there is a fair bit of footage of Tunney, Walker and Loughran floating around tha shows them to be great fighters so any figter holding wins over them must himself have been pretty good, no?

bklynboy
03-28-2010, 10:38 PM
Just looking at Harry Greb's record at boxrec & it has his record 103-8-3 draws then it has another set of record called NEWSPAPER DECISIONS:

157-12-15 draws.

What is that?

How can we accurately judge a fighter we have not seen fight?

That's a big problem. Another problem is judging early 20th C fighters from their film as the film from back then was terrible. Recently, for example, there were a few threads in NSB about the Klitschko-Chambers fight. Some people were saying that Klitshcko's hook missed Chamber's head. The problem was in the video.

If we have problem with 21st C video showing the true story imagine the problems that exist in judging fighters from 100 years ago.

mickey malone
03-29-2010, 02:54 AM
I can see where the TP is coming from, because I don't think i've ever seen any two listings for Greb that tally up the same.. They all have 299 as a career total, but the W L D statistics always differ.. He fought nearly all of his opponents more than once, some of them 5 or 6 times, and with the exception of Tunney and Flowers who he beat 1 fight a piece, (and Kid Norfolk - 1 win each) he had the better of every exchange..
As for factual information on how good he was, Gene Tunney had to spend a week in bed after losing to him.. He comfortably beat Willie Meehan at least twice, who had the better of Jack Dempsey over 4 fights, aswell as at least 4 victories over Bill Brennan, who'd also lasted 15 with Dempsey.. Although only a middleweight, I don't think it would be unreasonable to suggest he may have beaten Dempsey too.. A list of the fighters he holds wins over is mind boggling.. Here's the one's I know about:-

Tiger Flowers - world MW
Tommy Loughran - world LHW champ
Maxie Rosenbloom - world LHW champ
Mike McTigue - world LHW champ
Al McCoy - world MW champ
Mickey Walker - world MW champ
Johnny Wilson - world MW champ
Battling Levinsky - world LHW champ
Jack Dillon - world LHW champ
Jack Delaney - world LHW champ
Battling Levinsky - world LHW champ
Frank Moody - British MW & LHW champ
Roland Todd - British MW champ
Gene Tunney - world HW champ
Jack London - British HW champ
Willie Meehan - HW contender
Kid Norfolk - HW contender
Bill Brennan - HW contender

I'm sure i may have forgotten some too, and there's also a few NC's against top fighters (Mike O'Dowd, a very underrated MW champ falls into this category) but to say that he could have owned the LHW division is a massive understatement..

EzzardFan
03-29-2010, 08:32 AM
There is also some contention as to the 5 fights with Tunny. Although the official score is 4-1 Tunny, many people believe that Greb deserved the decision in 2 or 3 of those fights. There is no disputing the outcome of the final fight though when Tunny won a decisive victory.

Greb was thought to be blind in one throughout all five fights.

Telepath
03-29-2010, 04:25 PM
Yes, Greb was blind in one eye for the better part of his career. The only footage that exists of him, as I recall, is some training and sparring footage, which really doesn't prove much.

His win over Tunney, I'd say, is probably his most significant one.

hhascup
03-29-2010, 05:41 PM
Harry Greb's Best Wins: (number of wins over that opponent)
(http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9046&cat=boxer)

(http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9046&cat=boxer)
Gene Tunney (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9046&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer – World Heavyweight Champion – Beat Dempsey twice
Tommy Loughran (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11326&cat=boxer) (4) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Jimmy Slattery (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11337&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Maxie Rosenbloom (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11349&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Jack Dillon (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11273&cat=boxer) (2) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Battling Levinsky (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10598&cat=boxer) (6) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Mike McTigue (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11287&cat=boxer) (2) – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Mickey Walker (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9035&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer – World Welterweight & Middleweight Champion
Tiger Flowers (http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11336&cat=boxer) Hall of Famer – World Champion Middleweight Champion
Mike Gibbons (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11267&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer
Tommy Gibbons (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11254&cat=boxer) (2) – Hall of Famer – Went 15 rounds with Dempsey for Heavyweight Title
Kid Norfolk (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11318&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer
Billy Miske (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10592&cat=boxer) (2) – Hall of Famer - Fought Dempsey for Heavyweight Title
Jack Blackburn (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11022&cat=boxer) Hall of Famer as a trainer
Al McCoy (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10530&cat=boxer) (2) – World Middleweight Champion
George Chip (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11253&cat=boxer) (2) – World Middleweight Champion
Johnny Wilson (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11328&cat=boxer) (3) – World Middleweight Champion
Eddie McGoorty (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11292&cat=boxer) (1) – Claimed World Middleweight Champion
Willie Meehan (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10585&cat=boxer) (2) – Beat Dempsey twice
Gunboat Smith (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11290&cat=boxer) (2) – Top Heavyweight
Bill Brennan (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10603&cat=boxer) (4) – Fought Dempsey for Heavyweight Title
Augie Ratner (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11283&cat=boxer) - Defeated four world champions in his career
Young Ahearn (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11269&cat=boxer)
Jeff Smith (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11274&cat=boxer)
Soldier Bartfield (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11280&cat=boxer)
Leo Houck (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11295&cat=boxer)
Tommy Robson (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11298&cat=boxer)
Bartley Madden (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11303&cat=boxer)
Tommy Robson (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11298&cat=boxer)
Joe Borrell (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11242&cat=boxer)
Bob Moha (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11264&cat=boxer)
Chuck Wiggins (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11300&cat=boxer)
Jack Renault (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11315&cat=boxer)
Charley Weinert (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=13546&cat=boxer)
Billy Shade (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11321&cat=boxer)
Homer Smith (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10589&cat=boxer)
Lou Bogash (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11329&cat=boxer)
Bryan Downey (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11330&cat=boxer)
Jackie Clark (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11259&cat=boxer)
Jimmy Delaney (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11340&cat=boxer)
Jack Reddick (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11345&cat=boxer)
Roland Todd (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11354&cat=boxer)
Allentown Joe Gans (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=40820&cat=boxer)

EzzardFan
03-29-2010, 08:16 PM
Harry Greb's Best Wins: (number of wins over that opponent)
(http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9046&cat=boxer)

(http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9046&cat=boxer)
Gene Tunney (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9046&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer – World Heavyweight Champion – Beat Dempsey twice
Tommy Loughran (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11326&cat=boxer) (4) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Jimmy Slattery (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11337&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Maxie Rosenbloom (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11349&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Jack Dillon (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11273&cat=boxer) (2) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Battling Levinsky (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10598&cat=boxer) (6) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Mike McTigue (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11287&cat=boxer) (2) – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Mickey Walker (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9035&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer – World Welterweight & Middleweight Champion
Tiger Flowers (http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11336&cat=boxer) Hall of Famer – World Champion Middleweight Champion
Mike Gibbons (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11267&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer
Tommy Gibbons (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11254&cat=boxer) (2) – Hall of Famer – Went 15 rounds with Dempsey for Heavyweight Title
Kid Norfolk (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11318&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer
Billy Miske (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10592&cat=boxer) (2) – Hall of Famer - Fought Dempsey for Heavyweight Title
Jack Blackburn (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11022&cat=boxer) Hall of Famer as a trainer
Al McCoy (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10530&cat=boxer) (2) – World Middleweight Champion
George Chip (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11253&cat=boxer) (2) – World Middleweight Champion
Johnny Wilson (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11328&cat=boxer) (3) – World Middleweight Champion
Eddie McGoorty (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11292&cat=boxer) (1) – Claimed World Middleweight Champion
Willie Meehan (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10585&cat=boxer) (2) – Beat Dempsey twice
Gunboat Smith (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11290&cat=boxer) (2) – Top Heavyweight
Bill Brennan (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10603&cat=boxer) (4) – Fought Dempsey for Heavyweight Title
Augie Ratner (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11283&cat=boxer) - Defeated four world champions in his career
Young Ahearn (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11269&cat=boxer)
Jeff Smith (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11274&cat=boxer)
Soldier Bartfield (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11280&cat=boxer)
Leo Houck (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11295&cat=boxer)
Tommy Robson (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11298&cat=boxer)
Bartley Madden (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11303&cat=boxer)
Tommy Robson (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11298&cat=boxer)
Joe Borrell (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11242&cat=boxer)
Bob Moha (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11264&cat=boxer)
Chuck Wiggins (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11300&cat=boxer)
Jack Renault (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11315&cat=boxer)
Charley Weinert (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=13546&cat=boxer)
Billy Shade (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11321&cat=boxer)
Homer Smith (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10589&cat=boxer)
Lou Bogash (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11329&cat=boxer)
Bryan Downey (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11330&cat=boxer)
Jackie Clark (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11259&cat=boxer)
Jimmy Delaney (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11340&cat=boxer)
Jack Reddick (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11345&cat=boxer)
Roland Todd (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11354&cat=boxer)
Allentown Joe Gans (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=40820&cat=boxer)

In my opinion there is no other boxer with such an amazing pedigree. That man would most likely have been world LHW and world HW champion had he been given a shot at those titles, despite only weighing 160lbs.

mickey malone
03-30-2010, 06:49 AM
In my opinion there is no other boxer with such an amazing pedigree. That man would most likely have been world LHW and world HW champion had he been given a shot at those titles, despite only weighing 160lbs.
I'll co-sign that..

Thanks to Henry for the complete list of his stunning resume.. I knew there might be the odd 1 or 2 i'd forgotten lol..

Bundana
03-30-2010, 02:09 PM
Harry Greb's Best Wins: (number of wins over that opponent)
(http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9046&cat=boxer)

(http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9046&cat=boxer)
Gene Tunney (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9046&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer – World Heavyweight Champion – Beat Dempsey twice
Tommy Loughran (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11326&cat=boxer) (4) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Jimmy Slattery (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11337&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Maxie Rosenbloom (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11349&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Jack Dillon (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11273&cat=boxer) (2) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Battling Levinsky (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10598&cat=boxer) (6) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Mike McTigue (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11287&cat=boxer) (2) – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Mickey Walker (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9035&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer – World Welterweight & Middleweight Champion
Tiger Flowers (http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11336&cat=boxer) Hall of Famer – World Champion Middleweight Champion
Mike Gibbons (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11267&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer
Tommy Gibbons (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11254&cat=boxer) (2) – Hall of Famer – Went 15 rounds with Dempsey for Heavyweight Title
Kid Norfolk (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11318&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer
Billy Miske (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10592&cat=boxer) (2) – Hall of Famer - Fought Dempsey for Heavyweight Title
Jack Blackburn (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11022&cat=boxer) Hall of Famer as a trainer
Al McCoy (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10530&cat=boxer) (2) – World Middleweight Champion
George Chip (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11253&cat=boxer) (2) – World Middleweight Champion
Johnny Wilson (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11328&cat=boxer) (3) – World Middleweight Champion
Eddie McGoorty (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11292&cat=boxer) (1) – Claimed World Middleweight Champion
Willie Meehan (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10585&cat=boxer) (2) – Beat Dempsey twice
Gunboat Smith (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11290&cat=boxer) (2) – Top Heavyweight
Bill Brennan (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10603&cat=boxer) (4) – Fought Dempsey for Heavyweight Title
Augie Ratner (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11283&cat=boxer) - Defeated four world champions in his career
Young Ahearn (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11269&cat=boxer)
Jeff Smith (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11274&cat=boxer)
Soldier Bartfield (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11280&cat=boxer)
Leo Houck (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11295&cat=boxer)
Tommy Robson (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11298&cat=boxer)
Bartley Madden (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11303&cat=boxer)
Tommy Robson (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11298&cat=boxer)
Joe Borrell (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11242&cat=boxer)
Bob Moha (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11264&cat=boxer)
Chuck Wiggins (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11300&cat=boxer)
Jack Renault (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11315&cat=boxer)
Charley Weinert (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=13546&cat=boxer)
Billy Shade (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11321&cat=boxer)
Homer Smith (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10589&cat=boxer)
Lou Bogash (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11329&cat=boxer)
Bryan Downey (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11330&cat=boxer)
Jackie Clark (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11259&cat=boxer)
Jimmy Delaney (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11340&cat=boxer)
Jack Reddick (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11345&cat=boxer)
Roland Todd (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11354&cat=boxer)
Allentown Joe Gans (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=40820&cat=boxer)

Re the win over Norfolk, I wonder why the IBHOF has it the other way around: "Norfolk dropped the “Human Windmill” in the first round and captured the 10 round newspaper decision"?

Does BoxRec, where the fight is listed as a win for Greb, have one group of historians/experts who votes in Greb's favour - while another group at IBHOF reaches the opposite conclusion (after reviewing the same newspaper reports, I presume)? Seems strange to me... and if the fight was that close, would a draw not be a fair result?

mickey malone
03-30-2010, 02:31 PM
Re the win over Norfolk, I wonder why the IBHOF has it the other way around: "Norfolk dropped the “Human Windmill” in the first round and captured the 10 round newspaper decision"?

Does BoxRec, where the fight is listed as a win for Greb, have one group of historians/experts who votes in Greb's favour - while another group at IBHOF reaches the opposite conclusion (after reviewing the same newspaper reports, I presume)? Seems strange to me... and if the fight was that close, would a draw not be a fair result?
I believe they had 2 fights with one win a piece.. Greb was Kd'd in their 1st fight but came back very strong in the 2nd half of the fight, coming close to stopping Norfolk.. The 2nd fight I believe Norfolk was winning, and Greb was DQ'd for fighting after the bell..

Bundana
03-30-2010, 03:32 PM
I believe they had 2 fights with one win a piece.. Greb was Kd'd in their 1st fight but came back very strong in the 2nd half of the fight, coming close to stopping Norfolk.. The 2nd fight I believe Norfolk was winning, and Greb was DQ'd for fighting after the bell..

Yes, they did indeed meet twice - with Norfolk winning the 2nd on a DQ, as you point out.

I'm talking about the first fight, where BoxRec and IBHOF can't agree on a winner.

them_apples
03-30-2010, 03:37 PM
Just looking at Harry Greb's record at boxrec & it has his record 103-8-3 draws then it has another set of record called NEWSPAPER DECISIONS:

157-12-15 draws.

What is that?

How can we accurately judge a fighter we have not seen fight?

he looks terrible in his training and I think i've seen him spar. He may have been good in his day but nobody is going to convince me he'd beat Duran, Leonard etc


Harry Greb is the Bruce Lee of boxing, nobody has seen him fight yet he's p4p the greatest

mickey malone
03-30-2010, 03:39 PM
Yes, they did indeed meet twice - with Norfolk winning the 2nd on a DQ, as you point out.

I'm talking about the first fight, where BoxRec and IBHOF can't agree on a winner.
I think the only person who can answer that is hhascup (Henry) because he works for BoxRec.. Sure he'll be about soon.. Good point though..

mickey malone
03-30-2010, 03:42 PM
he looks terrible in his training and I think i've seen him spar. He may have been good in his day but nobody is going to convince me he'd beat Duran, Leonard etc


Harry Greb is the Bruce Lee of boxing, nobody has seen him fight yet he's p4p the greatest
It's a well documented fact that he hardly ever trained as he was fighting so much, he didn't need to..

Bundana
03-30-2010, 03:53 PM
I think the only person who can answer that is hhascup (Henry) because he works for BoxRec.. Sure he'll be about soon.. Good point though..

Yes, and since he's also on the IBHOF election committee, I'm kind of hoping he can cast some light on this.

Telepath
03-30-2010, 04:20 PM
It's sad that there is no real fight footage of Greb.

He looks really weird when sparring with Jack O'Brien. I wonder how his style really looked live.

bklynboy
03-30-2010, 11:22 PM
Harry Greb is the Bruce Lee of boxing, nobody has seen him fight yet he's p4p the greatest

Now that's a great line. EXCEPT lots of people saw Harry Greb fight. And lots of people who saw Greb fight also saw Slappy Maxy, Pep, Sandler and Robinson.

We have no film. We have no way to judge him. But 10s of thousands saw him including many writers, judges and trainers.

The Hate Giver
03-31-2010, 12:19 AM
i have a big problem using word of mouth or written articles as a basis for judging greatness.

How could you differentiate & judge a fighter using words & a writers opinion? How could you differentiate if you dont have film footage? If film never existed how could you differentiate & ascertain a description like;

"willie pep had amazing reflexes", "roy jones jr had ungodly reflexes", "pernell whitakers reflexes were supernatural"

If film didnt exist. how could you differentiate & gauge which fighter had the greater reflexes?

That's just one example. I mean its not like writers are not prone to hyperbole. I just cant take seriously what man writes down on paper & make a conclusion based on that, especially something as visual as sports & boxing.

If you start doing that, horrible things happen.....

Like religion.

bklynboy
03-31-2010, 01:16 AM
i have a big problem using word of mouth or written articles as a basis for judging greatness.

How could you differentiate & judge a fighter using words & a writers opinion? How could you differentiate if you dont have film footage? If film never existed how could you differentiate & ascertain a description like;

"willie pep had amazing reflexes", "roy jones jr had ungodly", "pernell whitakers reflexes were supernatural"

If film didnt exist. how could you differentiate & gauge which fighter had the greater reflexes?

That's just one example. I mean its not like writers are not prone to hyperbole. I just cant take seriously what man writes down on paper & make a conclusion based on that, especially something as visual as sports & boxing.

If you start doing that, horrible things happen.....

Like religion.

I 100% agree with you. Harry Greb is in the "I don't know" category. Surely he has to be ranked highly, he beat many HOF fighters. But how high do you rank him? Who knows? Regardless he deserves an honorable mention in whatever list you make.

louis54
03-31-2010, 04:17 AM
greb was probably the greatest fighter ever. such a schedule against the best is unheard of. he had hyperenergetic speed, endurance, smarts, and toughness. a bouncing around tough freak who never stopped moving his legs and hands !!

EzzardFan
03-31-2010, 11:48 AM
Harry Greb's Best Wins: (number of wins over that opponent)
(http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9046&cat=boxer)

(http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9046&cat=boxer)
Gene Tunney (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9046&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer – World Heavyweight Champion – Beat Dempsey twice
Tommy Loughran (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11326&cat=boxer) (4) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Jimmy Slattery (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11337&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Maxie Rosenbloom (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11349&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Jack Dillon (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11273&cat=boxer) (2) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Battling Levinsky (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10598&cat=boxer) (6) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Mike McTigue (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11287&cat=boxer) (2) – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Mickey Walker (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9035&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer – World Welterweight & Middleweight Champion
Tiger Flowers (http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11336&cat=boxer) Hall of Famer – World Champion Middleweight Champion
Mike Gibbons (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11267&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer
Tommy Gibbons (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11254&cat=boxer) (2) – Hall of Famer – Went 15 rounds with Dempsey for Heavyweight Title
Kid Norfolk (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11318&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer
Billy Miske (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10592&cat=boxer) (2) – Hall of Famer - Fought Dempsey for Heavyweight Title
Jack Blackburn (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11022&cat=boxer) Hall of Famer as a trainer
Al McCoy (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10530&cat=boxer) (2) – World Middleweight Champion
George Chip (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11253&cat=boxer) (2) – World Middleweight Champion
Johnny Wilson (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11328&cat=boxer) (3) – World Middleweight Champion
Eddie McGoorty (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11292&cat=boxer) (1) – Claimed World Middleweight Champion
Willie Meehan (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10585&cat=boxer) (2) – Beat Dempsey twice
Gunboat Smith (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11290&cat=boxer) (2) – Top Heavyweight
Bill Brennan (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10603&cat=boxer) (4) – Fought Dempsey for Heavyweight Title
Augie Ratner (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11283&cat=boxer) - Defeated four world champions in his career
Young Ahearn (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11269&cat=boxer)
Jeff Smith (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11274&cat=boxer)
Soldier Bartfield (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11280&cat=boxer)
Leo Houck (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11295&cat=boxer)
Tommy Robson (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11298&cat=boxer)
Bartley Madden (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11303&cat=boxer)
Tommy Robson (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11298&cat=boxer)
Joe Borrell (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11242&cat=boxer)
Bob Moha (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11264&cat=boxer)
Chuck Wiggins (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11300&cat=boxer)
Jack Renault (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11315&cat=boxer)
Charley Weinert (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=13546&cat=boxer)
Billy Shade (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11321&cat=boxer)
Homer Smith (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10589&cat=boxer)
Lou Bogash (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11329&cat=boxer)
Bryan Downey (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11330&cat=boxer)
Jackie Clark (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11259&cat=boxer)
Jimmy Delaney (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11340&cat=boxer)
Jack Reddick (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11345&cat=boxer)
Roland Todd (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11354&cat=boxer)
Allentown Joe Gans (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=40820&cat=boxer)

i have a big problem using word of mouth or written articles as a basis for judging greatness.

How could you differentiate & judge a fighter using words & a writers opinion? How could you differentiate if you dont have film footage? If film never existed how could you differentiate & ascertain a description like;

"willie pep had amazing reflexes", "roy jones jr had ungodly reflexes", "pernell whitakers reflexes were supernatural"

If film didnt exist. how could you differentiate & gauge which fighter had the greater reflexes?

That's just one example. I mean its not like writers are not prone to hyperbole. I just cant take seriously what man writes down on paper & make a conclusion based on that, especially something as visual as sports & boxing.

If you start doing that, horrible things happen.....

Like religion.

We can accept his greatness because there is footage of the guys that he beat, and that combined with his record of beating the best fighters of his time, and the eye witness accounts of those fights, many of them from very credible sources enables us to rate him without seeing any footage.

The guy fought almost once a week for his entire career, regularly beat fighters 1-2 weight classes above him (and in those days that could mean a difference of 25-75lbs. He also fought blind in one eye for half his career. I'd love to see footage of him, we all would.

r.burgundy
03-31-2010, 04:59 PM
Just looking at Harry Greb's record at boxrec & it has his record 103-8-3 draws then it has another set of record called NEWSPAPER DECISIONS:

157-12-15 draws.

What is that?

How can we accurately judge a fighter we have not seen fight?

me personally,i dont puch much stock into guys theres no footage of.i dont care what bert sugar has to say.you listen to any old coot from any sport and they all tell the same tale.joe namath was the greatest q.b ever,bob cousy was the best point guard ever,yadda yadda yadda.you talk to bert sugar he would have you believe joe louis was knockin out mike tysons in every fight an willie pep once won a round without throwing a punch.

when i 1st saw pep,i was expecting pernel whitaker mixed with sugar ray leonard.i was extremely disapointed.the legend did not match to what i was seeing.same with jack johnson.i appreciate joe louis accuracy but if a champ today fought those guys he would be called all kinds of things.i just cant put much stock into these guys

r.burgundy
03-31-2010, 05:00 PM
greb was probably the greatest fighter ever. such a schedule against the best is unheard of. he had hyperenergetic speed, endurance, smarts, and toughness. a bouncing around tough freak who never stopped moving his legs and hands !!

how would you know?

JAB5239
03-31-2010, 05:32 PM
how would you know?

How do you know Abe Lincoln freed the slaves? Because that is what history tells us. I think its interesting what people choose to believe and not believe regarding history. Considering the fighters he fought and beat, I don't think it takes a giant leap of faith to consider Greb an amazing talent and all time great. I don't think you have to see a fighter fight when you have seen many of his opponents fight as well as newspaper accounts of the day.

r.burgundy
03-31-2010, 05:38 PM
How do you know Abe Lincoln freed the slaves? Because that is what history tells us. I think its interesting what people choose to believe and not believe regarding history. Considering the fighters he fought and beat, I don't think it takes a giant leap of faith to consider Greb an amazing talent and all time great. I don't think you have to see a fighter fight when you have seen many of his opponents fight as well as newspaper accounts of the day.

lmao.thats an absolutely terrible analogy

i do agree in the case of greb that he likely was amazing,but there just isnt any real way of gaging him against todays fighters.when dealing with all time rankings,it shouldnt be fair to judge todays fighters on and antique standard,due to how much the buisness model has changed.now pro in this day and age will come anywhere close to a 100 fight career,or fighting every last contender possible.only guys that really do that today are the klitschos and they get ****ted on.so if everybody has so much to say about these guys opposition,then imagine what some of those guys greb fought musta looked like

JAB5239
03-31-2010, 06:16 PM
lmao.thats an absolutely terrible analogy

It shows people will believe or not believe what they want to in spite of all the historical evidence. Why do we need to see footage of Greb to proclaim him an all time great? We have no video proof Lincoln was a great president, only the historical facts. Why is that good for one instance but not another?

i do agree in the case of greb that he likely was amazing,but there just isnt any real way of gaging him against todays fighters.when dealing with all time rankings,it shouldnt be fair to judge todays fighters on and antique standard,due to how much the buisness model has changed.now pro in this day and age will come anywhere close to a 100 fight career,or fighting every last contender possible.only guys that really do that today are the klitschos and they get ****ted on.so if everybody has so much to say about these guys opposition,then imagine what some of those guys greb fought musta looked like

Why do we need to gauge them against todays fighters in order rank them all time? You can only judge a fighter by the fighters he beat, not some fantasy fight.

hhascup
03-31-2010, 06:37 PM
I think the only person who can answer that is hhascup (Henry) because he works for BoxRec.. Sure he'll be about soon.. Good point though..

Yes, and since he's also on the IBHOF election committee, I'm kind of hoping he can cast some light on this.

It would depend on which newspaper you go by, since this was a Newspaper decision. Several had Greb and others had Norfolk. It looks like they all agree on 8 of the rounds. 1 to 4 for Norfolk and 6 to 10 for Greb. They differ in rounds 5 and 6.

1921-08-29 : Harry Greb (http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Human:9019) beat Kid Norfolk (http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Human:11318) by NWS in round 10 of 10

Location: Forbes Field, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

"Harry Greb, Pittsburgh light heavyweight won a shade over Kid Norfolk, colored heavy in a ten-round bout." (Appleton Post Crescent)

The Pittsburgh Post report shows that there is no substance to the old story that Norfolk thumbed Greb in this fight, resulting in his losing sight in one eye. (The fight in which the injury probably occurred will be noted below.) According to the Post, Norfolk was fast and 17 1/2 pounds heavier, and won 4 of the first 5 rounds, even scoring a flash knockdown in round three. Greb was up quickly and did not appear to be hurt. In the last five rounds, Greb (who did a lot of holding in the first five rounds) decided to trade punches with Norfolk. Apparently he had held his opponent in too much respect because he won all five remaining rounds and had Norfolk all at sea. Greb "smothered him with a two-fisted attack" as Norfolk tired. It was an excellent fight. Greb had a real uphill battle after getting himself in a hole in the first five rounds, but came through excellently. Norfolk suffered a badly cut eye. Referee Yock Henninger said, next day, that he would have named Greb winner.

Another report from the Post lists Norfolk as the winner, the seventh round being the first round that Greb won. The Post gives Norfolk rounds 1-6 and Greb 7-10. Norfolk also scored a knockdown in the 3rd round. The Gazette Times scored the bout the same way, Norfolk winning the first six and Greb the last four. The Daily Dispatch gave Greb the "hairline" verdict by claiming Norfolk won the first four rounds, the fifth being drawn and 6-10 going to Greb. This bout should obviously not be listed as a win for Greb.

Bundana
03-31-2010, 06:56 PM
It would depend on which newspaper you go by, since this was a Newspaper decision. Several had Greb and others had Norfolk. It looks like they all agree on 8 of the rounds. 1 to 4 for Norfolk and 6 to 10 for Greb. They differ in rounds 5 and 6.

1921-08-29 : Harry Greb (http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Human:9019) beat Kid Norfolk (http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Human:11318) by NWS in round 10 of 10

Location: Forbes Field, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

"Harry Greb, Pittsburgh light heavyweight won a shade over Kid Norfolk, colored heavy in a ten-round bout." (Appleton Post Crescent)

The Pittsburgh Post report shows that there is no substance to the old story that Norfolk thumbed Greb in this fight, resulting in his losing sight in one eye. (The fight in which the injury probably occurred will be noted below.) According to the Post, Norfolk was fast and 17 1/2 pounds heavier, and won 4 of the first 5 rounds, even scoring a flash knockdown in round three. Greb was up quickly and did not appear to be hurt. In the last five rounds, Greb (who did a lot of holding in the first five rounds) decided to trade punches with Norfolk. Apparently he had held his opponent in too much respect because he won all five remaining rounds and had Norfolk all at sea. Greb "smothered him with a two-fisted attack" as Norfolk tired. It was an excellent fight. Greb had a real uphill battle after getting himself in a hole in the first five rounds, but came through excellently. Norfolk suffered a badly cut eye. Referee Yock Henninger said, next day, that he would have named Greb winner.

Another report from the Post lists Norfolk as the winner, the seventh round being the first round that Greb won. The Post gives Norfolk rounds 1-6 and Greb 7-10. Norfolk also scored a knockdown in the 3rd round. The Gazette Times scored the bout the same way, Norfolk winning the first six and Greb the last four. The Daily Dispatch gave Greb the "hairline" verdict by claiming Norfolk won the first four rounds, the fifth being drawn and 6-10 going to Greb. This bout should obviously not be listed as a win for Greb.

It would be interesting to know, how many people are involved in deciding the winner of these fights. Is just one man responsible for reviewing newspaper reports of a particular fight - or is there a whole group of historians involved in each fight?

Also, do BoxRec and IBHOF each have their own experts - resulting in possible opposite conclusions (like in the first Greb-Norfolk fight)? Since you are involved with both organisations, let's hear a little about how this whole thing works.

r.burgundy
03-31-2010, 07:40 PM
Why do we need to gauge them against todays fighters in order rank them all time? You can only judge a fighter by the fighters he beat, not some fantasy fight.

because thats like sayin somebody like ray leonard cant possibly be as great as willie pep cause he's had about 200 less fights.ranking in that style,no current or even recent fighter has a chance of cracking top 40 and thats plain silly in my opinion.

hhascup
03-31-2010, 07:47 PM
It would be interesting to know, how many people are involved in deciding the winner of these fights. Is just one man responsible for reviewing newspaper reports of a particular fight - or is there a whole group of historians involved in each fight?

Also, do BoxRec and IBHOF each have their own experts - resulting in possible opposite conclusions (like in the first Greb-Norfolk fight)? Since you are involved with both organisations, let's hear a little about how this whole thing works.

Each newspaper has there own writer and he decides who wins for there paper. The bigger the bout, the more writers.

I have looked in many papers when I did my research and at times you would think the writers were looking at 2 different bouts.

Bundana
03-31-2010, 08:12 PM
Each newspaper has there own writer and he decides who wins for there paper. The bigger the bout, the more writers.

I have looked in many papers when I did my research and at times you would think the writers were looking at 2 different bouts.

What I meant was: Who TODAY decides the winner of these fights, that took place many decades ago? Is there some kind of central group of experts, who review the old newspaper reports, and whose opinion everybody goes along with - or are there different groups working independently?

The reason I ask this, is that the first Greb-Norfolk fight is listed as a win for Greb by BoxRec... while IBHOF has Norfolk winning the same fight. Which I find very strange!

JAB5239
03-31-2010, 10:12 PM
because thats like sayin somebody like ray leonard cant possibly be as great as willie pep cause he's had about 200 less fights.ranking in that style,no current or even recent fighter has a chance of cracking top 40 and thats plain silly in my opinion.

Pacquiao, Whitaker, Jones, Hopkins, Chavez, Mayweather and others have a great chance to crack the top 40 and better, so your argument is moot. But no way are these guys going to rate ahead of a Greb, Pep, Armstrong or Robinson when those guys beat better fighters and more often. You seem to want to penalize the old time greats or at least take their accomplishment out of consideration because todays fight CHOOSE not to fight nearly as often or cherry pick opponents based on which sanctioning body is their particular flavor of the week.

r.burgundy
03-31-2010, 10:25 PM
Pacquiao, Whitaker, Jones, Hopkins, Chavez, Mayweather and others have a great chance to crack the top 40 and better, so your argument is moot. But no way are these guys going to rate ahead of a Greb, Pep, Armstrong or Robinson when those guys beat better fighters and more often. You seem to want to penalize the old time greats or at least take their accomplishment out of consideration because todays fight CHOOSE not to fight nearly as often or cherry pick opponents based on which sanctioning body is their particular flavor of the week.

you keep sating "better fighters".well i ask better in terms of what?it cant be based on skill cause most of them havent been seen.at feather i think pacqiuo would maul anybody pep faced,pep included.so using pac as my example,how on earth can we say somebody like ray famechon,or sandy saddler is better than barrera,morales or marquez?they arent.but being that pep is over 200 fights,how is it fair to manny when you can a case that fought better comp in less fights?

but lets take an even more logical look.there arent 20 good fighters in any 1 division today,regardless of sanctioning body or ranking.but somebody has got to be a champ and somebody has got to be ranked 1-20,so i thinks its silly to assume that pep fought 20 capable opponents regardless of what bert sugar says.this is no bias,or hate.its just simple math.the most loaded div in i can recall was middle with bhop,roy,toney,mccallum etcand more recently welter and super middle and those were at tops 10 fighters deep.no way in hell these old fighters fought 20+ credible fighters

JAB5239
03-31-2010, 11:05 PM
you keep sating "better fighters".well i ask better in terms of what?it cant be based on skill cause most of them havent been seen.at feather i think pacqiuo would maul anybody pep faced,pep included.so using pac as my example,how on earth can we say somebody like ray famechon,or sandy saddler is better than barrera,morales or marquez?they arent.but being that pep is over 200 fights,how is it fair to manny when you can a case that fought better comp in less fights?

but lets take an even more logical look.there arent 20 good fighters in any 1 division today,regardless of sanctioning body or ranking.but somebody has got to be a champ and somebody has got to be ranked 1-20,so i thinks its silly to assume that pep fought 20 capable opponents regardless of what bert sugar says.this is no bias,or hate.its just simple math.the most loaded div in i can recall was middle with bhop,roy,toney,mccallum etcand more recently welter and super middle and those were at tops 10 fighters deep.no way in hell these old fighters fought 20+ credible fighters


Your knowledge is becoming a joke as is your bias against old time fighters.

Here is a list compiled by hhascup who is both an editor at boxrec and on the selection committee for the IBHOF. These are the top 10 fighters Pep fought in his career when there was one ONE title and less divisions. There were also more professional boxers at that time which means that talent pool was that much deeper.

1. Pedro Hernandez
2. Bobby Poison Ivy
3. Chalky Wright
4. Allie Stolz
5. Sammy Angott
6. Sal Bartolo
7. Jackie Wilson
8. Sal Bartolo
9. Willie Joyce
10. Manuel Ortiz
11. Lulu Costantino
12. Joey Peralta
13. Charles Cabey Lewis
14. Chalky Wright (2)
15. Charles Cabey Lewis (2)
16. Chalky Wright (3)
17. Willie Roache
18. Phil Terranova
19. Jackie Wilson (2)
20. Sal Bartolo (2)
21. Jackie Graves
22. Chalky Wright (4)
23. Jock Leslie
24. Miguel Acevedo
25. Paddy DeMarco
26. Sandy Saddler
27. Sandy Saddler (2)
28. Charley Riley
29. Ray Famechon
30. Sandy Saddler (3)
31. Sandy Saddler (4)
32. Tommy Collins
33. Lulu Perez
34. Hogan Kid Bassey
35. Sonny Leon

Now, just because YOU don't know who many of these fighters are doesn't mean they weren't credible.

The Hate Giver
04-01-2010, 12:07 AM
We can accept his greatness because there is footage of the guys that he beat, and that combined with his record of beating the best fighters of his time, and the eye witness accounts of those fights, many of them from very credible sources enables us to rate him without seeing any footage.



How do you know Abe Lincoln freed the slaves? Because that is what history tells us. I think its interesting what people choose to believe and not believe regarding history. Considering the fighters he fought and beat, I don't think it takes a giant leap of faith to consider Greb an amazing talent and all time great. I don't think you have to see a fighter fight when you have seen many of his opponents fight as well as newspaper accounts of the day.



Pacquiao, Whitaker, Jones, Hopkins, Chavez, Mayweather and others have a great chance to crack the top 40 and better, so your argument is moot. But no way are these guys going to rate ahead of a Greb, Pep, Armstrong or Robinson when those guys beat better fighters and more often. You seem to want to penalize the old time greats or at least take their accomplishment out of consideration because todays fight CHOOSE not to fight nearly as often or cherry pick opponents based on which sanctioning body is their particular flavor of the week.


The guy fought almost once a week for his entire career, regularly beat fighters 1-2 weight classes above him (and in those days that could mean a difference of 25-75lbs. He also fought blind in one eye for half his career. I'd love to see footage of him, we all would.

Nothing in my posts says that WE SHOULD NOT ACCEPT GREB'S GREATNESS. Nothing. Im not denying greb's greatness, just how high he should be based on eyewitness accounts & a writer's opinion. This is the same problem i have with mayweather fans. I DONT deny his great skills, i deny his level of greatness he & his delusional fan base claim.

As for harry greb, old timers say dont discredit the old fighters, well you guys are doing the exact same thing by holding fighters up in such a high pedestal that you havent seen fight. You want to keep him up in a high ranking in favor of a fighter that there is visual evidence of. You want to without a shadow of a doubt say this guy is the greatest so & so & we dont have footage of it.

You say he fought once a week, was he fighting legendary great fighers once a week? I look at a lot of great old school fighters & i see them in their primes facing fighters with 15,20,30,35 losses.

Sometimes quality is greater than quantity.

Do you need to fight 200 times to prove you are a great fighter? Should we hold back a fighter in all time great rankings behind greb even though we have great visual evidence of the fighter? But because some writers wrote that greb is soooo awesome & the greatest we should go by that?

How many no decisions should have been losses? how many should have been wins? How many fights were judged incorrectly because the person deciding who the winner is was the referee?

How many times did fighters throw fights for the mob? How many times did the mob fix fights?

How many times did a black fighter get robbed so the white fighter can win? Why do i bring this up? Because in the so called golden age of boxing, black people did not get equal treatment IN LIFE. How much more in sports?

How many times were black fighters denied title shots?

Hell, jake lamotta even had to throw a fight just so he could a title shot vs cerdan. How much more a black fighter?

Personally, i dont think a fighter that has no film footage should be in the top ten. As time goes by, as fighters careers are more appreciated & thoroughly examined i think fighters that have no film footage should slowly move down in rankings in favor for fighters with actual footage. Look, im not denying they were great fighters, just where they rank.

How could you with a straight face say this boxer with no film footage should be ranked higher vs this boxer with ample footage & a great resume with only 50 fights?

jab, that abe lincoln analogy was horrible.

hhascup
04-01-2010, 12:48 AM
What I meant was: Who TODAY decides the winner of these fights, that took place many decades ago? Is there some kind of central group of experts, who review the old newspaper reports, and whose opinion everybody goes along with - or are there different groups working independently?

The reason I ask this, is that the first Greb-Norfolk fight is listed as a win for Greb by BoxRec... while IBHOF has Norfolk winning the same fight. Which I find very strange!

That's a very good question. On BoxRec, anyone of their editors, including myself, can put in a result, and anyone can change it if they want. Most, if not all of the editors on BoxRec have a good reputation, so they make sure they put in the right information.

On the Greb/Norfolk bout, Ring Record Book had Greb winning. The person that put it in for BoxRec was Luckett Davis, who is a Great researcher.

Actually the results in this bout has been changed several times. On October 28, 2004, Davis had Greb winning. On January 9, 2006 it was changed to a draw. On March 5, 2006, Mike Delisa, another Great researcher, changed it to a No-Decision. On January 26, 2007, Davis changed it back to a win for Greb.

On August 1, 2007, Delisa changed it to read: Pittsburg Post and Pittsburgh Times and AP gave out to Greb, Pittsburgh Gazzette-Times gave verdict to Norfolk.

On February 8, 2010, Davis changed it to read: Pittsburgh Post, Pittsburgh Times, and AP gave out to Greb, Pittsburgh Gazette-Times gave verdict to Norfolk.

In the Ring Record Book, the bout was listed as a No-Decision up to and including the 1985 RRB. In the 1986-87 RRB, which was the last Ring Record Book, they listed it as ND-W for Greb.

carlos slim
04-01-2010, 12:53 AM
lol at the old timers that convince themselves a cyclops they barely ****in know what he looks like was the GOAT....

mickey malone
04-01-2010, 01:03 AM
There's enough footage on Greb's opponents to make a judgement on how good he was.. One thing's for sure - he didn't sit inside a sprawling country mansion for months on end wearing silk pyjamas, and waiting for a an offer in excess of 10 million bucks to persuede him into the gym..

carlos slim
04-01-2010, 01:06 AM
and how do we know he didnt fight like calzaghe?

Ziggy Stardust
04-01-2010, 01:29 AM
You guys take this one. I'm just not in the mood tonight to deal with the nitwit "we don't need no education" crowd.

Poet

JAB5239
04-01-2010, 02:09 AM
Nothing in my posts says that WE SHOULD NOT ACCEPT GREB'S GREATNESS. Nothing. Im not denying greb's greatness, just how high he should be based on eyewitness accounts & a writer's opinion. This is the same problem i have with mayweather fans. I DONT deny his great skills, i deny his level of greatness he & his delusional fan base claim.

As for harry greb, old timers say dont discredit the old fighters, well you guys are doing the exact same thing by holding fighters up in such a high pedestal that you havent seen fight. You want to keep him up in a high ranking in favor of a fighter that there is visual evidence of. You want to without a shadow of a doubt say this guy is the greatest so & so & we dont have footage of it.

You say he fought once a week, was he fighting legendary great fighers once a week? I look at a lot of great old school fighters & i see them in their primes facing fighters with 15,20,30,35 losses.

Sometimes quality is greater than quantity.

Do you need to fight 200 times to prove you are a great fighter? Should we hold back a fighter in all time great rankings behind greb even though we have great visual evidence of the fighter? But because some writers wrote that greb is soooo awesome & the greatest we should go by that?

How many no decisions should have been losses? how many should have been wins? How many fights were judged incorrectly because the person deciding who the winner is was the referee?

How many times did fighters throw fights for the mob? How many times did the mob fix fights?

How many times did a black fighter get robbed so the white fighter can win? Why do i bring this up? Because in the so called golden age of boxing, black people did not get equal treatment IN LIFE. How much more in sports?

How many times were black fighters denied title shots?

Hell, jake lamotta even had to throw a fight just so he could a title shot vs cerdan. How much more a black fighter?

Personally, i dont think a fighter that has no film footage should be in the top ten. As time goes by, as fighters careers are more appreciated & thoroughly examined i think fighters that have no film footage should slowly move down in rankings in favor for fighters with actual footage. Look, im not denying they were great fighters, just where they rank.

How could you with a straight face say this boxer with no film footage should be ranked higher vs this boxer with ample footage & a great resume with only 50 fights?

When fighter A has beaten more fighters and better fighters than fighter B, fighter A has to rank higher. Why would I rank a fighter higher with video footage if I know another fighter has beaten the same caliber of fighters and more of them?

JAB5239
04-01-2010, 02:11 AM
and how do we know he didnt fight like calzaghe?

Have you ever read the account of his first fight with Tunney?

Bundana
04-01-2010, 03:07 AM
That's a very good question. On BoxRec, anyone of their editors, including myself, can put in a result, and anyone can change it if they want. Most, if not all of the editors on BoxRec have a good reputation, so they make sure they put in the right information.

On the Greb/Norfolk bout, Ring Record Book had Greb winning. The person that put it in for BoxRec was Luckett Davis, who is a Great researcher.

Actually the results in this bout has been changed several times. On October 28, 2004, Davis had Greb winning. On January 9, 2006 it was changed to a draw. On March 5, 2006, Mike Delisa, another Great researcher, changed it to a No-Decision. On January 26, 2007, Davis changed it back to a win for Greb.

On August 1, 2007, Delisa changed it to read: Pittsburg Post and Pittsburgh Times and AP gave out to Greb, Pittsburgh Gazzette-Times gave verdict to Norfolk.

On February 8, 2010, Davis changed it to read: Pittsburgh Post, Pittsburgh Times, and AP gave out to Greb, Pittsburgh Gazette-Times gave verdict to Norfolk.

In the Ring Record Book, the bout was listed as a No-Decision up to and including the 1985 RRB. In the 1986-87 RRB, which was the last Ring Record Book, they listed it as ND-W for Greb.

Thanks - that's exactly the kind of information, I was looking for.

Seems to me, that if the reports at the time were so conflicting, that it today is almost impossible to be certain, who really held the upper hand... then, surely, a draw would be the fairest result?

Spartacus Sully
04-01-2010, 03:28 AM
Thanks - that's exactly the kind of information, I was looking for.

Seems to me, that if the reports at the time were so conflicting, that it today is almost impossible to be certain, who really held the upper hand... then, surely, a draw would be the fairest result?

seems to me that its 3 vs 1 Pittsburgh Post, Pittsburgh Times, and AP vs Pittsburgh Gazette-Times

if the majority agrees that greb won how would a draw be the fairest result?

mickey malone
04-01-2010, 04:22 AM
and how do we know he didnt fight like calzaghe?
He did fight like Calzaghe, but harder, for longer, against a multiple choice of better and heavier fighters, with two stronger hands but only the one good eye..

Greb was a bit like Armstrong (who we do have footage of).. Nothing particularly noticable in the skillset, but what do you do with a fighter who just keeps coming forward, cascading leather from all directions, who you can't knock out?
You could also liken him to Marciano, but tougher.. He didn't hit as hard as the Rock, but he threw twice as many punches and didn't get cut or KD'd as often, this despite having 250 fights more.. I think if they'd met, Marciano would have probably won by the skin of his teeth, but only through being strong enough to force Greb backwards, he'd force Greb to cover up, but I doubt he would have KO'd him..
What would the premadonna's of today do with someone like that??.. I think I know the answer - Duck him!.. Pac probably wouldn't, but Greb would be a bridge too far at MW and just walk straight through him anyway..

mickey malone
04-01-2010, 04:35 AM
Thanks - that's exactly the kind of information, I was looking for.

Seems to me, that if the reports at the time were so conflicting, that it today is almost impossible to be certain, who really held the upper hand... then, surely, a draw would be the fairest result?
I think it was close enough to be a SD either way or a draw..
Whatever way you look at it, Norfolk was a top HW and the fact that Greb held his own with him twice, gives us a great insight as to how good he was..

Bundana
04-01-2010, 05:02 AM
seems to me that its 3 vs 1 Pittsburgh Post, Pittsburgh Times, and AP vs Pittsburgh Gazette-Times

if the majority agrees that greb won how would a draw be the fairest result?

Guess it all depends on which papers you read. At IBHOF they have obviously reached a different conclusion, since they have Norfolk winning this fight (see under Norfolk's profile)... and earlier in this thread (#28) hhascup himself states, that it's wrong to proclaim Greb the winner of this particular fight.

My point is, that if we, many years later, decide to change the results of these matches (fought under the assumption by all involved at the time, that no official verdict would be rendered in case of a distance fight), we should at least make certain, that we get it right... so no "L" suddenly appears on the record of someone, who doesn't deserve it. And if we can't do that, we should just leave it as it is (ND-D).

Spartacus Sully
04-01-2010, 05:13 AM
Guess it all depends on which papers you read. At IBHOF they have obviously reached a different conclusion, since they have Norfolk winning this fight (see under Norfolk's profile)... and earlier in this thread (#28) hhascup himself states, that it's wrong to proclaim Greb the winner of this particular fight.

My point is, that if we, many years later, decide to change the results of these matches (fought under the assumption by all involved at the time, that no official verdict would be rendered in case of a distance fight), we should at least make certain, that we get it right... so no "L" suddenly appears on the record of someone, who doesn't deserve it. And if we can't do that, we should just leave it as it is (ND-D).

perhaps the people over at ibhof only read the Pittsburgh Gazette-Times?

if anything the most fair option would to label it as nd-w for greb while citing the papers that claim he won and claim he lost.

STILL_DETOX
04-01-2010, 05:42 AM
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=370510

Telepath
04-01-2010, 05:42 AM
Christ dudes... You want a measure of Harry's greatness?

His first fight with Tunney, in which he turned Gene into shish kebob, he was outweighed by 12 pounds and he had more than six inches less reach. This against a guy who would go on to win the heavyweight championship against Jack Dempsey.

The Beatles
04-01-2010, 06:42 AM
Christ dudes... You want a measure of Harry's greatness?

His first fight with Tunney, in which he turned Gene into shish kebob, he was outweighed by 12 pounds and he had more than six inches less reach. This against a guy who would go on to win the heavyweight championship against Jack Dempsey.
i looked at your sig and didn't bother reading your post

EzzardFan
04-01-2010, 07:05 AM
because thats like sayin somebody like ray leonard cant possibly be as great as willie pep cause he's had about 200 less fights.ranking in that style,no current or even recent fighter has a chance of cracking top 40 and thats plain silly in my opinion.

No it's plain sensible. The boxers today have nowhere near the skills of the boxers that fought from the mid-1920s to the mid-1950s. There are many reasons for this:

Less fighters
Less fights. In the early days most fighters fought a minimum of once a month. That meant they's have fought at least 50 times within 4 years, and an average of 100-200 times in their entire career.

Less gyms

Less boxing clubs

Less trainers with less experience.

Poor refereeing, failure to allow infighting which is now essentially a dead art.

Too many 'sports scientists, personal trainers, and nutritionists who earn their living from marketing training and nutrition that has nothing to do with boxing.

Heavyweights that are just too heavy to move. Watching two beached whales is more interesting.

Less experience of losing. see back in the old days nobody cared too much about going undefeated, so they threw good fighters together in the hope of making a good fight. Those tough fights were great experiences. Today it's common place to duck any opponent a contender doesn't feel he can beat, right up until the point he challenges for the title. So what we have now is a bunch so manufactured contenders fighting tomato cans, but no each other, and waiting for their shot at the champ. If a tomato can beats a contender then everyone else ducks him. That's why fighters are so **** these days.

The high number of KOs we see today is due to A) The lack of defensive skills, and B) because the fights are badly mismatched.

you keep sating "better fighters".well i ask better in terms of what?

Everything but without the body builder look.

You say he fought once a week, was he fighting legendary great fighers once a week? I look at a lot of great old school fighters & i see them in their primes facing fighters with 15,20,30,35 losses.

Sometimes quality is greater than quantity.

See my point above on how fighters these days have manufactured records. In the old days nobody ducked anyone and as a result there were more hard fights, and more fights that went the distance. The result of this was that people lost to each other a lot more. This experience made them better fighters.

How many times did a black fighter get robbed so the white fighter can win? Why do i bring this up? Because in the so called golden age of boxing, black people did not get equal treatment IN LIFE. How much more in sports?

How many times were black fighters denied title shots?

We agree on that point, but it mostly affected the HW division.

Personally, i dont think a fighter that has no film footage should be in the top ten. As time goes by, as fighters careers are more appreciated & thoroughly examined i think fighters that have no film footage should slowly move down in rankings in favor for fighters with actual footage. Look, im not denying they were great fighters, just where they rank.

How could you with a straight face say this boxer with no film footage should be ranked higher vs this boxer with ample footage & a great resume with only 50 fights?

So in 20 years when everything goes 3D do we start to discount all the fighters that we only have 2D footage of?

Get a grip!

One more round
04-01-2010, 07:37 AM
No it's plain sensible. The boxers today have nowhere near the skills of the boxers that fought from the mid-1920s to the mid-1950s. There are many reasons for this:

Less fighters
Less fights. In the early days most fighters fought a minimum of once a month. That meant they's have fought at least 50 times within 4 years, and an average of 100-200 times in their entire career.

Less gyms

Less boxing clubs

Less trainers with less experience.

Poor refereeing, failure to allow infighting which is now essentially a dead art.

Too many 'sports scientists, personal trainers, and nutritionists who earn their living from marketing training and nutrition that has nothing to do with boxing.

Heavyweights that are just too heavy to move. Watching two beached whales is more interesting.

Less experience of losing. see back in the old days nobody cared too much about going undefeated, so they threw good fighters together in the hope of making a good fight. Those tough fights were great experiences. Today it's common place to duck any opponent a contender doesn't feel he can beat, right up until the point he challenges for the title. So what we have now is a bunch so manufactured contenders fighting tomato cans, but no each other, and waiting for their shot at the champ. If a tomato can beats a contender then everyone else ducks him. That's why fighters are so **** these days.

The high number of KOs we see today is due to A) The lack of defensive skills, and B) because the fights are badly mismatched.



Everything but without the body builder look.



See my point above on how fighters these days have manufactured records. In the old days nobody ducked anyone and as a result there were more hard fights, and more fights that went the distance. The result of this was that people lost to each other a lot more. This experience made them better fighters.



We agree on that point, but it mostly affected the HW division.



So in 20 years when everything goes 3D do we start to discount all the fighters that we only have 2D footage of?

Get a grip!

Trashing todays era and treating the old days like they were an untouchable golden age is stupid. Saying boxing today is **** compared to back then is ignorant and silly. Just like saying the other way around.

One more round
04-01-2010, 07:38 AM
Like you make some decent points about more fighters, and the losing thing, but your bias really ruins it.

Telepath
04-01-2010, 07:48 AM
i looked at your sig and didn't bother reading your postYou don't seem to be the only one on the forum that's completely incapable of getting a joke.

Spartacus Sully
04-01-2010, 08:34 AM
You don't seem to be the only one on the forum that's completely incapable of getting a joke.

I looked at your avatar and umm ummm what were you saying again?

The Beatles
04-01-2010, 08:37 AM
I looked at your avatar and umm ummm what were you saying again?
i quite have to agree...i looked at his avatar before i saw his 'joke' of a sig.....

by the way....who is that chick in your avatar??

r.burgundy
04-01-2010, 08:51 AM
[/B]

Your knowledge is becoming a joke as is your bias against old time fighters.

Here is a list compiled by hhascup who is both an editor at boxrec and on the selection committee for the IBHOF. These are the top 10 fighters Pep fought in his career when there was one ONE title and less divisions. There were also more professional boxers at that time which means that talent pool was that much deeper.

1. Pedro Hernandez
2. Bobby Poison Ivy
3. Chalky Wright
4. Allie Stolz
5. Sammy Angott
6. Sal Bartolo
7. Jackie Wilson
8. Sal Bartolo
9. Willie Joyce
10. Manuel Ortiz
11. Lulu Costantino
12. Joey Peralta
13. Charles Cabey Lewis
14. Chalky Wright (2)
15. Charles Cabey Lewis (2)
16. Chalky Wright (3)
17. Willie Roache
18. Phil Terranova
19. Jackie Wilson (2)
20. Sal Bartolo (2)
21. Jackie Graves
22. Chalky Wright (4)
23. Jock Leslie
24. Miguel Acevedo
25. Paddy DeMarco
26. Sandy Saddler
27. Sandy Saddler (2)
28. Charley Riley
29. Ray Famechon
30. Sandy Saddler (3)
31. Sandy Saddler (4)
32. Tommy Collins
33. Lulu Perez
34. Hogan Kid Bassey
35. Sonny Leon

Now, just because YOU don't know who many of these fighters are doesn't mean they weren't credible.

dude,your knowledge of math is becoming a joke.you say here are the top 10 fighters pep fought then list 35 guys lol

what dont you seem to understand about my point that neither me,you,or hhascup has seen 90% of these guys fight???why are you not capable of grasping that concept?more boxers does not mean more talent,it usually means less,and please point our or post statistics to prove their were more fighters back then.i guess we all should believe absolutely everything we read then.of the 5 fights ive seen of pep,ive been extremly unimpressed by him and even moreso his opponent.in contrast,the 5 or 6 fights ive seen of sugar ray robinson lead me to believe he is the best to do it.the 2 fights of ive seen of conn show me he invented the shoulder roll.i love these 2 guys

i find it hillarious how everybody talks about how great these guys were but nobody talks about there flaws.bert has nothing but praise for pep,sandler,etc etc but i see to many flaws to count.when somebody makes an objective piece talking about their weaknesses as well as thier strengths,thats when i'll take 1 of those great articles seriously.guys like you deal in imagination,because imagination is what we use when we read.its why books based on movies are never as good as the book.everything you are saying about greb,and who pep fought is based on somebody elses opinion.is that not hard to understand?

earlier you made an absolutely horrible analogy about slaverynot sure what would posses you to compare or contrast the 2,but lets take a look.if you look at a american/euro version of history,they will tell you that africans were savages,walked around naked and had no religion.african history tells an entirely different version of what happened.get my drift?

The Beatles
04-01-2010, 09:08 AM
dude,your knowledge of math is becoming a joke.you say here are the top 10 fighters pep fought then list 35 guys lol

what dont you seem to understand about my point that neither me,you,or hhascup has seen 90% of these guys fight???why are you not capable of grasping that concept?more boxers does not mean more talent,it usually means less,and please point our or post statistics to prove their were more fighters back then.i guess we all should believe absolutely everything we read then.of the 5 fights ive seen of pep,ive been extremly unimpressed by him and even moreso his opponent.in contrast,the 5 or 6 fights ive seen of sugar ray robinson lead me to believe he is the best to do it.the 2 fights of ive seen of conn show me he invented the shoulder roll.i love these 2 guys

i find it hillarious how everybody talks about how great these guys were but nobody talks about there flaws.bert has nothing but praise for pep,sandler,etc etc but i see to many flaws to count.when somebody makes an objective piece talking about their weaknesses as well as thier strengths,thats when i'll take 1 of those great articles seriously.guys like you deal in imagination,because imagination is what we use when we read.its why books based on movies are never as good as the book.everything you are saying about greb,and who pep fought is based on somebody elses opinion.is that not hard to understand?

earlier you made an absolutely horrible analogy about slaverynot sure what would posses you to compare or contrast the 2,but lets take a look.if you look at a american/euro version of history,they will tell you that africans were savages,walked around naked and had no religion.african history tells an entirely different version of what happened.get my drift?
there are many points in this post i have to agree with....

judging a fighters greatness by reading articles is downright silly....i'm sorry, but thats just the way it is...if there isn't sufficient footage of the fighter well then tough luck.....you can't sit there and tell me Greb was better than Leonard or Pacquaio because there is nothing there to compare.....

how can i know for sure Greb was better than Pacquiao?....i need to see footage of the fighter first....comparing pacquiao fight videos to greb's newspaper articles is an easy choice.....

i'm not knocking Greb's greatness, his resume alone stands out....but if you haven't actually seen the man fight, coming up with mythical hypothesis of the man is silly

r.burgundy
04-01-2010, 11:38 AM
there are many points in this post i have to agree with....

judging a fighters greatness by reading articles is downright silly....i'm sorry, but thats just the way it is...if there isn't sufficient footage of the fighter well then tough luck.....you can't sit there and tell me Greb was better than Leonard or Pacquaio because there is nothing there to compare.....

how can i know for sure Greb was better than Pacquiao?....i need to see footage of the fighter first....comparing pacquiao fight videos to greb's newspaper articles is an easy choice.....

i'm not knocking Greb's greatness, his resume alone stands out....but if you haven't actually seen the man fight, coming up with mythical hypothesis of the man is silly

have you ever seen a piece talking about these guys flaws as fighters?i sure havent

hhascup
04-01-2010, 12:04 PM
dude,your knowledge of math is becoming a joke.you say here are the top 10 fighters pep fought then list 35 guys lol


Actually, these are the names of all the boxers that Pep fought that were rated in the top 10 at the time he fought them. He fought 26 different top 10 boxers a total of 35 times. He went 27-8 against them, 24-1 before the 1st Saddler fight.

r.burgundy
04-01-2010, 12:16 PM
No it's plain sensible. The boxers today have nowhere near the skills of the boxers that fought from the mid-1920s to the mid-1950s. There are many reasons for this:


Less fighters
Less fights. In the early days most fighters fought a minimum of once a month. That meant they's have fought at least 50 times within 4 years, and an average of 100-200 times in their entire career.

Less gyms

Less boxing clubs

Less trainers with less experience.

Poor refereeing, failure to allow infighting which is now essentially a dead art.

Too many 'sports scientists, personal trainers, and nutritionists who earn their living from marketing training and nutrition that has nothing to do with boxing.

Heavyweights that are just too heavy to move. Watching two beached whales is more interesting.

Less experience of losing. see back in the old days nobody cared too much about going undefeated, so they threw good fighters together in the hope of making a good fight. Those tough fights were great experiences. Today it's common place to duck any opponent a contender doesn't feel he can beat, right up until the point he challenges for the title. So what we have now is a bunch so manufactured contenders fighting tomato cans, but no each other, and waiting for their shot at the champ. If a tomato can beats a contender then everyone else ducks him. That's why fighters are so **** these days.

The high number of KOs we see today is due to A) The lack of defensive skills, and B) because the fights are badly mismatched.



Everything but without the body builder look.



See my point above on how fighters these days have manufactured records. In the old days nobody ducked anyone and as a result there were more hard fights, and more fights that went the distance. The result of this was that people lost to each other a lot more. This experience made them better fighters.



We agree on that point, but it mostly affected the HW division.



So in 20 years when everything goes 3D do we start to discount all the fighters that we only have 2D footage of?

Get a grip!

this post is filled with tom foolery.1st off,just like any other sport,boxing advances.better athletes,more sophisticated techniques.the more athletic you are the more your capable of doing.and thats not a theory,thats a fact.i can walk you across some sports if you like to show this.so to say a fighter out the 20's,who you or nobody else on here could have possibly laid eyes on is better is just ignorant.

post proof that there are less boxers today please?
fighters fought once a month cause purses where tiny,so fights were less complicated to make.but a better buisness model,doesnt mean fighters are less talented.i agree that it causes less matchups to be made tho

there are way more gyms and clubs than ever before.especially do to the fact that in this age of million dollar purses,thats where alotta fighters choose to put there money.larry holmes,joe frazier,kelly pavlik,mark breland to name a few

to say there are less trainers with experience is also silly.prize fighting as we know it is little over a century old.so therefore guys like bouie fisher and alton merkeson would have way more experience than a trainer out of the 40,50,or even 60's.only way a trainer out the 20's or 30's could have similar experience is if they were doing it since birth.

yes refereing is sometimes poor,but there are way more rules and these prima donnas need to be protected.depending on what period your talking about boxers used to have a 30 count to get up from a k.d.if saddler was fighting in this age he would lead boxing in d.q's.he wasnt tough.he was just plain dirty.

heavys in those days were less than 200lbs so of course they would move faster.but marciano,and louis,werent exactly speed demons so i dont know what heavys your refering to that are moving so quickly.mike tyson probly has the fastest hands in heavy history,and he's modern

nobody cared,cause less money was at stake.you wanted to make alot of money.you had to fight.alotta those guys back then had 2 and 3 jobs.in this day and age of million $ purses,i cant in call anybody a ducker.lets look at judah,he took a tough fight with baldomir before floyd and lost.that cost him about 3 mil.bad gamble.

they same way contenders were manufactured now,is the same way they were back in the days.its called marketing.only difference is there is no film all of those old contenders so nobody can see how bad or good they were.we just have to take peoples words.

# of k.os we see today is cause guys are much bigger and stronger.this is just a fact.no need to dispute it.in boxing moreso than other sports,size really matters.imagine if mike tyson or lennox lewis hit some of the 170 lb guys joe louis fought.that would be a homicide

and as usual,you guys who live in the fantasy world miss the point.even if everything does go to 3d,we still have tons of video of the 2d guys.and if you think a newspaper article of the hometown hero is better than your own 2 eyes you might need your head examined

r.burgundy
04-01-2010, 12:19 PM
Actually, these are the names of all the boxers that Pep fought that were rated in the top 10 at the time he fought them. He fought 26 different top 10 boxers a total of 35 times. He went 27-8 against them, 24-1 before the 1st Saddler fight.

well how about i post a list of all they guys roy and hopkins fought who were in the top 10 being as how they fought majority of mandatorys.and then let me try to pass these guys off as world class opposition.i couldnt get away with that could i?

Ziggy Stardust
04-01-2010, 12:29 PM
:peeright:this post is filled with tom foolery.1st off,just like any other sport,boxing advances.better athletes,more sophisticated techniques.the more athletic you are the more your capable of doing.and thats not a theory,thats a fact.i can walk you across some sports if you like to show this.so to say a fighter out the 20's,who you or nobody else on here could have possibly laid eyes on is better is just ignorant.

post proof that there are less boxers today please?
fighters fought once a month cause purses where tiny,so fights were less complicated to make.but a better buisness model,doesnt mean fighters are less talented.i agree that it causes less matchups to be made tho

there are way more gyms and clubs than ever before.especially do to the fact that in this age of million dollar purses,thats where alotta fighters choose to put there money.larry holmes,joe frazier,kelly pavlik,mark breland to name a few

to say there are less trainers with experience is also silly.prize fighting as we know it is little over a century old.so therefore guys like bouie fisher and alton merkeson would have way more experience than a trainer out of the 40,50,or even 60's.only way a trainer out the 20's or 30's could have similar experience is if they were doing it since birth.

yes refereing is sometimes poor,but there are way more rules and these prima donnas need to be protected.depending on what period your talking about boxers used to have a 30 count to get up from a k.d.if saddler was fighting in this age he would lead boxing in d.q's.he wasnt tough.he was just plain dirty.

heavys in those days were less than 200lbs so of course they would move faster.but marciano,and louis,werent exactly speed demons so i dont know what heavys your refering to that are moving so quickly.mike tyson probly has the fastest hands in heavy history,and he's modern

nobody cared,cause less money was at stake.you wanted to make alot of money.you had to fight.alotta those guys back then had 2 and 3 jobs.in this day and age of million $ purses,i cant in call anybody a ducker.lets look at judah,he took a tough fight with baldomir before floyd and lost.that cost him about 3 mil.bad gamble.

they same way contenders were manufactured now,is the same way they were back in the days.its called marketing.only difference is there is no film all of those old contenders so nobody can see how bad or good they were.we just have to take peoples words.

# of k.os we see today is cause guys are much bigger and stronger.this is just a fact.no need to dispute it.in boxing moreso than other sports,size really matters.imagine if mike tyson or lennox lewis hit some of the 170 lb guys joe louis fought.that would be a homicide

and as usual,you guys who live in the fantasy world miss the point.even if everything does go to 3d,we still have tons of video of the 2d guys.and if you think a newspaper article of the hometown hero is better than your own 2 eyes you might need your head examined

:peeright:well how about i post a list of all they guys roy and hopkins fought who were in the top 10 being as how they fought majority of mandatorys.and then let me try to pass these guys off as world class opposition.i couldnt get away with that could i?

:loser: Well, it's pretty damn obvious why this window-licking spastic is in the red :crackhead

Poet

r.burgundy
04-01-2010, 12:38 PM
:peeright:

:peeright:

:loser: Well, it's pretty damn obvious why this window-licking spastic is in the red :crackhead

Poet

great response.just brilliant.i mean wow.im floored.

im in the red cause of *******ation.i asked for a link to the clottey fight lol

Ziggy Stardust
04-01-2010, 12:43 PM
great response.just brilliant.i mean wow.im floored.

im in the red cause of *******ation.i asked for a link to the clottey fight lol

At least the *******s worship a great fighter as opposed to dangling from the nutsack of a C-class bum like Wladimir the way you do :loser:

Poet

r.burgundy
04-01-2010, 12:57 PM
At least the *******s worship a great fighter as opposed to dangling from the nutsack of a C-class bum like Wladimir the way you do :loser:

Poet

listen sir,your a senior citizen so i dont really wanna disrespect my elder but like i said if your really 41,you should be ashamed of yourself.if you worship any fighter,you need to do some serious soul searching in your life.me and some guys are debating peacefully.if your not knowledgable enough to contribute thats fine,but dont ruin it for the rest of us.act your age,seriously.thanks

JAB5239
04-01-2010, 01:04 PM
dude,your knowledge of math is becoming a joke.you say here are the top 10 fighters pep fought then list 35 guys lol

You can question my writing skills on this one, not my math. I probably should have written "here are all the top 10 ranked fighters Pep fought during his career". Well over 20, and as I've already pointed out, just because YOU don't know who they were doesn't mean they weren't excellent fighters.

what dont you seem to understand about my point that neither me,you,or hhascup has seen 90% of these guys fight???why are you not capable of grasping that concept?more boxers does not mean more talent,it usually means less,and please point our or post statistics to prove their were more fighters back then.i guess we all should believe absolutely everything we read then.of the 5 fights ive seen of pep,ive been extremly unimpressed by him and even moreso his opponent.in contrast,the 5 or 6 fights ive seen of sugar ray robinson lead me to believe he is the best to do it.the 2 fights of ive seen of conn show me he invented the shoulder roll.i love these 2 guys

You're questioning my math? Lol!! Where did you come up with 90%? How has more ever meant less?

As far as the statistics proving there were more fighters back then..I'll see if I can find one, but I know I've read it in at least one if not all 3 of these books (Biographies of Barney Ross, Joe Louis and Charley Burley). You could also take into consideration what poster Ezzard Charles noted about more gyms, fight clubs and shows per week as further proof.

Ok, lets see here.....you've seen two Conn fights and come to the conclusion he was better defensively than Pep AND invented the shoulder roll, but its no good to judge a fighter on his resume and his opponents who you have seen fight, is that what you're saying?

i find it hillarious how everybody talks about how great these guys were but nobody talks about there flaws.bert has nothing but praise for pep,sandler,etc etc but i see to many flaws to count.when somebody makes an objective piece talking about their weaknesses as well as thier strengths,thats when i'll take 1 of those great articles seriously.guys like you deal in imagination,because imagination is what we use when we read.its why books based on movies are never as good as the book.everything you are saying about greb,and who pep fought is based on somebody elses opinion.is that not hard to understand?

No, based on opinions founded with facts. Or are you saying people were lying when describing and writing about Greb so he could be rated higher 90 years down the road?
earlier you made an absolutely horrible analogy about slaverynot sure what would posses you to compare or contrast the 2,but lets take a look.if you look at a american/euro version of history,they will tell you that africans were savages,walked around naked and had no religion.african history tells an entirely different version of what happened.get my drift?

Your reading comprehension could use a little work my friend. I never made an analogy about slavery. I simply showed that people will believe what the want from history and interpret the rest as they see fit. You never saw Abe Lincoln govern, but its a given he was a great president and rightly so. On the other hand you choose to question the credentials and accomplishments of Greb even though they are rooted in facts. You have interpreted it the way you saw fit giving minimal thought to everything we know about him. THAT was my point.

mickey malone
04-01-2010, 01:28 PM
listen sir,your a senior citizen so i dont really wanna disrespect my elder but like i said if your really 41,you should be ashamed of yourself.if you worship any fighter,you need to do some serious soul searching in your life.me and some guys are debating peacefully.if your not knowledgable enough to contribute thats fine,but dont ruin it for the rest of us.act your age,seriously.thanks
You come across as an intelligent young man, but Poet respects the sports heritage and has been around long enough to have seen a few changes in the game.. With all due respect, but you should come on the history section in order to learn about fighters who had every newspaper in the land talking about them..
My grandfather watched Harry Greb fight live, and there's a few posters on here who's father's may well have watched him too... Nobodies heroworshiping fighters they haven't seen on film, they've just spent years of their lives studying every aspect of their adversities, and exactly how they became ATG's.. You can't change the fact they're ATG's by comparing them to the fighters of today.. Collectively, we can only speculate on the contrasts of different eras..
If 98% of Ray Leonard footage, suddenly disappeared off the face of the earth, does that mean the boxing fans of 2090 shouldn't rate him?

r.burgundy
04-01-2010, 02:14 PM
You come across as an intelligent young man, but Poet respects the sports heritage and has been around long enough to have seen a few changes in the game.. With all due respect, but you should come on the history section in order to learn about fighters who had every newspaper in the land talking about them..
My grandfather watched Harry Greb fight live, and there's a few posters on here who's father's may well have watched him too... Nobodies heroworshiping fighters they haven't seen on film, they've just spent years of their lives studying every aspect of their adversities, and exactly how they became ATG's.. You can't change the fact they're ATG's by comparing them to the fighters of today.. Collectively, we can only speculate on the contrasts of different eras..
If 98% of Ray Leonard footage, suddenly disappeared off the face of the earth, does that mean the boxing fans of 2090 shouldn't rate him?

well said.but heres a prime example of what im talking about and the problem with not being able to see.this is taken from espn which is 1 of todays most credible sports networks.
http://espn.go.com/sports/boxing/blog/_/name/boxing/id/5021795/age-losses-mellowed-roy-jones

"Roy Jones Jr.'s hands don't flash with the lightning rapidity they used to. The days in which he could stand in front of an opponent and make him miss time and again, or stick out his chin with his hands behind his back, then produce a knockout with a punch from seemingly nowhere, are in the past.

At his peak, Jones seemed impossible to hit and barely lost a single round. But he has lost five of his past 10 fights, three of them by knockout, the most recent a first-round stoppage by unheralded Danny Green."

now if there was no vid of roy,and all we had to go were articles.reading that top paragraph would make somebody think he was borderline invincible and superhuman.but weve all seen roy and as incredible as we was,he fought limited opposition.there is no getting around that.

glen kelly was 28-0 when he fought roy,so if i dont know any better and im reading about roy and i see he k.o'd somebody 28-0 with his hands behind his back,my mind would go crazy.but ive seen glenn,and he was a bum.he had no realistic shot at winning that fight regardless of record.so to act as if guys like glenn just suddenly popped up in the 80's is silly.these guys have been around since the beginning of prize fighting.

im not trying to take away these guys status,but i cant put them on the same pedestal as guys im actually able to see.do you agree that seeing is believing?

r.burgundy
04-01-2010, 02:20 PM
Your reading comprehension could use a little work my friend. I never made an analogy about slavery. I simply showed that people will believe what the want from history and interpret the rest as they see fit. You never saw Abe Lincoln govern, but its a given he was a great president and rightly so. On the other hand you choose to question the credentials and accomplishments of Greb even though they are rooted in facts. You have interpreted it the way you saw fit giving minimal thought to everything we know about him. THAT was my point.

its not a given abe was a great president because a southerner at that time would tell a different story of abe.

the credentials of greb are rooted in facts but even facts can have an asterisk.for instance,lincoln said if he didnt have to free slaves,he wouldnt have.so to a person not knowledgable,all they would know is lincoln freed slaves and therfore no way he could be pro-slavery or racist.but if they knew his intentions and all the facts behind his freeing of the slaves they may view him different.

so yes we know greb is great by his resume,but we cant measure how great cause we dont know much about what his oppenents looked like.theres a huge gray area is all im saying

Ziggy Stardust
04-01-2010, 02:38 PM
Damn all you edumacated peeps with ur book learnin'

Fixed it for ya :fing02:

Poet

r.burgundy
04-01-2010, 03:07 PM
Fixed it for ya :fing02:

Poet

yes cause id much rather read about my fav boxer than actually watch him!

EzzardFan
04-01-2010, 03:14 PM
post proof that there are less boxers today please?

I'll go one better than that:

From "The Arc of Boxing by Mike Silver", chapter 3:

In 1955 there were 238 professional boxers licensed in Massachsetts, by 2007 there were only 42. Prior to WWII there were over 500. If thats an accurate indicator then it was about 45x easier to become champion in 2007 than it was in 1955.

Another set of figures from the same source estimates 5,000-6,000 licensed boxers US wide in the 1950s, and 2,850 by 2006. If those stats are accurate then it's 16x easier to become champion now than it was in the 1950s.

Still scary numbers none the less.

Now I'm guessing you're struggling to understand where the figure of 45x comes from? OK you take the multiple of the number of (other) licensed boxers, then multiply that by the number of additional weight divisions, then you multiply that by the number of governing bodies issuing titles. So 5.6 x 4 x 2 = 45.33333333333...(ish).

I'll address the rest of your objections when I get back.

PS - You should read that book, several top trainers contributed to it including Emanuel Steward and Teddy Atlas.

JAB5239
04-01-2010, 05:47 PM
its not a given abe was a great president because a southerner at that time would tell a different story of abe.

the credentials of greb are rooted in facts but even facts can have an asterisk.for instance,lincoln said if he didnt have to free slaves,he wouldnt have.so to a person not knowledgable,all they would know is lincoln freed slaves and therfore no way he could be pro-slavery or racist.but if they knew his intentions and all the facts behind his freeing of the slaves they may view him different.

so yes we know greb is great by his resume,but we cant measure how great cause we dont know much about what his oppenents looked like.theres a huge gray area is all im saying

There are gray area's, Im not denying that. But if you put the pieces together and do the research it isn't nearly as vast as you've made it out to be. We know much about his opponents and even have film of some of his opponents fighting other great fighters.

louis54
04-01-2010, 09:47 PM
much easier to become champ now than in the 50s much less between ww1 and ww2.

r.burgundy
04-01-2010, 10:42 PM
I'll go one better than that:

From "The Arc of Boxing by Mike Silver", chapter 3:

In 1955 there were 238 professional boxers licensed in Massachsetts, by 2007 there were only 42. Prior to WWII there were over 500. If thats an accurate indicator then it was about 45x easier to become champion in 2007 than it was in 1955.

Another set of figures from the same source estimates 5,000-6,000 licensed boxers US wide in the 1950s, and 2,850 by 2006. If those stats are accurate then it's 16x easier to become champion now than it was in the 1950s.

Still scary numbers none the less.

Now I'm guessing you're struggling to understand where the figure of 45x comes from? OK you take the multiple of the number of (other) licensed boxers, then multiply that by the number of additional weight divisions, then you multiply that by the number of governing bodies issuing titles. So 5.6 x 4 x 2 = 45.33333333333...(ish).

I'll address the rest of your objections when I get back.

PS - You should read that book, several top trainers contributed to it including Emanuel Steward and Teddy Atlas.

great post.im a stats junkie.
but in sports,more does not usually equate to better.especially in boxing.so just cause theyre 238 boxers who are licensed doesnt mean thats 238 potential opponents.you would have to divide 238 by the # of divisions to even began to get a more proper estimate,and taht doesnt even take activity level into account.alotta guys just boxed on the side.i know plenty licensed boxers who have never fought a pro fight.you also must factor in that their are more belts for less boxers which also makes it easier but the difference wont be felt at the top.it will be at the bottom were quality suffers

just noticed your screen name.ezzard was 1 hell of a fighter.skills and power.shame he doesnt get much credit.he's 1 of the few old timers whom i would call legit

r.burgundy
04-01-2010, 11:04 PM
There are gray area's, Im not denying that. But if you put the pieces together and do the research it isn't nearly as vast as you've made it out to be. We know much about his opponents and even have film of some of his opponents fighting other great fighters.

all i know of is film of gene tunney,who was very unimpressive as well.ive seen his fights with dempsey, carpientier,and with heeny.i didnt see much to like.he fought with his hands to low,and was wild offensivly.at light heavy i couldnt by any stretch of the imagination see him beating guys like jones jr,holyfield,moorer or spinks

from the 1 video ive seen of greb sparring i couldnt imagine him at 5'8 and by all accounts,feather fisted beating monzon,hagler,jones,hopkins etc etc at middle.i couldnt even see him being competitive

The Hate Giver
04-01-2010, 11:54 PM
No it's plain sensible. The boxers today have nowhere near the skills of the boxers that fought from the mid-1920s to the mid-1950s. There are many reasons for this:



That is the exact old school bias im talking about. You would favor a 20s-50s great over a 70s & up great? Not if your life depended on it. You just want to keep preserving history for the sake of keeping fighters you loved growing in such a high pedestal. You keep making it look like old school fighters are so much more superior in every way no new school fighter can overtake them hence you get off in defending & knowing how great a fighter you have never seen fight even if there is no visual evidence. If your life depended on getting the right prediction on a fantasy match up harry greb vs roy jones jr. or marvin hagler you would abandon your biased favoritism with greb.



Less fighters
Less fights. In the early days most fighters fought a minimum of once a month. That meant they's have fought at least 50 times within 4 years, and an average of 100-200 times in their entire career.

Less gyms

Less boxing clubs

Less trainers with less experience.

Poor refereeing, failure to allow infighting which is now essentially a dead art.



For a era so touted in so many great fighters one wonders why great fighters in their prime continue to fight fighters with 15,20,30 losses & even fight fighters who have less than 20 wins. You want to talk about poor refereeing in this era? How about the era where the referee was also the judge? How many robberies took place? At least in the modern era people know the judges & referees name & is show it in television & there is that threat of looking so blatantly corrupt that it somewhat helps in deterring outright shenanigans.

But in the golden era? Controlled heavily by the mafia? Where black people dont even have equal human rights? They are suppose to get a fair shake in sports? Forget about it. No wonder there were so many great white fighters back then when black people didnt have equal rights. As time moves on & social equality & rights are given to all people, the number of great white fighters in all divisions slowly disappear. Are so biased that you think the old school era was free from boxing atrocities & corruption?



Too many 'sports scientists, personal trainers, and nutritionists who earn their living from marketing training and nutrition that has nothing to do with boxing.



Did boxers back then throw right hooks, jabs, lead rights, left hooks differently? Last time i checked they were still the same. & those personal trainers, nutrionists, & sports scientists give modern fighters an edge that old school fighters dont. Yet they are physically inferior? Even though statistics have shown that humans are bigger, stronger, & faster now than they were back then?



Heavyweights that are just too heavy to move. Watching two beached whales is more interesting.

Less experience of losing. see back in the old days nobody cared too much about going undefeated, so they threw good fighters together in the hope of making a good fight. Those tough fights were great experiences. Today it's common place to duck any opponent a contender doesn't feel he can beat, right up until the point he challenges for the title. So what we have now is a bunch so manufactured contenders fighting tomato cans, but no each other, and waiting for their shot at the champ. If a tomato can beats a contender then everyone else ducks him. That's why fighters are so **** these days.


You act as if this generation of fighters are devoid of talent. You act as if pernell whitaker, roy jones jr., floyd mayweather jr., manny pacquiao, lennox lewis are physically & talentley inferior to fighters from the 20s.

A right hook in the 30s is the same right hook in present time. Stop trying to preserve history in order to shield your favorite oldschool fighters from being over taken in the rankings.

Its the same reason why paintings back then will always be better than paintings now. To preserve history.



The high number of KOs we see today is due to A) The lack of defensive skills, and B) because the fights are badly mismatched.


Everything but without the body builder look.

See my point above on how fighters these days have manufactured records. In the old days nobody ducked anyone and as a result there were more hard fights, and more fights that went the distance. The result of this was that people lost to each other a lot more. This experience made them better fighters.


Stop pretending that every single fight that took place in the old school were vs all time great legendary competition. That's not the case & you know it.





So in 20 years when everything goes 3D do we start to discount all the fighters that we only have 2D footage of?

Get a grip!


Can you visually see 2d & make a educated & accurate assumption that a fighter is great?

Yes.

& 3d?

probably even better.

Can you do the same with newspaper accounts & a writers opinions which has a high propensity to be biased & sensationalized?

NO.

3d>2d> old newspaper articles.

You are losing your grip old man.





When fighter A has beaten more fighters and better fighters than fighter B, fighter A has to rank higher. Why would I rank a fighter higher with video footage if I know another fighter has beaten the same caliber of fighters and more of them?

Even if you have never seen them fight & they are what from 50 years ago. If your life & everybody who you hold dear depended on it, who wins?

Prime Harry Greb or Prime Bernard Hopkins?



:peeright:

:peeright:

:loser: Well, it's pretty damn obvious why this window-licking spastic is in the red :crackhead

Poet

You guys take this one. I'm just not in the mood tonight to deal with the nitwit "we don't need no education" crowd.

Poet

At least the *******s worship a great fighter as opposed to dangling from the nutsack of a C-class bum like Wladimir the way you do
Poet

Fixed it for ya
Poet

I respect you poet as a poster, you know your stuff, but for a guy that has information out in this site about his personal life you are too quick to the trigger with the disparaging remarks. You havent said anything about the topic other than to personally bash people you dont personally know.

louis54
04-02-2010, 12:03 AM
the golden age fighters were the best. period

mickey malone
04-02-2010, 02:00 AM
all i know of is film of gene tunney,who was very unimpressive as well.ive seen his fights with dempsey, carpientier,and with heeny.i didnt see much to like.he fought with his hands to low,and was wild offensivly.at light heavy i couldnt by any stretch of the imagination see him beating guys like jones jr,holyfield,moorer or spinks

from the 1 video ive seen of greb sparring i couldnt imagine him at 5'8 and by all accounts,feather fisted beating monzon,hagler,jones,hopkins etc etc at middle.i couldnt even see him being competitive
If you have watched Gene Tunney and don't rate him, it just highlights your inexperience in a new vocation.. I never rated Ali when I was a teenager either..

As for seeing is believing?... I couldn't agree more..
I can see that Aaron Pryor was a limited cheat, I can see that Hearns had dodgy whiskers, I can see that Calzaghe didn't punch properly, I can see that Hamed was wide open, I can see that Hopkins doesn't punch his weight etc etc etc..
As far as the old school are concerned, I can see that Dempsey couldn't adapt to a back foot fighter, I could see that Jack Johnson was a spoiler, Louis had slow feet, Marciano couldn't box, Loughran could'nt punch etc etc.. But it's not ALL about what you see.. For example, Duran only ever faced one southpaw in his whole career and lost to him, so why is he rated so highly?.. We haven't seen him beat a southpaw lol
An argument can easily be made that he was never a fully proven LW on this fact alone..
When it comes to the subject of History (in any subject) films are just a piss in the ocean and considered a luxury aid for the modern but limited historian..
There is no footage of the Battle of Hastings or the signing of the Magna Carta.. We don't even have a photo of poor old King Harold with an arrow in his eye, but sure as eggs are eggs, it all happened..
I'm not saying that inaccurate things have never been written about fighters, but you only have to find 10 articles on Greb (which isn't at all hard) to see that they all tally up.. The fact that the editors of BoxRec and IBOF can't agree on who won the 1st Norfolk fight, just goes to prove how long this argument has been going on, and what a desperately close fight it was.. But we'll ignore the fact that Norfolk was a leading HW with a 25lb weight advantage.. Take a look at the grizzled and caveman features of Greb, and compare it to filmstar looks of Jones, who has been KO'd 3 times to Greb's once, and you don't really have to see the footage..

I think it's time you opened your horizons.. I didn't know a lot when I was younger, so I jumped into a boxing ring, and although no world beater, I learned an awful lot about different styles, and I can assure you - anyone even remotely similar to a vague write-up of Harry Greb, would give me fits!

JAB5239
04-02-2010, 02:07 AM
all i know of is film of gene tunney,who was very unimpressive as well.ive seen his fights with dempsey, carpientier,and with heeny.i didnt see much to like.he fought with his hands to low,and was wild offensivly.at light heavy i couldnt by any stretch of the imagination see him beating guys like jones jr,holyfield,moorer or spinks

Most counter puncher do fight with their hands low so they can draw their opponent in and pull the trigger faster. Another thing you have to consider is the quality of film. Black and white, missing frames, usually shot from more of a distance compared to film today and not nearly as many angles. Much harder to pick up the small nuances.

from the 1 video ive seen of greb sparring i couldnt imagine him at 5'8 and by all accounts,feather fisted beating monzon,hagler,jones,hopkins etc etc at middle.i couldnt even see him being competitive

So you put absolutely no value on the word of experts who did see him fight? That baffles me. Their are, or were great trainers like Ray Arcel and Eddie Futch who had the opposite opinion as yours of the old time fighters and they were around to not only see modern fighters but train them. How is it their word means nothing yet they were so respected in the boxing community?

JAB5239
04-02-2010, 02:10 AM
If you have watched Gene Tunney and don't rate him, it just highlights your inexperience in a new vocation.. I never rated Ali when I was a teenager either..

As for seeing is believing?... I couldn't agree more..
I can see that Aaron Pryor was a limited cheat, I can see that Hearns had dodgy whiskers, I can see that Calzaghe didn't punch properly, I can see that Hamed was wide open, I can see that Hopkins doesn't punch his weight etc etc etc..
As far as the old school are concerned, I can see that Dempsey couldn't adapt to a back foot fighter, I could see that Jack Johnson was a spoiler, Louis had slow feet, Marciano couldn't box, Loughran could'nt punch etc etc.. But it's not ALL about what you see.. For example, Duran only ever faced one southpaw in his whole career and lost to him, so why is he rated so highly?.. We haven't seen him beat a southpaw lol
An argument can easily be made that he was never a fully proven LW on this fact alone..
When it comes to the subject of History (in any subject) films are just a piss in the ocean and considered a luxury aid for the modern but limited historian..
There is no footage of the Battle of Hastings or the signing of the Magna Carta.. We don't even have a photo of poor old King Harold with an arrow in his eye, but sure as eggs are eggs, it all happened..
I'm not saying that inaccurate things have never been written about fighters, but you only have to find 10 articles on Greb (which isn't at all hard) to see that they all tally up.. The fact that the editors of BoxRec and IBOF can't agree on who won the 1st Norfolk fight, just goes to prove how long this argument has been going on, and what a desperately close fight it was.. But we'll ignore the fact that Norfolk was a leading HW with a 25lb weight advantage.. Take a look at the grizzled and caveman features of Greb, and compare it to filmstar looks of Jones, who has been KO'd 3 times to Greb's once, and you don't really have to see the footage..

I think it's time you opened your horizons.. I didn't know a lot when I was younger, so I jumped into a boxing ring, and although no world beater, I learned an awful lot about different styles, and I can assure you - anyone even remotely similar to a vague write-up of Harry Greb, would give me fits!

Excellent post Mic!!

JAB5239
04-02-2010, 02:15 AM
[QUOTE=The Hate Giver;7963548]Even if you have never seen them fight & they are what from 50 years ago. If your life & everybody who you hold dear depended on it, who wins?

Prime Harry Greb or Prime Bernard Hopkins?


I wouldn't even try to pick without studying what we do know and breaking down their weaknesses and strengths. What I do know is who fought more top opponents. Who beat more top fighters. And with that Greb is undoubtedly one of the greatest fighters of all time.

JAB5239
04-02-2010, 02:17 AM
[QUOTE=r.burgundy;7962930]great post.im a stats junkie.
but in sports,more does not usually equate to better.especially in boxing.

This is very far from the truth my friend. More fighters means a deeper talent pool and tougher road getting to the top.

EzzardFan
04-02-2010, 05:37 AM
great post.im a stats junkie.
but in sports,more does not usually equate to better.especially in boxing.so just cause theyre 238 boxers who are licensed doesnt mean thats 238 potential opponents.you would have to divide 238 by the # of divisions to even began to get a more proper estimate,and taht doesnt even take activity level into account.alotta guys just boxed on the side.i know plenty licensed boxers who have never fought a pro fight.you also must factor in that their are more belts for less boxers which also makes it easier but the difference wont be felt at the top.it will be at the bottom were quality suffers

just noticed your screen name.ezzard was 1 hell of a fighter.skills and power.shame he doesnt get much credit.he's 1 of the few old timers whom i would call legit

The source of the stats cites that only fighters with a minimum of one professional fight per year were counted. If anything the pros were much more active in the 20s-50s than they are now. Back then many of them were fighting monthly or even weekly. These days very few pros are fighting more than 4x a year.

I did divide by the number of divisions and also the number of governing bodies. I even posted the working for this. That's where the stats came from.

Rolling Stone
04-02-2010, 08:32 AM
[QUOTE]

This is very far from the truth my friend. More fighters means a deeper talent pool and tougher road getting to the top.
Brian Nielson???

mickey malone
04-02-2010, 09:13 AM
JAB5329 This is very far from the truth my friend. More fighters means a deeper talent pool and tougher road getting to the top.


Rolling Stone Brian Nielson???


Since when did Brian Nielson get to the top? :nonono:

Telepath
04-02-2010, 09:15 AM
i quite have to agree...i looked at his avatar before i saw his 'joke' of a sig.....

by the way....who is that chick in your avatar??It's a girl on Suicidegirls... username Shaddix.

Rolling Stone
04-02-2010, 09:23 AM
JAB5329 This is very far from the truth my friend. More fighters means a deeper talent pool and tougher road getting to the top.


Rolling Stone Brian Nielson???


Since when did Brian Nielson get to the top? :nonono:
Brian Nielson is a Top 5 ATG P4P

Bundana
04-02-2010, 10:10 AM
So you put absolutely no value on the word of experts who did see him fight? That baffles me. Their are, or were great trainers like Ray Arcel and Eddie Futch who had the opposite opinion as yours of the old time fighters and they were around to not only see modern fighters but train them. How is it their word means nothing yet they were so respected in the boxing community?

The problem with this is, that when we are young, we're more impressionable than later in life. So when we get on in years, there's probably a tendency to look back to the beginning, and think of that as the "good old days", when everything was better than today.

I think it's safe to say, that no boxing historian was ever more respected by his peers than the late Nat Fleischer... yet when you look at his all-time rankings (from 1970), I believe it's just as safe to say, that this is the work of a man who lived in the past, with little sense of reality:

Heavyweights:
1 - Jack Johnson
2 - James J. Jeffries
3 - Bob Fitzsimmons
4 - Jack Dempsey
5 - James J. Corbett
6 - Joe Louis
7 - Sam Langford
8 - Gene Tunney
9 - Max Schmeling
10- Rocky Marciano

Light Heavyweights:
1 - Kid McCoy
2 - Philadelphia Jack O'Brian
3 - Jack Dillon
4 - Tommy Loughran
5 - Jack Root
6 - Battling Levensky
7 - Georges Carpentier
8 - Tom Gibbons
9 - Jack Delaney
10- Paul Berlenbach

Middleweights:
1 - Stanley Ketchell
2 - Tommy Ryan
3 - Harry Greb
4 - Mickey Walker
5 - Ray Robinson
6 - Frank Klaus
7 - Billy Papke
8 - Les Darcy
9 - Mike Gibbons
10- Jeff Smith

Welterweights:
1 - Joe Walcott
2 - Mysterious Billy Smith
3 - Jack Britton
4 - Ted Kid Lewis
5 - Dixie Kid
6 - Harry Lewis
7 - Willie Lewis
8 - Henry Armstrong
9 - Barney Ross
10- Jimmy McLarnin

Lightweights:
1 - Joe Gans
2 - Benny Leonard
3 - Owen Moran
4 - Freddy Welsh
5 - Battling Nelson
6 - George Kid Lavigne
7 - Tony Canzoneri
8 - Willie Ritchie
9 - Lew Tendler
10- Ad Wolgast

Featherweights:
1 - Terry McGovern
2 - Jim Driscoll
3 - Abe Attell
4 - Willie Pep
5 - Johnny Dundee
6 - Young Griffo
7 - Johnny Kilbane
8 - Kid Chocolate
9 - George K.O. Chaney
10- Louis Kid Kaplan

Bantamweights:
1 - George Dixon
2 - Pete Herman
3 - Kid Williams
4 - Eder Jofre
5 - Joe Lynch
6 - Bud Taylor
7 - Johnny Coulon
8 - Frankie Burns
9 - Eddie Campi
10- Panama Al Brown

Flyweight:
1 - Jimmy Wilde
2 - Pancho Villa
3 - Frankie Genaro
4 - Fidel La Barba
5 - Benny Lynch
6 - Elky Clark
7 - Johnny Buff
8 - Midget Wolgast
9 - Peter Kane
10- Pascual Perez

(From the 1970 edition of The Ring Record Book and Boxing Encyclopedia)

Without beginning to disect these rankings, I think we can all agree, that Mr. Fleischer was WAY too kind to the pre-WW1 fighters... while ignoring the talents of modern-day boxers (Ali, Moore, Charles; to name just a few). So if a respected historian like Mr. Fleischer, can put together rankings as obviously flawed as this... how much emphasis can we put on the opinions of men like Mr. Arcel and Mr. Futch, when they rave about old-timers they haven't seen in 50 or 60 years?

Many years ago, as a young man, I was lucky enough to attend a show, where the main event featured Eddie Perkins. To say that I was impressed, doesn't tell the whole story. When I went home that night, I was certain, I had just watched one of the finest boxers ever to step into a ring! That was over 40 years ago... and to this day I still think of him, as the finest technician I have ever seen. But was he really - or is it just in an old man's mind, it appears that way?

My younger boxing-pals are all crazy about Manny Pacquiao. I would love to tell them that, yes, the dynamic little Filippino is indeed very good... but I once saw this great fighter by the name of Eddie Perkins, who would have boxed his ears off. I don't, however, because 1: I could be wrong (and probably is!), and 2: They would all think I'm crazy!

My point with all this is, that there IS a danger of over-estimating the greatness of old-timers, of which there is little or no footage. That being said, it's hard to believe that Greb wasn't a bit special. As has been pointed out by several others in this thread, he beat too many good fighters not to be!

mickey malone
04-02-2010, 10:32 AM
Brian Nielson is a Top 5 ATG P4P
Lol, i'm a admirer of Nielson actually.. One of boxings larger than life characters, the division could do with someone like that today..
Although crude and clumbsy, he was very effective in the lower leagues and against an elderly Larry Holmes.. I found him entertaining.

Ziggy Stardust
04-02-2010, 11:17 AM
I respect you poet as a poster, you know your stuff, but for a guy that has information out in this site about his personal life you are too quick to the trigger with the disparaging remarks. You havent said anything about the topic other than to personally bash people you dont personally know.

I only have time this morning for a quick reply but I can honestly say that I could care less what info about my personal life (99% of it inaccurate to begin with) people choose to post on this site. People are going to believe what they want to believe and I don't let it bother me. As for bashing, if people are going to make ignorant posts here chances are I'm going to call them on it. The one thing I DO allow to bother me is ignorance and stupidity: It offends my sensibilities you might say.

As for the topic, my position has been many times made quite clear: I believe there are great fighters in EVERY era and no era of boxing as a whole is inherently superior to any other. Not all weight classes are equally strong in every era: It's quite obvious to me that individual weight classes have their ups and downs and are stronger in some eras and weaker in others. They all go through phases and a division that was weak yesterday may be strong today and one that is strong today may be weak tomorrow. Regardless, that doesn't impact the overall strength of boxing as a whole because while in a particular era an individual weight class may be weak you can undoubtably find great fighters in other weight classes.

Poet

EzzardFan
04-02-2010, 12:16 PM
Part of the problem is that many people subscribe to the belief that sports people are constantly evolving and getting better each year. There is certainly some evidence of this in terms of sports like athletics where we see a measured incremental improvement in most events over time. Although certain track & field events pitch people against each other, they mostly remain isolated in separate lanes and the intention is that they do not physically impede each other (although sometimes they do).

Then there are sports like tennis and football where people debate whether the players of today are better than the players of yesterday. Could peak Federer beat peak Borg? Is Ronaldo better than Pele? Those comparisons are much less clear cut because the athletes are pitted directly against each other, and sometimes form part of a larger team. There are a several orders of magnitude more variables and complexity involved in measuring performance.

Boxing is perhaps the hardest of all sports in which to assess the relative performance of individuals from different periods. Boxers don't just impede each other, or play against each other, they attempt to knock each other unconscious.

Todays athletes also tend to look more defined. This is down to two three things:

1) Weight training being promoted to add extra muscle.
2) The cult of the 6-pack.
3) The athletes being deliberately photographed when at their most cut, shaved, oiled, starved, and even airbrushed.

If you look at photos of boxers pre-1980s fighting you can see that they possess impressive physiques. When these same guys are photographed out of the ring they look average. Anyone who has trained knows that at certain times we look more cut and more defined than we usually do. That's how those old before and after photos work! One of the changes in the 1980s was that boxers started to be treated more like movie/rock stars in terms of how they were photographed. If I google Britney Spears then two types of photo show up, in some of them she looks like a goddess in other more candid shots, she looks like something you'd have to tie a pork chop to in order to encourage your dog to play with her.

This whole fashion also coincided with 1980s body builder as invincible action hero fad. In the 1970s heros looked like Steve McQueen or Paul Newman. In the 1980s they looked like Schwarzenegger... or his big rival Stallone, who of course played Rocky. The further into the 1980s we got, the bigger Rocky's biceps got. The public then developed the impression that a heavyweight champion should resemble something drawn by Marvel Comics. This was great marketing for what, up until then, had been the relatively niche body building industry. People looked at those body builder physiques and thought "WOW he must be really strong", an "I wouldn't like to take a punch from him". Some people then began looking to body builders to train them, so that they could develop that much coveted physique. Of course the reality was built with steroids.

The marketing industry can never be accused of missing a trick. Here we have a popular culture promoting a certain umm 'healthy' look as being desirable, a drug that produces the desired look in 12 weeks, a bunch of people who have taken that drug running round calling themselves "physical trainers" whatever that is, and people queueing up to purchase their services. All they had to do was come up with a bunch of gadgets, sit back and let the money roll in.

Look in the attic of anyone over 40 and there's probably a bunch of exercise gadgets lodged up there. At least half of them will be devoted to the abdominal muscles. The same muscles whose chief purpose is to squeeze the **** out of our bowels and into the toilet bowl. Take any healthy muscular adult, strip off half their body fat so that their 6-pack is on display and they will instantly look much bigger and stronger (despite being smaller).

The result of all this "advancements in training and nutrition (and photoshop)"TM is that 21st Century boxers look like they'd be capable of taking their early 20th Century counterparts and pulling them apart limb from limb. Well they'd certainly beat them quite easily in a body building contest, that much is for sure.

The reality is quite different.

EzzardFan
04-02-2010, 12:30 PM
As I've already pointed out there were more fighters in the old days, they fought much more frequently, there were less titles available, and although certain champions were known to duck certain contenders the contenders didn't tend to avoid one another. More fights went the distance, there were few easy KO's, and all but the very best fighters would have accumulated several losses on their record. The average number of fights to a title shot were 50, with many boxers not getting a title shot until well after their 100th competitive bout.

There were boxing clubs in every town, and several in every major city. There were gyms galore. For many depression era fighters boxing was their only means of putting food on the table. This desperation bred far more focus and intensity than going from one $30M fight this year to a $50M in a couple of years time. When they described a fighter as hungry, they quite literally meant that he could barely afford to eat.

Look at the number of career rounds boxed. In the case of Harry Greb it runs into the thousands, which adds up to hundreds of hours of real unarmed combat experience. Most boxers these days barely fight 10 hours over the course of their entire multi-title career! Pit someone who has 150 hours of experience against someone who has one tenth of that and what do you honestly think the likely outcome would be?

Boxing is not the sport it once was. It has been in gradual decline for the past 60 years. Today it also faces stiff competition from MMA. Imagine if 60 years from now there are only 1/50th as many fights as today, and the average boxer fights a career total of 30mins... does anyone really believe that he'd be a better boxer, just because his muscles looked more defined in his publicity shots, just because he held titles simultaneously in 50 weight classes across 16 governing bodies, just because we get to watch him in 16386p super hi-def ultra-widescreen holographic 3D?

GJC
04-02-2010, 12:57 PM
There are great fighters in every era. It is a fact that there were more fighters 80/90 years ago. More fighters both good and bad. Boxing is the same as everything else the more you do it the better you get, a fighter who has a hundred fights will obviously have more experience than a fighter who has has 20 fights. They lost more fights in the old days but again as in anything else you learn more from your mistakes than from anything. I think of a fighter like DLH, very talented fighter but who never really ironed out his flaws. But then did he need to, he earnt a fortune and had won titles in 4 different weight classes after what, 25 fights?
It isn't a leap of imagination to assume that a talented fighter such as Pac would enjoy great success in the 1920's but nor is it that Greb would refine his style enjoy the benefits of modern technology, nutrition etc and be a force now.

EzzardFan
04-02-2010, 01:25 PM
There are great fighters in every era. It is a fact that there were more fighters 80/90 years ago. More fighters both good and bad. Boxing is the same as everything else the more you do it the better you get, a fighter who has a hundred fights will obviously have more experience than a fighter who has has 20 fights. They lost more fights in the old days but again as in anything else you learn more from your mistakes than from anything. I think of a fighter like DLH, very talented fighter but who never really ironed out his flaws. But then did he need to, he earnt a fortune and had won titles in 4 different weight classes after what, 25 fights?
It isn't a leap of imagination to assume that a talented fighter such as Pac would enjoy great success in the 1920's but nor is it that Greb would refine his style enjoy the benefits of modern technology, nutrition etc and be a force now.

I respect what you are saying. Modern fighters are just as naturally gifted. Some of them have great reflexes. I'm sure that if the best modern fighters were transported back to the 1920s, not for one fight, but to ply their entire careers then some of them would blossom into ATG fighters. The competition would just be much harder.

And I also agree that Greb would be a force if he were brought forward into the present time.

But I cannot agree with your statement "that Greb would refine his style enjoy the benefits of modern technology, nutrition etc".

Greb's training involved fighting once a week. That's a career in excess of 300 fights, many of them going the distance. His style was refined, it's just that boxers are no longer fighting 20-40x a year for 10 years to properly refine their style, so we have forgotten what refined really is. Greb would probably describe today's fighters styles as rudimentary or basic.

Likewise I doubt that Greb would benefit from modern technology. The man wasn't training by lifting rocks, he trained be hitting real resisting opponents in real fights. He would be poorer for the loss of those training opportunities.

Nutrition wise I doubt if there would be much to gain from examining his stool samples and filling him up with pharmaceutical grade Bananichococherryberry flavoured protein shake with added taurine and creatine (TM). The man routinely fought 15 rounds at a frantic pace. How can we possibly hope to improve on that? If it ain't broke then don't fix it. Personally I'd be more inclined to adopt his menu, it certainly seemed to work for him.

Things are not better now, they are just better marketed.

"By the way, if anyone here is in marketing or advertising...kill yourself. Thank you. Just planting seeds, planting seeds is all I'm doing. No joke here, really. Seriously, kill yourself, you have no rationalisation for what you do, you are Satan's little helpers. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show. Seriously, I know the marketing people: 'There's gonna be a joke comin' up.' There's no ****in' joke. Suck a tail pipe, hang yourself...borrow a pistol from an NRA buddy, do something...rid the world of your evil ****in' presence."
Bill Hicks

GJC
04-02-2010, 02:44 PM
But I cannot agree with your statement "that Greb would refine his style enjoy the benefits of modern technology, nutrition etc".

Greb's training involved fighting once a week. That's a career in excess of 300 fights, many of them going the distance. His style was refined, it's just that boxers are no longer fighting 20-40x a year for 10 years to properly refine their style, so we have forgotten what refined really is. Greb would probably describe today's fighters styles as rudimentary or basic.

Likewise I doubt that Greb would benefit from modern technology. The man wasn't training by lifting rocks, he trained be hitting real resisting opponents in real fights. He would be poorer for the loss of those training opportunities.

Nutrition wise I doubt if there would be much to gain from examining his stool samples and filling him up with pharmaceutical grade Bananichococherryberry flavoured protein shake with added taurine and creatine (TM). The man routinely fought 15 rounds at a frantic pace. How can we possibly hope to improve on that? If it ain't broke then don't fix it. Personally I'd be more inclined to adopt his menu, it certainly seemed to work for him.



Think you may have misunderstood me a touch EF although my point was more directed at old school fighters in general.

By refining his style I meant that he would almost certainly have to cool down on the darker arts. Greb did throw in a lot of rough stuff which whilst it was par for the course in those days like your Marciano's and Zivic's he would get DQ for some of his more "creative" tricks. He like the others would just learn what they could get away with in the modern era.

By modern technology I meant more DVD's freeze frame etc. In those days they probably fought a lot of fighters with only word of mouth as to their skills and weaknesses which is why a lot of them lost the first fight. These days they can go into a fight fully prepared, can you imagine how good a Jack Johnson would be after analysing an potential opponents last 20 fights in depth.

I do think that over the last 20 years nutrition in sport has really developed, even 20 years ago a sportsman's diet was pretty much have a steak. Nowadays with the knowledge of the ins and outs of what foods such as pasta etc do what for you, an all action fighter like Greb would be even more formidable.

EzzardFan
04-02-2010, 04:45 PM
Think you may have misunderstood me a touch EF although my point was more directed at old school fighters in general.

By refining his style I meant that he would almost certainly have to cool down on the darker arts. Greb did throw in a lot of rough stuff which whilst it was par for the course in those days like your Marciano's and Zivic's he would get DQ for some of his more "creative" tricks. He like the others would just learn what they could get away with in the modern era.

By modern technology I meant more DVD's freeze frame etc. In those days they probably fought a lot of fighters with only word of mouth as to their skills and weaknesses which is why a lot of them lost the first fight. These days they can go into a fight fully prepared, can you imagine how good a Jack Johnson would be after analysing an potential opponents last 20 fights in depth.

I do think that over the last 20 years nutrition in sport has really developed, even 20 years ago a sportsman's diet was pretty much have a steak. Nowadays with the knowledge of the ins and outs of what foods such as pasta etc do what for you, an all action fighter like Greb would be even more formidable.

Oh yeah I'm with you now. Good points. Thanks for the clarification.

The Hate Giver
04-02-2010, 05:27 PM
I only have time this morning for a quick reply but I can honestly say that I could care less what info about my personal life (99% of it inaccurate to begin with) people choose to post on this site. People are going to believe what they want to believe and I don't let it bother me. As for bashing, if people are going to make ignorant posts here chances are I'm going to call them on it. The one thing I DO allow to bother me is ignorance and stupidity: It offends my sensibilities you might say.

As for the topic, my position has been many times made quite clear: I believe there are great fighters in EVERY era and no era of boxing as a whole is inherently superior to any other. Not all weight classes are equally strong in every era: It's quite obvious to me that individual weight classes have their ups and downs and are stronger in some eras and weaker in others. They all go through phases and a division that was weak yesterday may be strong today and one that is strong today may be weak tomorrow. Regardless, that doesn't impact the overall strength of boxing as a whole because while in a particular era an individual weight class may be weak you can undoubtably find great fighters in other weight classes.

Poet

fair enough poet.


I respect what you are saying. Modern fighters are just as naturally gifted. Some of them have great reflexes. I'm sure that if the best modern fighters were transported back to the 1920s, not for one fight, but to ply their entire careers then some of them would blossom into ATG fighters. The competition would just be much harder.

And I also agree that Greb would be a force if he were brought forward into the present time.

But I cannot agree with your statement "that Greb would refine his style enjoy the benefits of modern technology, nutrition etc".

Greb's training involved fighting once a week. That's a career in excess of 300 fights, many of them going the distance. His style was refined, it's just that boxers are no longer fighting 20-40x a year for 10 years to properly refine their style, so we have forgotten what refined really is. Greb would probably describe today's fighters styles as rudimentary or basic.

Likewise I doubt that Greb would benefit from modern technology. The man wasn't training by lifting rocks, he trained be hitting real resisting opponents in real fights. He would be poorer for the loss of those training opportunities.

Nutrition wise I doubt if there would be much to gain from examining his stool samples and filling him up with pharmaceutical grade Bananichococherryberry flavoured protein shake with added taurine and creatine (TM). The man routinely fought 15 rounds at a frantic pace. How can we possibly hope to improve on that? If it ain't broke then don't fix it. Personally I'd be more inclined to adopt his menu, it certainly seemed to work for him.

Things are not better now, they are just better marketed.

"By the way, if anyone here is in marketing or advertising...kill yourself. Thank you. Just planting seeds, planting seeds is all I'm doing. No joke here, really. Seriously, kill yourself, you have no rationalisation for what you do, you are Satan's little helpers. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show. Seriously, I know the marketing people: 'There's gonna be a joke comin' up.' There's no ****in' joke. Suck a tail pipe, hang yourself...borrow a pistol from an NRA buddy, do something...rid the world of your evil ****in' presence."
Bill Hicks

Have the decency to quote my reply if you are gonna reply. You multi quoted my first post why not my last? As for this most recent post, you are the classic example of an old man stuck in your ways & choose to believe everything was better back then. This post reeks of ignorant old school bias.

Harry Greb has a refined style?

How the heck would you know it was refined? Have you personally seen him fight?

Harry Greb wouldnt benefit from modern medicine,supplements, & training methods?

You have got to be kidding me. This post below bolded perfectly describes you:

The problem with this is, that when we are young, we're more impressionable than later in life. So when we get on in years, there's probably a tendency to look back to the beginning, and think of that as the "good old days", when everything was better than today.

I think it's safe to say, that no boxing historian was ever more respected by his peers than the late Nat Fleischer... yet when you look at his all-time rankings (from 1970), I believe it's just as safe to say, that this is the work of a man who lived in the past, with little sense of reality:

Heavyweights:
1 - Jack Johnson
2 - James J. Jeffries
3 - Bob Fitzsimmons
4 - Jack Dempsey
5 - James J. Corbett
6 - Joe Louis
7 - Sam Langford
8 - Gene Tunney
9 - Max Schmeling
10- Rocky Marciano

Light Heavyweights:
1 - Kid McCoy
2 - Philadelphia Jack O'Brian
3 - Jack Dillon
4 - Tommy Loughran
5 - Jack Root
6 - Battling Levensky
7 - Georges Carpentier
8 - Tom Gibbons
9 - Jack Delaney
10- Paul Berlenbach

Middleweights:
1 - Stanley Ketchell
2 - Tommy Ryan
3 - Harry Greb
4 - Mickey Walker
5 - Ray Robinson
6 - Frank Klaus
7 - Billy Papke
8 - Les Darcy
9 - Mike Gibbons
10- Jeff Smith

Welterweights:
1 - Joe Walcott
2 - Mysterious Billy Smith
3 - Jack Britton
4 - Ted Kid Lewis
5 - Dixie Kid
6 - Harry Lewis
7 - Willie Lewis
8 - Henry Armstrong
9 - Barney Ross
10- Jimmy McLarnin

Lightweights:
1 - Joe Gans
2 - Benny Leonard
3 - Owen Moran
4 - Freddy Welsh
5 - Battling Nelson
6 - George Kid Lavigne
7 - Tony Canzoneri
8 - Willie Ritchie
9 - Lew Tendler
10- Ad Wolgast

Featherweights:
1 - Terry McGovern
2 - Jim Driscoll
3 - Abe Attell
4 - Willie Pep
5 - Johnny Dundee
6 - Young Griffo
7 - Johnny Kilbane
8 - Kid Chocolate
9 - George K.O. Chaney
10- Louis Kid Kaplan

Bantamweights:
1 - George Dixon
2 - Pete Herman
3 - Kid Williams
4 - Eder Jofre
5 - Joe Lynch
6 - Bud Taylor
7 - Johnny Coulon
8 - Frankie Burns
9 - Eddie Campi
10- Panama Al Brown

Flyweight:
1 - Jimmy Wilde
2 - Pancho Villa
3 - Frankie Genaro
4 - Fidel La Barba
5 - Benny Lynch
6 - Elky Clark
7 - Johnny Buff
8 - Midget Wolgast
9 - Peter Kane
10- Pascual Perez

(From the 1970 edition of The Ring Record Book and Boxing Encyclopedia)

Without beginning to disect these rankings, I think we can all agree, that Mr. Fleischer was WAY too kind to the pre-WW1 fighters... while ignoring the talents of modern-day boxers (Ali, Moore, Charles; to name just a few). So if a respected historian like Mr. Fleischer, can put together rankings as obviously flawed as this... how much emphasis can we put on the opinions of men like Mr. Arcel and Mr. Futch, when they rave about old-timers they haven't seen in 50 or 60 years?

Many years ago, as a young man, I was lucky enough to attend a show, where the main event featured Eddie Perkins. To say that I was impressed, doesn't tell the whole story. When I went home that night, I was certain, I had just watched one of the finest boxers ever to step into a ring! That was over 40 years ago... and to this day I still think of him, as the finest technician I have ever seen. But was he really - or is it just in an old man's mind, it appears that way?

My younger boxing-pals are all crazy about Manny Pacquiao. I would love to tell them that, yes, the dynamic little Filippino is indeed very good... but I once saw this great fighter by the name of Eddie Perkins, who would have boxed his ears off. I don't, however, because 1: I could be wrong (and probably is!), and 2: They would all think I'm crazy!

My point with all this is, that there IS a danger of over-estimating the greatness of old-timers, of which there is little or no footage. That being said, it's hard to believe that Greb wasn't a bit special. As has been pointed out by several others in this thread, he beat too many good fighters not to be!

best post of the thread so far. im not denying greb, just a little reality with an estimation of a man you havent seen fight's greatness.

Spartacus Sully
04-02-2010, 05:31 PM
Heavyweights:
1 - Jack Johnson
2 - James J. Jeffries
3 - Bob Fitzsimmons
4 - Jack Dempsey
5 - James J. Corbett
6 - Joe Louis
7 - Sam Langford
8 - Gene Tunney
9 - Max Schmeling
10- Rocky Marciano


Johnson over jeffries???!!!! unbelievable, what a crap list!!!!!!

The Hate Giver
04-02-2010, 10:23 PM
I wouldn't even try to pick without studying what we do know and breaking down their weaknesses and strengths. What I do know is who fought more top opponents. Who beat more top fighters. And with that Greb is undoubtedly one of the greatest fighters of all time.[/FONT][/COLOR]

a simple question as to who wins a top 3 middleweight of all times vs a 2000s great who hit his prime in his mid 30s & i couldnt even get a straight answer.

one would think that a fighter who is at the very least the 2# best middleweight of all time, i was expecting a quick harry greb answer.

EzzardFan
04-03-2010, 12:20 AM
Have the decency to quote my reply if you are gonna reply. You multi quoted my first post why not my last? As for this most recent post, you are the classic example of an old man stuck in your ways & choose to believe everything was better back then. This post reeks of ignorant old school bias.

What that crap from three pages back? There was nothing in that worth quoting.

The Hate Giver
04-03-2010, 01:02 AM
What that crap from three pages back? There was nothing in that worth quoting.

i responded to your quote & broke down that long ass shamefully biased post. Good job sidestepping the argument by NOT multi quoting it directly then obviously posting 2 long posts directed at me.

Crap from 3 pages back = lets marginalize it because i cant respond to it. Go fantasize how refined harry greb's fighting style is. :rofl:

How old are you & have you seen greb fight?

JAB5239
04-03-2010, 01:52 AM
a simple question as to who wins a top 3 middleweight of all times vs a 2000s great who hit his prime in his mid 30s & i couldnt even get a straight answer.

one would think that a fighter who is at the very least the 2# best middleweight of all time, i was expecting a quick harry greb answer.

Of course you were. You expect me to automatically go with Greb. But the problem is this....first, its the way you asked the question. I try not to just jump to a conclusion and instead like to analyze what has been presented. Second....Hopkins is a top 10 all time middleweight great in my opinion. Hell, some even rate him the best middleweight ever. Styles make fights so this has to be pondered over if you expect any kind of reasonable answer which can be supported with logic and fact.

I would lean toward Greb based on what we know and who he actually beat in comparison to Hopkins. But an argument for Bernard cannot be discounted.

I would submit that there isn't that huge of a gap between the 10th best middleweight ever and the first, except styles and resume. One could win over any of the others on any given night.

JAB5239
04-03-2010, 01:59 AM
[QUOTE=Bundana;7965396]The problem with this is, that when we are young, we're more impressionable than later in life. So when we get on in years, there's probably a tendency to look back to the beginning, and think of that as the "good old days", when everything was better than today.


You'll have to excuse me for just answering this part of your post, the rest of it I agree with in many area's.

You're right about being more impressionable when you're younger and looking back at things as "the good old days". But when experts such as Arcel and Futch's descriptions match all the accounts from the day I find it very hard to discount.

Bundana
04-03-2010, 04:11 AM
[QUOTE]

You'll have to excuse me for just answering this part of your post, the rest of it I agree with in many area's.

You're right about being more impressionable when you're younger and looking back at things as "the good old days". But when experts such as Arcel and Futch's descriptions match all the accounts from the day I find it very hard to discount.

I have the greatest respect for Arcel and Futch. They have seen it all, and there's no way I would simply dismiss their opinions as "old man's talk".

But sometimes our minds can play tricks on us. Now I don't know how old you are, but have you never found a clip on YouTube, of a fight you saw many years ago (ok, if you are a very young man, you probably haven't)... and been surprised to find how different it looks, from the way you remember it?

But again I'll have to say, that even with no video available, and no way of telling what he REALLY looked like in the ring... the evidence that Greb is an ATG is overwhelming! Yes, I know he looks like a fool in that shadow-boxing video... but he faced 13 Hall of Famers, and managed to beat each and every one of them at least once. You don't do that, unless you're a bit special!

EzzardFan
04-03-2010, 10:07 AM
i responded to your quote & broke down that long ass shamefully biased post. Good job sidestepping the argument by NOT multi quoting it directly then obviously posting 2 long posts directed at me.

OK - just for you I'll go back and dissect your post from page 8:

That is the exact old school bias im talking about. You would favor a 20s-50s great over a 70s & up great? Not if your life depended on it. You just want to keep preserving history for the sake of keeping fighters you loved growing in such a high pedestal. You keep making it look like old school fighters are so much more superior in every way no new school fighter can overtake them hence you get off in defending & knowing how great a fighter you have never seen fight even if there is no visual evidence. If your life depended on getting the right prediction on a fantasy match up harry greb vs roy jones jr. or marvin hagler you would abandon your biased favoritism with greb.

That first section is essentially an attack on me. "You would favor...", "You just want to...", "You keep making it", "If your life depended...", "you get off in...", "you would abandon" etc. Please spare us the mind reading and the accusations.

For a era so touted in so many great fighters one wonders why great fighters in their prime continue to fight fighters with 15,20,30 losses & even fight fighters who have less than 20 wins.

Umm... how am I supposed to respond to that, it's borderline incoherent.

You want to talk about poor refereeing in this era? How about the era where the referee was also the judge? How many robberies took place? At least in the modern era people know the judges & referees name & is show it in television & there is that threat of looking so blatantly corrupt that it somewhat helps in deterring outright shenanigans.

If you say so.

But in the golden era? Controlled heavily by the mafia? Where black people dont even have equal human rights? They are suppose to get a fair shake in sports? Forget about it. No wonder there were so many great white fighters back then when black people didnt have equal rights. As time moves on & social equality & rights are given to all people, the number of great white fighters in all divisions slowly disappear. Are so biased that you think the old school era was free from boxing atrocities & corruption?

Have you read any of my other posts on this forum? For example:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=352394

On the issue of racism we are in heated agreement. However the racism mainly affected the heavyweight division, the other divisions frequently had black champions. This thread is about Harry Greb. Greb dished out equal opportunities beatings to black fighters, brown fighters, yellow fighters, white fighters. He'd have happily taken on a green Martian if one had landed his flying saucer in the ring. You couldn't have picked a less accurate example of racism if you'd tried.

Did boxers back then throw right hooks, jabs, lead rights, left hooks differently?

I took that to be a rhetorical question.

Last time i checked they were still the same. & those personal trainers, nutrionists, & sports scientists give modern fighters an edge that old school fighters dont.

As you are already aware I disagree on this. I am extremely sceptical on the subjects of sports science and sports nutrition. You haven't actually presented an argument here, just stated your opinion. There's nothing for anyone to respond to.

Yet they are physically inferior? Even though statistics have shown that humans are bigger, stronger, & faster now than they were back then?

I have never claimed that today's athletes are physically inferior. I do support the claim that today's boxers are less experienced and therefore technically inferior in terms of their boxing skills.

You act as if this generation of fighters are devoid of talent. You act as if pernell whitaker, roy jones jr., floyd mayweather jr., manny pacquiao, lennox lewis are physically & talentley inferior to fighters from the 20s.

Well they aren't! Physically they are top athletes, as were the boxers back then. There's noting much between them other than perhaps a bit of airbrushing. And the current crop of boxers are imbued with just as much natural talent, and in many cases incredible reflexes. The point that I've been making is that someone with 10 hours of fight time isn't going to have the experience or gleaned the ring craft of someone like Greb that had clocked up 150 hours of fight time. The boxers in the golden era had honed their craft in a way that is no longer possible due to various external factors.

A right hook in the 30s is the same right hook in present time.

You already stated that. But boxing is greater than the sum of it's punches. Having the best punch doesn't win fights, otherwise those guys that punch through bricks would be the world champions. Boxing is about: confidence, observation, remaining relaxed, deception, peripheral vision, mobility, range, defense, timing, counter strking, balance, weight transfer, leverage, and tactics. And most of all heart.

Stop trying to preserve history in order to shield your favorite oldschool fighters from being over taken in the rankings.

That's an accusation. How am I supposed to respond to that. The people on this thread are having a debate. Take Bundana there for instance (since you've already cited one of his posts). You don't see him throwing accusations about do you?

Its the same reason why paintings back then will always be better than paintings now. To preserve history.

I'm not an art critic so I wouldn't know.

Stop pretending that every single fight that took place in the old school were vs all time great legendary competition. That's not the case & you know it.

That's another accusation followed by another failed attempt at mind reading.

Can you visually see 2d & make a educated & accurate assumption that a fighter is great?

What do you mean "visually see 2d", like as opposed to smelling 2d? Of course I can "visually see 2d", anyone that isn't blind can see something that is 2d. If you want to try this for yourself then take your eyes of the TV for a minute a look at something called a "photograph" (note to other posters - apologies for the sarcasm but the OP was extremely forceful in his request that I respond to this post).

Yes.

& 3d?

probably even better.

Umm I guess so.

Can you do the same with newspaper accounts & a writers opinions which has a high propensity to be biased & sensationalized?

NO.

3d>2d> old newspaper articles.

That is a great first attempt at logic, specially coming from someone who dabbles in mind reading. In fact the way you constructed that sentence it was almost predicate calculus. Keep it up. Unfortunately I'm going to have to counter it. I'm not an expert on boxing, and I doubt that you are either. If we were to watch a fight with half a dozen of boxing's greatest trainers then there's a high probability that they'd see a lot of things that we don't and that their impression of what took place would be more accurate than ours. That's why I am happy to accept that expert opinions are more reliable than my own eyes when it comes to boxing analyses. That's why I am happy to accept expert accounts of Harry Greb from 85 years ago. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Greb in action but I'm not vain enough to think that I'm better placed to analyse his capabilities than Ray Arcel. Bert Sugar is a different case as he was primarily a journalist.

You are losing your grip old man.

That's an insult. There's no need to bring insults into a debate. When someone resorts to insulting someone else it's usually because they feel unable to argue their own position effectively, because they've been outclassed.

Even if you have never seen them fight & they are what from 50 years ago. If your life & everybody who you hold dear depended on it, who wins?

Prime Harry Greb or Prime Bernard Hopkins?

You mean hypothetically? OK I'll play. I pick Greb. What now?

i responded to your quote & broke down that long ass shamefully biased post. Good job sidestepping the argument by NOT multi quoting it directly then obviously posting 2 long posts directed at me.

The world does not revolve around you LOL. This thread is about Harry Greb not you. There was no conspiracy. You really need to get some sleep.

How old are you & have you seen greb fight?

I'm 39 years old so obviously I haven't seen Greb fight. Was that a trick question LOL?

EzzardFan
04-03-2010, 10:07 AM
Seriously though, now can you understand why I didn't originally reply to your post on page 8? It's because there was nothing to debate and I'd just have been getting sucked into a bunch of insults and counter insults. What's to be gained from that? It's just a flame war detracting from the original debate. In my opinion you need to separate the cut and thrust of a debate from a personal attack. It's the same with a boxing match vs a street fight. At the end of a boxing match both guys (usually) hug each other, and the loser congratulates the victor. It' nothing personal. The people genuinely debating this thread are trying to get closer to the truth. We may be wrong or we may be right, but we're educating ourselves and making our brains work hard trying to get to the truth. If you look back along the thread you'll see the experienced debaters taking each others points on board and saying stuff like "Oh yeah - I see what you mean, good point. Thanks for that".

When I see a post like yours, I know that I could go in there and cruelly pick it apart, but that would be like puling the wings off a fly. It's nicer for me to ignore it. In future if you'd like me to debate stuff with you, then you need to present a well reasoned argument and keep the personal attacks out of it.

In LVX (that means "Walk in the light").

EzzardFan
04-03-2010, 10:44 AM
great post.im a stats junkie.
but in sports,more does not usually equate to better.especially in boxing.so just cause theyre 238 boxers who are licensed doesnt mean thats 238 potential opponents.you would have to divide 238 by the # of divisions to even began to get a more proper estimate,and taht doesnt even take activity level into account.alotta guys just boxed on the side.i know plenty licensed boxers who have never fought a pro fight.you also must factor in that their are more belts for less boxers which also makes it easier but the difference wont be felt at the top.it will be at the bottom were quality suffers

just noticed your screen name.ezzard was 1 hell of a fighter.skills and power.shame he doesnt get much credit.he's 1 of the few old timers whom i would call legit

Here are some more stats, just for you, although I think some others *AHEM* might also find them interesting:

PLEASE NOTE: THESE NUMBERS ARE AT TIME OF FIRST TITLE WIN, NOT CAREER TOTALS:

Harry Greb - 234 official bouts. 2,078 rounds. 104 hours of officially recorded fight time.

Bernard Hopkins - 29 recorded bouts. 131 rounds. 6.5 hours of officially recorded fight time.

THE FOLLOWING NUMBERS ARE CAREER TOTALS:

Harry Greb - 299 official bouts. 2,590 rounds. 129.5 hours of officially recorded fight time.

Bernard Hopkins - 57 recorded bouts. 408 rounds. 20.4 hours of officially recorded fight time.

***

I rest my case.

bklynboy
04-03-2010, 10:53 AM
Part of the problem is that many people subscribe to the belief that sports people are constantly evolving and getting better each year. There is certainly some evidence of this in terms of sports like athletics where we see a measured incremental improvement in most events over time. Although certain track & field events pitch people against each other, they mostly remain isolated in separate lanes and the intention is that they do not physically impede each other (although sometimes they do).

Then there are sports like tennis and football where people debate whether the players of today are better than the players of yesterday. Could peak Federer beat peak Borg? Is Ronaldo better than Pele? Those comparisons are much less clear cut because the athletes are pitted directly against each other, and sometimes form part of a larger team. There are a several orders of magnitude more variables and complexity involved in measuring performance.

Boxing is perhaps the hardest of all sports in which to assess the relative performance of individuals from different periods. Boxers don't just impede each other, or play against each other, they attempt to knock each other unconscious.

Todays athletes also tend to look more defined. This is down to two three things:

1) Weight training being promoted to add extra muscle.
2) The cult of the 6-pack.
3) The athletes being deliberately photographed when at their most cut, shaved, oiled, starved, and even airbrushed.

If you look at photos of boxers pre-1980s fighting you can see that they possess impressive physiques. When these same guys are photographed out of the ring they look average. Anyone who has trained knows that at certain times we look more cut and more defined than we usually do. That's how those old before and after photos work! One of the changes in the 1980s was that boxers started to be treated more like movie/rock stars in terms of how they were photographed. If I google Britney Spears then two types of photo show up, in some of them she looks like a goddess in other more candid shots, she looks like something you'd have to tie a pork chop to in order to encourage your dog to play with her.

This whole fashion also coincided with 1980s body builder as invincible action hero fad. In the 1970s heros looked like Steve McQueen or Paul Newman. In the 1980s they looked like Schwarzenegger... or his big rival Stallone, who of course played Rocky. The further into the 1980s we got, the bigger Rocky's biceps got. The public then developed the impression that a heavyweight champion should resemble something drawn by Marvel Comics. This was great marketing for what, up until then, had been the relatively niche body building industry. People looked at those body builder physiques and thought "WOW he must be really strong", an "I wouldn't like to take a punch from him". Some people then began looking to body builders to train them, so that they could develop that much coveted physique. Of course the reality was built with steroids.

The marketing industry can never be accused of missing a trick. Here we have a popular culture promoting a certain umm 'healthy' look as being desirable, a drug that produces the desired look in 12 weeks, a bunch of people who have taken that drug running round calling themselves "physical trainers" whatever that is, and people queueing up to purchase their services. All they had to do was come up with a bunch of gadgets, sit back and let the money roll in.

Look in the attic of anyone over 40 and there's probably a bunch of exercise gadgets lodged up there. At least half of them will be devoted to the abdominal muscles. The same muscles whose chief purpose is to squeeze the **** out of our bowels and into the toilet bowl. Take any healthy muscular adult, strip off half their body fat so that their 6-pack is on display and they will instantly look much bigger and stronger (despite being smaller).

The result of all this "advancements in training and nutrition (and photoshop)"TM is that 21st Century boxers look like they'd be capable of taking their early 20th Century counterparts and pulling them apart limb from limb. Well they'd certainly beat them quite easily in a body building contest, that much is for sure.

The reality is quite different.

Excellent, excellent post

Ziggy Stardust
04-03-2010, 11:08 AM
A question to ponder: Are the athletes really getting better or is the equipment they use and the conditions that they perform under getting better? We know track and field athletes today run on much better surfaces and use much better track shoes all of which are geared to improve speed and performance. In tennis, players no longer use the heavy wooden rackets but instead use alloy rackets that weigh next to nothing and greatly improve serve velocity. In golf, players use clubs and balls that are all scientifically geared to maximize distance. In football, kickers kick from grass surfaces that are better than the artificial turf from 30 years ago hence distance and accuracy improves. In baseball, players use bats that are scientifically designed to improve bat speed. So are athletes really getting better or are their tools and working conditions constantly improving? Food for thought Gentlemen.

Poet

bklynboy
04-03-2010, 11:26 AM
A question to ponder: Are the athletes really getting better or is the equipment they use and the conditions that they perform under getting better? We know track and field athletes today run on much better surfaces and use much better track shoes all of which are geared to improve speed and performance. In tennis, players no longer use the heavy wooden rackets but instead use alloy rackets that weigh next to nothing and greatly improve serve velocity. In golf, players use clubs and balls that are all scientifically geared to maximize distance. In football, kickers kick from grass surfaces that are better than the artificial turf from 30 years ago hence distance and accuracy improves. In baseball, players use bats that are scientifically designed to improve bat speed. So are athletes really getting better or are their tools and working conditions constantly improving? Food for thought Gentlemen.

Poet


We can add bodysuits in swimming (making comparison times more difficult); the Vancouver speed skating track had sensors in and zoned cooling coils allowing the track to be PERFECT: harder in the areas where it should be harder and softer in other areas.

The flip-side to this argument (that athletes are not getting better) is in gymnastics, ice skating, snowboarding, free-style skiing where training methods have allowed this generation of competitors to do far more than earlier competitors.

Many things have changed over 80 years but people have not evolved.

Ziggy Stardust
04-03-2010, 11:31 AM
We can add bodysuits in swimming (making comparison times more difficult); the Vancouver speed skating track had sensors in and zoned cooling coils allowing the track to be PERFECT: harder in the areas where it should be harder and softer in other areas.

The flip-side to this argument (that athletes are not getting better) is in gymnastics, ice skating, snowboarding, free-style skiing where training methods have allowed this generation of competitors to do far more than earlier competitors.

Many things have changed over 80 years but people have not evolved.

Yeah, biological evolution takes place of hundreds of thousands of years not a few short decades.

Poet

EzzardFan
04-03-2010, 11:32 AM
A question to ponder: Are the athletes really getting better or is the equipment they use and the conditions that they perform under getting better? We know track and field athletes today run on much better surfaces and use much better track shoes all of which are geared to improve speed and performance. In tennis, players no longer use the heavy wooden rackets but instead use alloy rackets that weigh next to nothing and greatly improve serve velocity. In golf, players use clubs and balls that are all scientifically geared to maximize distance. In football, kickers kick from grass surfaces that are better than the artificial turf from 30 years ago hence distance and accuracy improves. In baseball, players use bats that are scientifically designed to improve bat speed. So are athletes really getting better or are their tools and working conditions constantly improving? Food for thought Gentlemen.

Poet

We're also much more accurate at measuring performance, particularly time. In a certain sports like tennis, many people feel that the technology has spoiled the game, by focusing more on the serve rather than the clever stuff. I'd have to agree with this. These days it seems like tennis favours the bigger stronger player and we no longer see the epic battles of the Borg-McEnroe era (which I am old enough to remember).

If sports science and sports nutrition has really improved physical performance so much then why do we no longer see boxers throwing the sheer volume of punches over the course of 15 rounds that the likes of Greb, Armstrong, Marciano, and Frazier did.

Also if you watch marathon runners, cyclists, and tennis players they're always drinking out of hit-tech containers labelled Red Bull or Lucozade Sport, but what's actually in the container is good old water - another triumph of marketing over the truth. Whenever an athlete like Herschel Walker claims not to have used modern sports science and nutrition to build his impressive physique but instead resorted to good old pushups, a bunch of faceless zealots call him a liar, like what he claims is somehow impossible!

In another thread on this forum recently:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7925779&postcount=68

Which not only plain nonsense but very insulting to the ATG boxers concerned.

Ziggy Stardust
04-03-2010, 11:35 AM
We're also much more accurate at measuring performance, particularly time. In a certain sports like tennis, many people feel that the technology has spoiled the game, by focusing more on the serve rather than the clever stuff. I'd have to agree with this. These days it seems like tennis favours the bigger stronger player and we no longer see the epic battles of the Borg-McEnroe era (which I am old enough to remember).

If sports science and sports nutrition has really improved physical performance so much then why do we no longer see boxers throwing the sheer volume of punches over the course of 15 rounds that the likes of Greb, Armstrong, Marciano, and Frazier did.

Also if you watch marathon runners, cyclists, and tennis players they're always drinking out of hit-tech containers labelled Red Bull or Lucozade Sport, but what's actually in the container is good old water. Another triumph of marketing over truth. And whenever an athlete like Herschel Walker claims not to have used modern sports science and nutrition to build his impressive physique but instead resorted to good old pushups, a bunch of faceless zealots call him a liar, like what he claims is somehow impossible!

In another thread on this forum recently:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7922937&postcount=66

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7925779&postcount=68

Which not only plain nonsense but very insulting to the ATG boxers concerned.

I remember what Herschel's physique looked like in the early 1980s before all the "modern" training techniques and quite frankly he was ripped back then. So was Bo Jackson (still the finest athlete I've ever laid eyes on).

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
04-03-2010, 11:46 AM
Whenever an athlete like Herschel Walker claims not to have used modern sports science and nutrition to build his impressive physique but instead resorted to good old pushups, a bunch of faceless zealots call him a liar, like what he claims is somehow impossible!

Actually it's rather ironic you bring up Herschel as I'm currently compiling the stats from the USFL's 1983 season :)

Poet

r.burgundy
04-03-2010, 12:10 PM
We're also much more accurate at measuring performance, particularly time. In a certain sports like tennis, many people feel that the technology has spoiled the game, by focusing more on the serve rather than the clever stuff. I'd have to agree with this. These days it seems like tennis favours the bigger stronger player and we no longer see the epic battles of the Borg-McEnroe era (which I am old enough to remember).

If sports science and sports nutrition has really improved physical performance so much then why do we no longer see boxers throwing the sheer volume of punches over the course of 15 rounds that the likes of Greb, Armstrong, Marciano, and Frazier did.

Also if you watch marathon runners, cyclists, and tennis players they're always drinking out of hit-tech containers labelled Red Bull or Lucozade Sport, but what's actually in the container is good old water - another triumph of marketing over the truth. Whenever an athlete like Herschel Walker claims not to have used modern sports science and nutrition to build his impressive physique but instead resorted to good old pushups, a bunch of faceless zealots call him a liar, like what he claims is somehow impossible!

In another thread on this forum recently:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7925779&postcount=68

Which not only plain nonsense but very insulting to the ATG boxers concerned.

where much more accurate at measurement because we can review video"cough,cough"

boxers throw less punches because alot of them are bigger and stronger and defense has evolved.fighters fight at a more measured pace.paticularly the bigger weight classes

Ziggy Stardust
04-03-2010, 12:13 PM
fighters fight at a more measured pace.paticularly the bigger weight classes

Translation: They have sh1t stamina and would have a heart attack if they had to fight at a furious pace for 15 rounds. They should try losing that extra 50 pounds of lard they carry into the ring.

Poet

bklynboy
04-03-2010, 12:43 PM
where much more accurate at measurement because we can review video"cough,cough"

boxers throw less punches because alot of them are bigger and stronger and defense has evolved.fighters fight at a more measured pace.paticularly the bigger weight classes

There's no particular reason a middleweight of today can throw harder punches than one 80 years ago or 180 years ago or 480 years ago. (I know boxing as a sport didn't exist 480 years ago but people were throwing punches at each other back then.)

Do you think that if we went back to 16th Japan and took their best warriors and measured their punches that today's boxers would be far superior? Do you think that the best warriors from Thailand, Meso-America, Africa or Europe wouldn't have punches on par with today's fighters?

We're just talking about punching power here. Nothing else

EzzardFan
04-03-2010, 01:50 PM
boxers throw less punches because alot of them are bigger and stronger and defense has evolved.fighters fight at a more measured pace.paticularly the bigger weight classes

The only ones who are bigger are the heavyweights where there is no upper weight limit. Having said that there have always been big heavyweights, it's just that prior to the introduction of the cruiserweight division the big heavyweights often got beaten by the smaller ones. The smaller fighter being able to impart similar momentum into their punches but by virtue of greater speed and mobility to strike faster, more frequently, and more effectively.

If you really think that defence has evolved then go and view some 2D video of Jack Johnson, Maxie Rosenbloom, Benny Leonard, Tommy Loughran, Gene Tunny, Willie Pep, Ezzard Charles, and 1960s vintage Ali.

Todays boxers fight at a more measured pace because they are unable to maintain the average of 300 punches per round which Marciano was clocked at. If they could sustain those punching volumes over 15 rounds then they would because clearly that's a big advantage.

The Hate Giver
04-03-2010, 03:41 PM
OK - just for you I'll go back and dissect your post from page 8:

That first section is essentially an attack on me. "You would favor...", "You just want to...", "You keep making it", "If your life depended...", "you get off in...", "you would abandon" etc. Please spare us the mind reading and the accusations.

Umm... how am I supposed to respond to that, it's borderline incoherent.

If you say so.


Absolutely nothing.....




Have you read any of my other posts on this forum? For example:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=352394

On the issue of racism we are in heated agreement. However the racism mainly affected the heavyweight division, the other divisions frequently had black champions. This thread is about Harry Greb. Greb dished out equal opportunities beatings to black fighters, brown fighters, yellow fighters, white fighters. He'd have happily taken on a green Martian if one had landed his flying saucer in the ring. You couldn't have picked a less accurate example of racism if you'd tried.

I took that to be a rhetorical question.

So now you are trying to quarantine racism to the heavyweight division? All black people had no equal rights & suffered racism, but acccording to you in sports it only extended to the heavyweights. :rofl: ok. suuure.

Jackie Robinson must be rolling in his grave right now.

I never accused greb of racism. Dont know if he is or isnt but the powers that be, the referees, promoters, judges in that time period were all white in a racist time where black people didnt get equal rights IN LIFE. How much more in sports where people pay money to see their white fighters beat on a black man. A lot of fighters to this very day suffer racially. How much more in the 20s,30s,40s, & 50s?




As you are already aware I disagree on this. I am extremely sceptical on the subjects of sports science and sports nutrition. You haven't actually presented an argument here, just stated your opinion. There's nothing for anyone to respond to.

I have never claimed that today's athletes are physically inferior. I do support the claim that today's boxers are less experienced and therefore technically inferior in terms of their boxing skills.


Well they aren't! Physically they are top athletes, as were the boxers back then. There's noting much between them other than perhaps a bit of airbrushing. And the current crop of boxers are imbued with just as much natural talent, and in many cases incredible reflexes. The point that I've been making is that someone with 10 hours of fight time isn't going to have the experience or gleaned the ring craft of someone like Greb that had clocked up 150 hours of fight time. The boxers in the golden era had honed their craft in a way that is no longer possible due to various external factors.



A great fighter with 200 fights vs a great fighter with 40-50 fights? I truly dont think technical superiority is that big of a difference. If you are classified as a great fighter with 40-50 fights i reckon you basically got your **** together & have proper boxing technique, have the confidence in what you do & how to get the job done. You act as if a great fighter with 100-200 fights is gonna be so overwhelmingly superior to a great fighter with 40--50 fights.

Greatest modern era example julio cesar chavez vs pernell whitaker;

Chavez had what close to 90 fights, while whitaker had less than 40 fights. HOw did that fight go?

A great fighter with 200,100 fights is BASICALLY THE SAME technically, confidently, craftily, strategically as a great fighter with 40-50 fights.




You already stated that. But boxing is greater than the sum of it's punches. Having the best punch doesn't win fights, otherwise those guys that punch through bricks would be the world champions. Boxing is about: confidence, observation, remaining relaxed, deception, peripheral vision, mobility, range, defense, timing, counter strking, balance, weight transfer, leverage, and tactics. And most of all heart.


That's an accusation. How am I supposed to respond to that. The people on this thread are having a debate. Take Bundana there for instance (since you've already cited one of his posts). You don't see him throwing accusations about do you?

I'm not an art critic so I wouldn't know.

That's another accusation followed by another failed attempt at mind reading.

What do you mean "visually see 2d", like as opposed to smelling 2d? Of course I can "visually see 2d", anyone that isn't blind can see something that is 2d. If you want to try this for yourself then take your eyes of the TV for a minute a look at something called a "photograph" (note to other posters - apologies for the sarcasm but the OP was extremely forceful in his request that I respond to this post).



Absolutely nothing. The 2d/3d comment was aimed at you saying this;


So in 20 years when everything goes 3D do we start to discount all the fighters that we only have 2D footage of?

Get a grip!


You can see & make a accurate analysis of how great a fighter is in 2d or 3d compared to old newspaper articles & analysis from old men. Because old men remember everything accurately & vividly.



Umm I guess so.

That is a great first attempt at logic, specially coming from someone who dabbles in mind reading. In fact the way you constructed that sentence it was almost predicate calculus. Keep it up. Unfortunately I'm going to have to counter it. I'm not an expert on boxing, and I doubt that you are either. If we were to watch a fight with half a dozen of boxing's greatest trainers then there's a high probability that they'd see a lot of things that we don't and that their impression of what took place would be more accurate than ours. That's why I am happy to accept that expert opinions are more reliable than my own eyes when it comes to boxing analyses. That's why I am happy to accept expert accounts of Harry Greb from 85 years ago. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Greb in action but I'm not vain enough to think that I'm better placed to analyse his capabilities than Ray Arcel. Bert Sugar is a different case as he was primarily a journalist.

Absolutely nothing. Of course Ray Arcel & Bert Sugar are gonna say old fighters are greater. Where are they from? Who did they admire growing up? Of course they are gonna favor oldschool fighters for the sake of preserving history & their fighters time's greatness. Ray Arcel said that benny leonard was a superior fighter than roberto duran. You can believe that. I wont. Just like i wont believe Phil jackson when he says kobe is better than michael.




That's an insult. There's no need to bring insults into a debate. When someone resorts to insulting someone else it's usually because they feel unable to argue their own position effectively, because they've been outclassed.

You mean hypothetically? OK I'll play. I pick Greb. What now?

The world does not revolve around you LOL. This thread is about Harry Greb not you. There was no conspiracy. You really need to get some sleep.


I'm 39 years old so obviously I haven't seen Greb fight. Was that a trick question LOL?

Just as i thought. Never seen the man fight yet so sure of his refined style. Absolutely dishonest.


Here are some more stats, just for you, although I think some others *AHEM* might also find them interesting:

PLEASE NOTE: THESE NUMBERS ARE AT TIME OF FIRST TITLE WIN, NOT CAREER TOTALS:

Harry Greb - 234 official bouts. 2,078 rounds. 104 hours of officially recorded fight time.

Bernard Hopkins - 29 recorded bouts. 131 rounds. 6.5 hours of officially recorded fight time.

THE FOLLOWING NUMBERS ARE CAREER TOTALS:

Harry Greb - 299 official bouts. 2,590 rounds. 129.5 hours of officially recorded fight time.

Bernard Hopkins - 57 recorded bouts. 408 rounds. 20.4 hours of officially recorded fight time.

***

I rest my case.

So harry greb wins because he fought more times, more rounds? I have already explained this earlier. This fight would more than likely resemble whitaker chavez. another whitewash landslide victory by the black fighter followed by your usual robbery by the white establishment. Statistics can be very misleading.

We're also much more accurate at measuring performance, particularly time. In a certain sports like tennis, many people feel that the technology has spoiled the game, by focusing more on the serve rather than the clever stuff. I'd have to agree with this. These days it seems like tennis favours the bigger stronger player and we no longer see the epic battles of the Borg-McEnroe era (which I am old enough to remember).

That's why federer is winning all these grand slams. power. Forget his amazing skillset & incredible ad libbing of creative shots. Lets all credit the racket. No wonder andy roddick has so many grands slams because tennis favours bigger stronger players.

whoops.



Todays boxers fight at a more measured pace because they are unable to maintain the average of 300 punches per round which Marciano was clocked at. If they could sustain those punching volumes over 15 rounds then they would because clearly that's a big advantage.


Is that done by compubox 1960 or a old man with a foggy monocle & a feather tip pen?


Absolute horse****.

Im done with this thread.

EzzardFan
04-03-2010, 04:21 PM
Is that done by compubox 1960 or a old man with a foggy monocle & a feather tip pen?

This is the only coherent part of you post which doesn't accuse me of being a liar or a racist, so I'll deal with that and ignore the rest of your diatribe.

They had moving pictures back then (hell they even had TV), so they can retrospectively measure it the same way as they can modern fights. Alternatively you can bring his fights up on YouTube, play them in slow-mo and count them yourself.

Telepath
04-03-2010, 05:15 PM
Im done with this thread.Yes, and you should be.

You're intellectually inferior to and you have less experience than the person you fail to try to debate with.

Now go **** off.

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 04:11 PM
If you have watched Gene Tunney and don't rate him, it just highlights your inexperience in a new vocation.. I never rated Ali when I was a teenager either..

As for seeing is believing?... I couldn't agree more..
I can see that Aaron Pryor was a limited cheat, I can see that Hearns had dodgy whiskers, I can see that Calzaghe didn't punch properly, I can see that Hamed was wide open, I can see that Hopkins doesn't punch his weight etc etc etc..
As far as the old school are concerned, I can see that Dempsey couldn't adapt to a back foot fighter, I could see that Jack Johnson was a spoiler, Louis had slow feet, Marciano couldn't box, Loughran could'nt punch etc etc.. But it's not ALL about what you see.. For example, Duran only ever faced one southpaw in his whole career and lost to him, so why is he rated so highly?.. We haven't seen him beat a southpaw lol
An argument can easily be made that he was never a fully proven LW on this fact alone..
When it comes to the subject of History (in any subject) films are just a piss in the ocean and considered a luxury aid for the modern but limited historian..
There is no footage of the Battle of Hastings or the signing of the Magna Carta.. We don't even have a photo of poor old King Harold with an arrow in his eye, but sure as eggs are eggs, it all happened..
I'm not saying that inaccurate things have never been written about fighters, but you only have to find 10 articles on Greb (which isn't at all hard) to see that they all tally up.. The fact that the editors of BoxRec and IBOF can't agree on who won the 1st Norfolk fight, just goes to prove how long this argument has been going on, and what a desperately close fight it was.. But we'll ignore the fact that Norfolk was a leading HW with a 25lb weight advantage.. Take a look at the grizzled and caveman features of Greb, and compare it to filmstar looks of Jones, who has been KO'd 3 times to Greb's once, and you don't really have to see the footage..

I think it's time you opened your horizons.. I didn't know a lot when I was younger, so I jumped into a boxing ring, and although no world beater, I learned an awful lot about different styles, and I can assure you - anyone even remotely similar to a vague write-up of Harry Greb, would give me fits!

this is a nice objective post.as far as history,nobodys debating what did and didnt happen.were not debating the end ,were debating the middle.which is highly debatable cause all we kow is and ending.the middle provides the plot.so based on this you imply greb could k.o jones because he's been k.od 3 times before based on the fact that greb fought a 25lb heavier guy and wasnt k.o'd.well how about the guy didnt try hard ala clottey/pacman,or johnson/klitscho.jones at mw was close to unbeatable.he aso fought a heavy and won unlike greb.the fact that the outcome of a fight is debateable doesnt give any credibility whatsoever to your argument.it really should open your eyes up.

think of how many absolutely terrible decision weve seen over the past 20 years,now imagine if there was no video of them.in 1 of the worst decisions in history holyfield was given a draw against lewis.thanks to video,anybody who watched that fight knows it was a crime.we cant do the same for fighters like greb.and i dont know about you,but me being educated and a free thinker,i dont think highly of other peoples opinions when i form my own.yes it is fact that greb beat every great fighter from his era,but its also very reasonable to say that alot of the fighters were oly great for that paticular era.

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 04:14 PM
So you put absolutely no value on the word of experts who did see him fight? That baffles me. Their are, or were great trainers like Ray Arcel and Eddie Futch who had the opposite opinion as yours of the old time fighters and they were around to not only see modern fighters but train them. How is it their word means nothing yet they were so respected in the boxing community?

i wouldnt say i put no value,i just take everything with a grain of salt.most old timers dont talk objectively.like i said,when i hear bert sugar criticize,and talk about the flaws of these old fighters,that is when i can take their words more seriously

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 04:30 PM
i wouldnt say i put no value,i just take everything with a grain of salt.most old timers dont talk objectively.like i said,when i hear bert sugar criticize,and talk about the flaws of these old fighters,that is when i can take their words more seriously

Who are these "old timers" who don't talk objectively? Futch? Arcel? Every boxing historian? Who?

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 04:45 PM
Who are these "old timers" who don't talk objectively? Futch? Arcel? Every boxing historian? Who?

pretty much.ive never really heard futch go in depth except when talking of his own fighters,but bert sugar is tops of my list.

as far as this thread goes,look at you and some other guys posts.to hear you guys tell it greb didnt have any flaws.nobody talks about his flaws because the focus is more on the fights and the fact that he won.you act as if its unreasonable to think that he had any flaw that would be exploitable.

EzzardFan
04-04-2010, 04:53 PM
he aso fought a heavy and won unlike greb.

Greb fought every HW who would take him on and beat them all. He as never granted a title shot because Dempsey ducked him after Greb dominated him in sparring to the extent that Kearns ran Greb out of the training camp. If you're going to debate here then please at least get your facts straight.

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 04:55 PM
Greb fought every HW who would take him on and beat them all. He as never granted a title shot because Dempsey ducked him after Greb dominated him in sparring to the extent that Kearns ran Greb out of the training camp. If you're going to debate here then please at least get your facts straight.

my facts are strait.roy won a hw title,greb didnt.is that incorrect?

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 05:06 PM
pretty much.ive never really heard futch go in depth except when talking of his own fighters,but bert sugar is tops of my list.

as far as this thread goes,look at you and some other guys posts.to hear you guys tell it greb didnt have any flaws.nobody talks about his flaws because the focus is more on the fights and the fact that he won.you act as if its unreasonable to think that he had any flaw that would be exploitable.

Hmmm. Do you mind posting the link where I said or even hinted Greb had no flaws? The basis of my argument has always been his resume and what we know about him through the fighters he fought that are on film. Personaly I think you have a bias against Bert Sugar and hold it against all other boxing historians. Sugar may come up with some ****amamie stuff, but he knows his history. Besides, do you really think he's any worse than someone saying Billy Conn invented the shoulder roll and was a better defensive fighter than Willie Pep after only seeing two of his fights?

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 05:08 PM
my facts are strait.roy won a hw title,greb didnt.is that incorrect?

So what is more significant, taking on all or many of the top contenders in an era of only ONE champ, or winning a paper title against the weakest link in an era of four titles?

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 05:18 PM
Hmmm. Do you mind posting the link where I said or even hinted Greb had no flaws? The basis of my argument has always been his resume and what we know about him through the fighters he fought that are on film. Personaly I think you have a bias against Bert Sugar and hold it against all other boxing historians. Sugar may come up with some ****amamie stuff, but he knows his history. Besides, do you really think he's any worse than someone saying Billy Conn invented the shoulder roll and was a better defensive fighter than Willie Pep after only seeing two of his fights?

you misunderstand.i didnt say you said greb had no flaws per se,i just comment on how when these guys are discussed there flaws are never mentioned.i have a bias against bert just as he has a bias against anybody from the 90's.he knows history for sure,but the problem is he tries to twist it to suit his belief that the best boxers were all born before 1950,which is silly.

as far as the shoulder roll,ive only seen the mayweathers,toney and conn do it.and conn came 1st.i know toney is a big conn fan.and like your quick to point,you think greb is great from reading and seeing some video of his foes.so whats the diff when i base what ive read and heard of conn mixed with what ive seen?

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 05:21 PM
you misunderstand.i didnt say you said greb had no flaws per se,i just comment on how when these guys are discussed there flaws are never mentioned.i have a bias against bert just as he has a bias against anybody from the 90's.he knows history for sure,but the problem is he tries to twist it to suit his belief that the best boxers were all born before 1950,which is silly.

as far as the shoulder roll,ive only seen the mayweathers,toney and conn do it.and conn came 1st.i know toney is a big conn fan.and like your quick to point,you think greb is great from reading and seeing some video of his foes.so whats the diff when i base what ive read and heard of conn mixed with what ive seen?

You've read about Conn using the shoulder roll? Where?

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 05:21 PM
So what is more significant, taking on all or many of the top contenders in an era of only ONE champ, or winning a paper title against the weakest link in an era of four titles?

i have no idea of the andscape of the heavy division when greb was fighting.dont know the politics involved and dont care.all that matters in this case is that roy won a belt while greb didnt even fight for 1.and just cause your the weakest link certainly doesnt make you incapable.many predicted jones was just to small to beat a heavy

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 05:23 PM
[/B]

You've read about Conn using the shoulder roll? Where?

i didnt read about conn using,i saw it!against 1 of the most accurate punchers in history at heavy.that trumps anything pep did in my opinion

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 05:27 PM
i have no idea of the andscape of the heavy division when greb was fighting.dont know the politics involved and dont care.all that matters in this case is that roy won a belt while greb didnt even fight for 1.and just cause your the weakest link certainly doesnt make you incapable.many predicted jones was just to small to beat a heavy

This is exactly why you can't be taken seriously my friend. You' don't know what you're talking about, haven't bothered to learn it, and dismiss it if it doesn't fit your agenda.

This is hypothetical because I don't have the stats handy, but if Ruiz was a paper titlist but only ranked 6th by the ring and Greb beat the number 3 contender for the one and only title.....what is more impressive, Roy or Harry's W?

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 05:29 PM
i didnt read about conn using,i saw it!against 1 of the most accurate punchers in history at heavy.that trumps anything pep did in my opinion

Oh, so you saw him use it and came to the conclusion he invented it, is that it? I mean you did say he invented it, right? Should I pull that post up?

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 05:34 PM
This is exactly why you can't be taken seriously my friend. You' don't know what you're talking about, haven't bothered to learn it, and dismiss it if it doesn't fit your agenda.

This is hypothetical because I don't have the stats handy, but if Ruiz was a paper titlist but only ranked 6th by the ring and Greb beat the number 3 contender for the one and only title.....what is more impressive, Roy or Harry's W?

and this why you cant be taken serious.we know ruiz is weaker than the rest because we have seen him,and he was the smallest.you refuse to acknowledge the fact that greb could have a list of ruiz's on his resume.

i dont understand your 2nd partare you asking if greb beats the rings #3 is that better than beating a champ who is ranked lower?

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 05:35 PM
Oh, so you saw him use it and came to the conclusion he invented it, is that it? I mean you did say he invented it, right? Should I pull that post up?

yes.thats what i said.im sure google might tell another story,but please dont act as if you have some divine knowledge to prove that wrong.and i thought i used the word "likely".feel free to find the post

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 05:43 PM
and this why you cant be taken serious.we know ruiz is weaker than the rest because we have seen him,and he was the smallest.you refuse to acknowledge the fact that greb could have a list of ruiz's on his resume.

Now you're just making things up to save face. I never said this at all. Truth is its possible. But the fact remains that Greb was beating more highly thought of comp in his era and that is all you can judge a fighter on.

i dont understand your 2nd partare you asking if greb beats the rings #3 is that better than beating a champ who is ranked lower?

.............Exactly.

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 05:57 PM
.............Exactly.

the problem here is that it seems that you have more respect for others opinions than you do your own.were all human,we all have biases.i dont put a ton of stock in rankings of guys i havent seen or cant get video of

but if ruiz was the champ with the lower rank and 45 year old holy was #3 then i would go with ruiz being the better win

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 06:14 PM
the problem here is that it seems that you have more respect for others opinions than you do your own.

I have great respect for peoples opinions who know what they're talking about, and many of them I have to put over my own because I can admit they know more about the sport than myself.

were all human,we all have biases.i dont put a ton of stock in rankings of guys i havent seen or cant get video of

And you refuse to accept the word of people who did see them and who know more about this sport than yourself. Doesn't make any sense.

but if ruiz was the champ with the lower rank and 45 year old holy was #3 then i would go with ruiz being the better win

Ok, whatever.

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 06:20 PM
Ok, whatever.

your missing the point dude.
i have respect for bert sugars knowledge of the sport,but i lose that respect when says floyd mayweather isnt 1 of the 100 greatest boxers and he has guys on that list from the 15th century.just cause somebody knows more about the 50's doesnt mean that they have more knowledge of the 90's.and it damn sure doesnt make an opinion on a fantsy fight more valid

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 06:24 PM
your missing the point dude.
i have respect for bert sugars knowledge of the sport,but i lose that respect when says floyd mayweather isnt 1 of the 100 greatest boxers and he has guys on that list from the 15th century.just cause somebody knows more about the 50's doesnt mean that they have more knowledge of the 90's.and it damn sure doesnt make an opinion on a fantsy fight more valid

You're using one guy (Sugar) to stereotype every boxing historian, expert or trainer who has seen the fighters from the past or is well versed in their careers to dismiss their opinions. (shaking my head) tsk, tsk, tsk.

Ziggy Stardust
04-04-2010, 06:27 PM
You're using one guy (Sugar) to stereotype every boxing historian, expert or trainer who has seen the fighters from the past or is well versed in their careers to dismiss their opinions. (shaking my head) tsk, tsk, tsk.

"We don't need no education....." I'm betting he was one of those dip****s who thought all his teachers were idiots back in High School. "Don't teach me nothin'......you don't know sh1t old man" :rofl:

Poet

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 06:33 PM
You're using one guy (Sugar) to stereotype every boxing historian, expert or trainer who has seen the fighters from the past or is well versed in their careers to dismiss their opinions. (shaking my head) tsk, tsk, tsk.

well,since your so wise point me towards some who criticize these fighters,or have talk about their flaws.

look around in thisthread.all you yahoo's praising greb have never seen him fight yet i should take your opinion serious?you are the same as bert.read a book and think you know the whole story,and then try and force others to except the same nonsense

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 06:43 PM
well,since your so wise point me towards some who criticize these fighters,or have talk about their flaws.

look around in thisthread.all you yahoo's praising greb have never seen him fight yet i should take your opinion serious?you are the same as bert.read a book and think you know the whole story,and then try and force others to except the same nonsense

I don't think I know the whole story and if you want to read about his flaws pick out any newspaper article talking in depth about any particular fight. In other words, do some research instead of keeping yourself in the dark and using that as an excuse. It won't matter though because everyone else is wrong and you're the only one with his finger on the pulse, right? You haven't seen him fight yet label him overrated and dismiss the opinions of those who did see him. Yeah, that makes sense.

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 06:49 PM
I don't think I know the whole story and if you want to read about his flaws pick out any newspaper article talking in depth about any particular fight. In other words, do some research instead of keeping yourself in the dark and using that as an excuse. It won't matter though because everyone else is wrong and you're the only one with his finger on the pulse, right? You haven't seen him fight yet label him overrated and dismiss the opinions of those who did see him. Yeah, that makes sense.

i dint think you would be capable of pointing me in that direction,but what books have you read that speak on his weaknesses.i'll wait

it makes about as much sense for me to act as if he's the best thing since sliced bread acting as if everybody who saw him as the utmost integrity and credibility.that sure as hell makes alotta sense

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 06:55 PM
i dint think you would be capable of pointing me in that direction,but what books have you read that speak on his weaknesses.i'll wait

Name me a book that speaks about any fighters specific weaknesses. I'll wait. Intelligent people put pieces of a puzzle together to form an opinion, they don't just say it isn't true if I can't see it.

it makes about as much sense for me to act as if he's the best thing since sliced bread acting as if everybody who saw him as the utmost integrity and credibility.that sure as hell makes alotta sense

So even though hundreds, maybe thousands of people who saw Greb came to the same opinion they're all liars and none of them credible? You really are4 a tool.

Ziggy Stardust
04-04-2010, 06:56 PM
i dint think you would be capable of pointing me in that direction,but what books have you read that speak on his weaknesses.i'll wait

it makes about as much sense for me to act as if he's the best thing since sliced bread acting as if everybody who saw him as the utmost integrity and credibility.that sure as hell makes alotta sense

He pointed you in the right direction you're just too fvcking lazy to make the effort.

Poet

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 07:00 PM
So even though hundreds, maybe thousands of people who saw Greb came to the same opinion they're all liars and none of them credible? You really are4 a tool.

lol good lord stop avoiding questions.what books have you read that talk of his flaws?i will gladly read them also

what historian talks of his flaws,i will gladly like to listen to his opinion lol

if you havent heard or read any,then just say so.no need to pretend

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 07:26 PM
lol good lord stop avoiding questions.what books have you read that talk of his flaws?i will gladly read them also

what historian talks of his flaws,i will gladly like to listen to his opinion lol

if you havent heard or read any,then just say so.no need to pretend

If you can name one book that specifically concentrates on any one fighters flaws I'll be happy to give you an answer. Till then we go by by books, magazine and newspaper articles to form opinions. Plenty of those out there if you're willing to put in the work. I can think of three fights in particular where Greb was questioned, Tunney V, One of the Flowers fights and the Laughran fight. I'd bet there were more if I really wanted to dig deep, but that isn't my job to do your research.

EzzardFan
04-04-2010, 07:44 PM
lol good lord stop avoiding questions.what books have you read that talk of his flaws?i will gladly read them also

what historian talks of his flaws,i will gladly like to listen to his opinion lol

if you havent heard or read any,then just say so.no need to pretend

To the best of my knowledge only two books have been written that deal solely with Greb. I have a copy of this one and yes I've read all of it:

http://www.amazon.com/Fearless-Harry-Greb-Biography-Tragic/dp/0786440163/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270419910&sr=8-1

I read it about two years back, it's an in depth study of both the man and the boxer.

From recall Greb had three major flaws:

1) He fought for 5 years whilst blind in one eye.
2) In order to achieve this he had to perfect a perpetual motion hit and move and hit and move style that never kept him in one place long enough to catch. He had to do this because he couldn't see the punches coming from certain angles so he kept moving because a moving target is harder to hit. If you only have one eye then keeping moving also helps resolve any depth perspective issues. This style prevented him from planting his feet and getting set to tee-off with a big punch. As a result of this he rarely KO'd anyone in his later career which is why many of his fights either ended by TKO or went the distance.
3) Like Charley Burley he was considered to be "too good" and "too dangerous" and the guys holding the titles ducked him. If you look back up the thread you'll see from where I posted his ring time that he only ever got one world title shot (where he too the MW title) close to the end of his career. In those days there were less divisions (no super middleweight or cruiserweight) and Greb, who was a natural MW had to go up the divisions in order to find opponents. The LHW champion was Carpentier and he avoided Greb like the plague. The HW champion was Dempsey and we've already discussed that situation. Hence Greb ended up fighting much bigger men at LHW and HW, and he beat pretty much all of them except Tiger Flowers (twice) and there's some controversy over the second of those decisions.

I would highly recommend that you read the book that I linked to, it's a great story. Unfortunately there's no DVD to accompany it, but there are lots of pictures and if you flick through it really fast then this kind of looks like TV :peeright:

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 07:49 PM
To the best of my knowledge only two books have been written that deal solely with Greb. I have a copy of this one and yes I've read all of it:

http://www.amazon.com/Fearless-Harry-Greb-Biography-Tragic/dp/0786440163/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270419910&sr=8-1

I read it about two years back, it's an in depth study of both the man and the boxer.

From recall Greb had three major flaws:

1) He fought for 5 years whilst blind in one eye.
2) In order to achieve this he had to perfect a perpetual motion hit and move and hit and move style that never kept him in one place long enough to catch. He had to do this because he couldn't see the punches coming from certain angles so he kept moving because a moving target is harder to hit. If you only have one eye then keeping moving also helps resolve any depth perspective issues. This style prevented him from planting his feet and getting set to tee-off with a big punch. As a result of this he rarely KO'd anyone in his later career which is why many of his fights either ended by TKO or went the distance.
3) Like Charley Burley he was considered to be "too good" and "too dangerous" and the guys holding the titles ducked him. If you look back up the thread you'll see from where I posted his ring time that he only ever got one world title shot (where he too the MW title) close to the end of his career. In those days there were less divisions (no super middleweight or cruiserweight) and Greb, who was a natural MW had to go up the divisions in order to find opponents. The LHW champion was Carpentier and he avoided Greb like the plague. The HW champion was Dempsey and we've already discussed that situation. Hence Greb ended up fighting much bigger men at LHW and HW, and he beat pretty much all of them except Tiger Flowers (twice) and there's some controversy over the second of those decisions.

I would highly recommend that you read the book that I linked to, it's a great story. Unfortunately there's no DVD to accompany it, but there are lots of pictures and if you flick through it really fast then this kind of looks like TV :peeright:

Amongst this book, would you not say there were at least hundreds to thousands of articles written that also pointed to these flaws as well as questioning some of Grebs fights and tactics in the ring?

EzzardFan
04-04-2010, 08:31 PM
Amongst this book, would you not say there were at least hundreds to thousands of articles written that also pointed to these flaws as well as questioning some of Grebs fights and tactics in the ring?

Oh hell yeah, you just have to google him :)

And as you have hinted, I should have added that his dirty tactics were considered by many to be a flaw, although Greb himself wouldn't have seen it that way LOL.

I think we are all on a hiding to nothing here as r.burgundy seems to lack comprehension. Obviously I shouldn't really state that without seeing video footage of him walking and chewing gum at the same time though.

It's been great fun talking about Greb though :) Made me realise (again) just what a great fighter he was, and I've moved him up my ATG list as a result of the debate in this thread.

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 08:38 PM
Oh hell yeah, you just have to google him :)

And as you have hinted, I should have added that his dirty tactics were considered by many to be a flaw, although Greb himself wouldn't have seen it that way LOL.

I think we are all on a hiding to nothing here as r.burgundy seems to lack comprehension. Obviously I shouldn't really state that without seeing video footage of him walking and chewing gum at the same time though.

It's been great fun talking about Greb though :) Made me realise (again) just what a great fighter he was, and I've moved him up my ATG list as a result of the debate in this thread.

The book "The fearless Harry Greb", is it worth buying? I've been contemplating it for a couple of weeks but have heard mixed reviews on it. I got no new books at the moment so Im reading Barney Ross' biography again.

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 08:46 PM
Who are these "old timers" who don't talk objectively? Futch? Arcel? Every boxing historian? Who?

How about these guys.....

Gene Tunney observed, “Greb could move like a phantom and had ring cunning far beyond estimates made of him in the press.”

Such was Tunney’s admiration for Harry, he was a pall bearer at Greb’s funeral.
Jack Dempsey described Greb as the fastest fighter he ever saw. Irish ace Jimmy McLarnin said, “If you thought I was great, you should have seen Harry Greb.”

They probably didn't know ****, right?

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 08:48 PM
If you can name one book that specifically concentrates on any one fighters flaws I'll be happy to give you an answer. Till then we go by by books, magazine and newspaper articles to form opinions. Plenty of those out there if you're willing to put in the work. I can think of three fights in particular where Greb was questioned, Tunney V, One of the Flowers fights and the Laughran fight. I'd bet there were more if I really wanted to dig deep, but that isn't my job to do your research.

dude,if you havent read anything other than whats on boxrec,that is fine.no need for the oscar job.

youve sat here and debated for a whole thread now.why not just prove a simple point since thats what your trying to do.stop making excuses for your lack of knowledge.telling me a source,or author,or historian who criticized greb isnt ding my research.

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 08:50 PM
How about these guys.....

Gene Tunney observed, “Greb could move like a phantom and had ring cunning far beyond estimates made of him in the press.”

Such was Tunney’s admiration for Harry, he was a pall bearer at Greb’s funeral.
Jack Dempsey described Greb as the fastest fighter he ever saw. Irish ace Jimmy McLarnin said, “If you thought I was great, you should have seen Harry Greb.”

They probably didn't know ****, right?

he probally hadnt seen roy jones if he thought greb was the fastest he's seen
i dont think irish jimmy was great

EzzardFan
04-04-2010, 08:52 PM
The book "The fearless Harry Greb", is it worth buying? I've been contemplating it for a couple of weeks but have heard mixed reviews on it. I got no new books at the moment so Im reading Barney Ross' biography again.

It's worth it for the photos alone, but the writing is a little amateurish. It appears to be well researched and it is on Greb. You won't be disappointed but you won't be blown away either.

Recently I've read:

The Arc of Boxing is the best thing I've read in years. If you haven't already read this then I cannot recommend it enough.

Angelo Dundee's book which was really good. Very funny in places. Great Quotes.

Just finished The Onion Picker which gave a much broader overview of 50s boxing than anticipated.

The Jack Johnson book Unforgivable Blackness was pretty good but a little long winded. I'm guessing you've already read this though.

The new Sam Langford book Boxing's Greatest Uncrowned Champion was OK but a little dry.

Read two Archie Moore bios, The Ageless Warrior is the better of the two from a boxing perspective, nicely written and reads like the wind.

Sonny Liston: His Life, Strife and the Phantom Punch was a bit dull.

Being Sugar Ray: The Life of Sugar Ray Robinson didn't have enough boxing in it for my liking. Should have been much better.

Rocky Marciano: The Rock of His Times was pretty decent.

If I can recall any others then I'll post them up somewhere but those are the one's that most spring to mind.

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 08:53 PM
To the best of my knowledge only two books have been written that deal solely with Greb. I have a copy of this one and yes I've read all of it:

http://www.amazon.com/Fearless-Harry-Greb-Biography-Tragic/dp/0786440163/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270419910&sr=8-1

I read it about two years back, it's an in depth study of both the man and the boxer.

From recall Greb had three major flaws:

1) He fought for 5 years whilst blind in one eye.
2) In order to achieve this he had to perfect a perpetual motion hit and move and hit and move style that never kept him in one place long enough to catch. He had to do this because he couldn't see the punches coming from certain angles so he kept moving because a moving target is harder to hit. If you only have one eye then keeping moving also helps resolve any depth perspective issues. This style prevented him from planting his feet and getting set to tee-off with a big punch. As a result of this he rarely KO'd anyone in his later career which is why many of his fights either ended by TKO or went the distance.
3) Like Charley Burley he was considered to be "too good" and "too dangerous" and the guys holding the titles ducked him. If you look back up the thread you'll see from where I posted his ring time that he only ever got one world title shot (where he too the MW title) close to the end of his career. In those days there were less divisions (no super middleweight or cruiserweight) and Greb, who was a natural MW had to go up the divisions in order to find opponents. The LHW champion was Carpentier and he avoided Greb like the plague. The HW champion was Dempsey and we've already discussed that situation. Hence Greb ended up fighting much bigger men at LHW and HW, and he beat pretty much all of them except Tiger Flowers (twice) and there's some controversy over the second of those decisions.

I would highly recommend that you read the book that I linked to, it's a great story. Unfortunately there's no DVD to accompany it, but there are lots of pictures and if you flick through it really fast then this kind of looks like TV :peeright:

did i miss something here?where are the 3 flaws?he's blind ok.
but his 2nd flaw is he was just to good lmao
get serious

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 08:58 PM
dude,if you havent read anything other than whats on boxrec,that is fine.no need for the oscar job.

youve sat here and debated for a whole thread now.why not just prove a simple point since thats what your trying to do.stop making excuses for your lack of knowledge.telling me a source,or author,or historian who criticized greb isnt ding my research.

You questioning my knowledge is a joke since I've completely destroyed you in this thread and the other one. Want proof? How many more people are in agreement with than with you? Who provides the facts here and who provides the conjecture?

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 09:02 PM
It's worth it for the photos alone, but the writing is a little amateurish. It appears to be well researched and it is on Greb. You won't be disappointed but you won't be blown away either.

Recently I've read:

The Arc of Boxing is the best thing I've read in years. If you haven't already read this then I cannot recommend it enough.

Angelo Dundee's book which was really good. Very funny in places. Great Quotes.

Just finished The Onion Picker which gave a much broader overview of 50s boxing than anticipated.

The Jack Johnson book Unforgivable Blackness was pretty good but a little long winded. I'm guessing you've already read this though.

The new Sam Langford book Boxing's Greatest Uncrowned Champion was OK but a little dry.

Read two Archie Moore bios, The Ageless Warrior is the better of the two from a boxing perspective, nicely written and reads like the wind.

Sonny Liston: His Life, Strife and the Phantom Punch was a bit dull.

Being Sugar Ray: The Life of Sugar Ray Robinson didn't have enough boxing in it for my liking. Should have been much better.

Rocky Marciano: The Rock of His Times was pretty decent.

If I can recall any others then I'll post them up somewhere but those are the one's that most spring to mind.

The Onion Picker is another one I am really interested in. Have you read Don King: His life and crimes? Excellent book that also gives an in depth look at the seedy side of the sport.

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 09:10 PM
You questioning my knowledge is a joke since I've completely destroyed you in this thread and the other one. Want proof? How many more people are in agreement with than with you? Who provides the facts here and who provides the conjecture?

lmao.dude your shwoing what a goof ball you really are.only facts are that niether me,you,nor anybody who agrees with you have seen greb.thats a fact

i asked you point in the direction of some objective pieces on greb,neither you or ezzard can do that.that is a fact

last fact here is that there are disagreements about grebs record on certain fights,and you only have boxrec and google just like i do to try and get through the b.s

so keep believing in the tooth fairy.nite nite kiddy

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 09:25 PM
lmao.dude your shwoing what a goof ball you really are.only facts are that niether me,you,nor anybody who agrees with you have seen greb.thats a fact

It is a fact that some very respected and prominent people in and around boxing thought very, very highly of Greb yet you seem to put their opinions to the wayside because it doesn't suit your agenda. I mean it HAS to be a giant conspiracy where everybody is giving this guy his just do, right?

i asked you point in the direction of some objective pieces on greb,neither you or ezzard can do that.that is a fact

It is a fact that you were pointed in the right direction but as Poet pointed out you're to lazy to do the research yourself.

last fact here is that there are disagreements about grebs record on certain fights,and you only have boxrec and google just like i do to try and get through the b.s

Common sense and logic go a long ways kid. Maybe you should try it.

so keep believing in the tooth fairy.nite nite kiddy

Thats it? This is the best you got? :rofl:

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 09:36 PM
Thats it? This is the best you got? :rofl:

lolyou just dont seem to get it but i see the problem here.the problem is you have a soldier mentality.you follow orders and protocol.thats fine,but i dont live that way.all you care about is what others think.cant live your life full of other peoples ideas junior.ive said greb was likely a good fighter,but would i put him ahead of mw's like hopkins,monzon and hagler.absolutely not.would he beat lhw like jones,holy,quawi,spinks.i dont see anyway possible

as far as poiting me in the direction of google thanks a mil lol.like i said,no need to lie on a forum.you have yet to say 1 historian who spoke objectively of greb.you nor ezzard who is way ahead of you in his greb history

so like i said.post some real facts,like who spoke objectivley of greb or just chill out and stop lying.its really not that serious

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 09:44 PM
lolyou just dont seem to get it but i see the problem here.the problem is you have a soldier mentality.you follow orders and protocol.thats fine,but i dont live that way.all you care about is what others think.cant live your life full of other peoples ideas junior.ive said greb was likely a good fighter,but would i put him ahead of mw's like hopkins,monzon and hagler.absolutely not.would he beat lhw like jones,holy,quawi,spinks.i dont see anyway possible

as far as poiting me in the direction of google thanks a mil lol.like i said,no need to lie on a forum.you have yet to say 1 historian who spoke objectively of greb.you nor ezzard who is way ahead of you in his greb history

so like i said.post some real facts,like who spoke objectivley of greb or just chill out and stop lying.its really not that serious

You can find plenty of people speaking objectively if you look. You'd rather remain in the dark than admit you're wrong though.

And you can say whatever you want about me but realize one thing.....Im the one who has turned you into a complete joke on this board.

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 10:01 PM
You can find plenty of people speaking objectively if you look. You'd rather remain in the dark than admit you're wrong though.

And you can say whatever you want about me but realize one thing.....Im the one who has turned you into a complete joke on this board.

and im asking you to name 1 person whom you have "looked" at.is that so hard lol.well it wouldnt be hard if you werent lying through your keyboard

lmao.are you serious?your acting like this is a title bout.its not that serious.stop living out your dreams of boxing stardom on the net.nothing more or less.im having a good time.my friends arent heavy into boxing as i am so i dont get to talk much about it

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 10:09 PM
and im asking you to name 1 person whom you have "looked" at.is that so hard lol.well it wouldnt be hard if you werent lying through your keyboard

Ok since you want me to do your homework for you how about you sigging that you'll give me all your points when I come through? If you're so sure I am lying you should have no problem with this, right?

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 10:13 PM
Ok since you want me to do your homework for you how about you sigging that you'll give me all your points when I come through? If you're so sure I am lying you should have no problem with this, right?

i dont even know how to give points or what they are for,but your post implies that your about to go on the massive google mission.if it was that simple you woulda done so already and gave up some names like ezzard.but you obviously havent done much

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 10:16 PM
i dont even know how to give points or what they are for,but your post implies that your about to go on the massive google mission.if it was that simple you woulda done so already and gave up some names like ezzard.but you obviously havent done much

Do we have a deal or not? All you have to do is hit donate and give me ALL your e-points. I'll have what you want posted 5 minutes after you sig it. Hell, if you're a real man and give me your word in your next post I'll have it posted in mere minutes after that. Its your call. Either Im lying and look like a fool, or I've got the goods and you'll have give up the points. Deal or not?

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 10:26 PM
Do we have a deal or not? All you have to do is hit donate and give me ALL your e-points. I'll have what you want posted 5 minutes after you sig it. Hell, if you're a real man and give me your word in your next post I'll have it posted in mere minutes after that. Its your call. Either Im lying and look like a fool, or I've got the goods and you'll have give up the points. Deal or not?

Times up. It took you 3 minutes to respond to my last post. I know you already saw my last post because I went to your profile while you were viewing it. Now you are undoubtedly looking for what I know. Well, you just keep on looking and making assumption.

Ziggy Stardust
04-04-2010, 10:35 PM
This is supreme pwnage :rofl:

Poet

JAB5239
04-04-2010, 10:45 PM
This is supreme pwnage :rofl:

Poet

Whats worse is I keep finding more and more stuff. Lol, he's done! I do believe its time to move on to bigger challenges.

r.burgundy
04-04-2010, 11:38 PM
Times up. It took you 3 minutes to respond to my last post. I know you already saw my last post because I went to your profile while you were viewing it. Now you are undoubtedly looking for what I know. Well, you just keep on looking and making assumption.

lmao.cause im not glued to the net you nerd.lol.i wasnt sitting and waiting around on your responses,i was watching some fights with my pops and he dozed off lol.lord your killin me.this guy is acting like we on a.i.m or something.if you want my points you can have them

JAB5239
04-05-2010, 01:17 AM
lmao.cause im not glued to the net you nerd.lol.i wasnt sitting and waiting around on your responses,i was watching some fights with my pops and he dozed off lol.lord your killin me.this guy is acting like we on a.i.m or something.if you want my points you can have them

Hold on to your points and your illusions, its all you have left on this board. :lol1:

EzzardFan
04-05-2010, 07:12 AM
The Onion Picker is another one I am really interested in. Have you read Don King: His life and crimes? Excellent book that also gives an in depth look at the seedy side of the sport.

Almost forgot... before Christmas I read Tunny Boxing's Brainiest Champ. It as excellent. Tunny's life is the backdrop, but the book also focuses heavily on Dempsey, and devotes an entire chapter to Greb. It also covers the whole background of HW boxing from 1910 onwards and even includes a pretty good section on Benny Leonard, it's full of amusing anecdotes and very well written. 90% of the book covers the years that Tunny was active as a boxer, with his early life and retirement from boxing dealt with quite swiftly (which is a relief if you're reading it for the boxing LOL).

Here are a couple of my favourite stories from the book (I'm recounting these from memory not verbatim):

Benny Leonard the Jewish Lightweight Champ is fighting a boxer called Irish Mick Flannigan in front of a predominantly Irish crowd. The crowd are all yelling things like "kill the ****", in response to this Leonard starts dishing out a comprehensive and calculated beating to his opponent. Then Irish Mick clinches with Leonard and whispers in his ear in Yiddish "Take is easy, I'm really Jewish too". Like many other Jewish fighters he'd changed his name to get ahead and attract support from the Irish population. Leonard then mercifully KO'd him.

The night before a big title fight Harry Greb shows up obviously very much the worse for wear at a notorious speakeasy. He's staggering around with a floozy o each arm. The next morning before the fight the odds which had favoured Greb start to shift in favour of his opponent as word gets out about the previous nights shenanigans. Greb then shows up fresh as a daisy and comfortably wins. He'd been drinking ginger ale, his favourite tipple, and feigned drunkenness to improve his betting odds then gone a bet his entire purse on himself to win.

I know that you like Dempsey, and IMO this book tells his story much better than any of the dedicated Dempsey bios that I have read. It's really well written and a pleasure to read.

bklynboy
04-05-2010, 10:48 AM
Almost forgot... before Christmas I read Tunny Boxing's Brainiest Champ. It as excellent. Tunny's life is the backdrop, but the book also focuses heavily on Dempsey, and devotes an entire chapter to Greb. It also covers the whole background of HW boxing from 1910 onwards and even includes a pretty good section on Benny Leonard, it's full of amusing anecdotes and very well written. 90% of the book covers the years that Tunny was active as a boxer, with his early life and retirement from boxing dealt with quite swiftly (which is a relief if you're reading it for the boxing LOL).

Here are a couple of my favourite stories from the book (I'm recounting these from memory not verbatim):

Benny Leonard the Jewish Lightweight Champ is fighting a boxer called Irish Mick Flannigan in front of a predominantly Irish crowd. The crowd are all yelling things like "kill the ****", in response to this Leonard starts dishing out a comprehensive and calculated beating to his opponent. Then Irish Mick clinches with Leonard and whispers in his ear in Yiddish "Take is easy, I'm really Jewish too". Like many other Jewish fighters he'd changed his name to get ahead and attract support from the Irish population. Leonard then mercifully KO'd him.

The night before a big title fight Harry Greb shows up obviously very much the worse for wear at a notorious speakeasy. He's staggering around with a floozy o each arm. The next morning before the fight the odds which had favoured Greb start to shift in favour of his opponent as word gets out about the previous nights shenanigans. Greb then shows up fresh as a daisy and comfortably wins. He'd been drinking ginger ale, his favourite tipple, and feigned drunkenness to improve his betting odds then gone a bet his entire purse on himself to win.

I know that you like Dempsey, and IMO this book tells his story much better than any of the dedicated Dempsey bios that I have read. It's really well written and a pleasure to read.

Those are two great quotes. You sold me on the book. :-)

JAB5239
04-05-2010, 11:51 AM
Almost forgot... before Christmas I read Tunny Boxing's Brainiest Champ. It as excellent. Tunny's life is the backdrop, but the book also focuses heavily on Dempsey, and devotes an entire chapter to Greb. It also covers the whole background of HW boxing from 1910 onwards and even includes a pretty good section on Benny Leonard, it's full of amusing anecdotes and very well written. 90% of the book covers the years that Tunny was active as a boxer, with his early life and retirement from boxing dealt with quite swiftly (which is a relief if you're reading it for the boxing LOL).

Here are a couple of my favourite stories from the book (I'm recounting these from memory not verbatim):

Benny Leonard the Jewish Lightweight Champ is fighting a boxer called Irish Mick Flannigan in front of a predominantly Irish crowd. The crowd are all yelling things like "kill the ****", in response to this Leonard starts dishing out a comprehensive and calculated beating to his opponent. Then Irish Mick clinches with Leonard and whispers in his ear in Yiddish "Take is easy, I'm really Jewish too". Like many other Jewish fighters he'd changed his name to get ahead and attract support from the Irish population. Leonard then mercifully KO'd him.

The night before a big title fight Harry Greb shows up obviously very much the worse for wear at a notorious speakeasy. He's staggering around with a floozy o each arm. The next morning before the fight the odds which had favoured Greb start to shift in favour of his opponent as word gets out about the previous nights shenanigans. Greb then shows up fresh as a daisy and comfortably wins. He'd been drinking ginger ale, his favourite tipple, and feigned drunkenness to improve his betting odds then gone a bet his entire purse on himself to win.

I know that you like Dempsey, and IMO this book tells his story much better than any of the dedicated Dempsey bios that I have read. It's really well written and a pleasure to read.

Those are two great quotes. You sold me on the book. :-)

Agreed, Im sold too!

r.burgundy
04-05-2010, 11:58 AM
Hold on to your points and your illusions, its all you have left on this board. :lol1:

gotta love the cowgirls fans.they always seem to take after thier team..but like i told you earlier,stop trying to have a title bout on the net.its not that serious.you have shown that you havent read **** and actually tried to ride ezzards coatails causehe actually has some knowledge.do your own h.w and ten maybe yuo will see how i see.these old dudes suck

EzzardFan
04-05-2010, 12:10 PM
gotta love the cowgirls fans.they always seem to take after thier team..but like i told you earlier,stop trying to have a title bout on the net.its not that serious.you have shown that you havent read **** and actually tried to ride ezzards coatails causehe actually has some knowledge.do your own h.w and ten maybe yuo will see how i see.these old dudes suck

Having conversed with Jab on this forum over the past few weeks I can assure you that he's at least as well read as I am, if not more so.

r.burgundy
04-05-2010, 12:18 PM
Having conversed with Jab on this forum over the past few weeks I can assure you that he's at least as well read as I am, if not more so.

no he's not lol.look through the last few pages.youve clearly read more than he has.i dont if thats some false sense of modesty or your just trying to make him look credible because he agrees with you,but look the difference in your responses.i ask you to post some numbers and you did it easily.he spits some crap about"im not doing your h.w,and i'll do your h.w for your points" lol.dude is a fraud who hasnt read **** on greb or any other old boxer for that matter.he's a soldier.and soldiers usually are scared of having unpopular opinions.just look at his last few posts lol.this geek actually thought i was waiting around to reply to his posts

JAB5239
04-05-2010, 12:38 PM
gotta love the cowgirls fans.they always seem to take after thier team..but like i told you earlier,stop trying to have a title bout on the net.its not that serious.you have shown that you havent read **** and actually tried to ride ezzards coatails causehe actually has some knowledge.do your own h.w and ten maybe yuo will see how i see.these old dudes suck

no he's not lol.look through the last few pages.youve clearly read more than he has.i dont if thats some false sense of modesty or your just trying to make him look credible because he agrees with you,but look the difference in your responses.i ask you to post some numbers and you did it easily.he spits some crap about"im not doing your h.w,and i'll do your h.w for your points" lol.dude is a fraud who hasnt read **** on greb or any other old boxer for that matter.he's a soldier.and soldiers usually are scared of having unpopular opinions.just look at his last few posts lol.this geek actually thought i was waiting around to reply to his posts

Ez is a fantastic poster who I've come to respect and admire on these boards. If my knowledge isn't up to par with his I can live with that. I got no problem learning from those who can teach me something. You on the other hand.....you know **** about boxing and want other people all the facts for you while you just make baseless ASSumptions. Its kind of funny, but you're quick to respond when you think you're on to something, but no where to be found when the heat gets turned up. You've disappeared a number of times when you couldn't answer a question rather than admitting you just couldn't answer the question. You've also resorted to twisting truths, exaggerating and flat out lying. You're one of the LAST people who should be questioning anyone else's qualities as a poster.

EzzardFan
04-05-2010, 12:43 PM
no he's not lol.look through the last few pages.youve clearly read more than he has.i dont if thats some false sense of modesty or your just trying to make him look credible because he agrees with you,but look the difference in your responses.i ask you to post some numbers and you did it easily.he spits some crap about"im not doing your h.w,and i'll do your h.w for your points" lol.dude is a fraud who hasnt read **** on greb or any other old boxer for that matter.he's a soldier.and soldiers usually are scared of having unpopular opinions.just look at his last few posts lol.this geek actually thought i was waiting around to reply to his posts

But he's right, we're not your servants. Don't take anyone's word for it, look stuff up yourself and present it. It's much harder to do that than what you do, which is to try and pick holes on other people's material, and if that fails throw insults at them. You contribute nothing to the debate. Your methods are pure troll.

r.burgundy
04-05-2010, 01:08 PM
But he's right, we're not your servants. Don't take anyone's word for it, look stuff up yourself and present it. It's much harder to do that than what you do, which is to try and pick holes on other people's material, and if that fails throw insults at them. You contribute nothing to the debate. Your methods are pure troll.


lmao that is the point i been trying to get into your skulls.we can read all day,look up all day,in the end,all we can do is speculate,because we dont know lol.the same way you were able to post quotes from books,he should have been able to do the same.whats the sense in lying on the net?he's typed long ass paragraph after paragraph trying to disprove and make corny jokes yet when i ask what has he read he cant name 1 book,or has spoke objectivly and he cant name 1 author lol.he's a liar and i called him on it.as much as i would love to call you a liar,i cant cause youve obviously done the things you said

and secondly,he has been throwing insults since day 1 and in quite a few threads.he was very disrespectful towards me.so dont make it seem like i started with him 1st.you started getting outta hand also,i call you an idiot for comparing buster mathis to a klit and now you take offense.and that was after the monkey smileys,accusing me of being an alias,and callin me a troll..stop acting like a girl.its ok to disagree and do respectfully,which you or jab dont seem to understand

JAB5239
04-05-2010, 01:18 PM
lmao that is the point i been trying to get into your skulls.we can read all day,look up all day,in the end,all we can do is speculate,because we dont know lol.the same way you were able to post quotes from books,he should have been able to do the same.whats the sense in lying on the net?he's typed long ass paragraph after paragraph trying to disprove and make corny jokes yet when i ask what has he read he cant name 1 book,or has spoke objectivly and he cant name 1 author lol.he's a liar and i called him on it.as much as i would love to call you a liar,i cant cause youve obviously done the things you said

and secondly,he has been throwing insults since day 1 and in quite a few threads.he was very disrespectful towards me.so dont make it seem like i started with him 1st.you started getting outta hand also,i call you an idiot for comparing buster mathis to a klit and now you take offense.and that was after the monkey smileys,accusing me of being an alias,and callin me a troll..stop acting like a girl.its ok to disagree and do respectfully,which you or jab dont seem to understand

So now you're a liar and a racist! You must be so proud of yourself!:omfg:

r.burgundy
04-05-2010, 01:28 PM
Ez is a fantastic poster who I've come to respect and admire on these boards. If my knowledge isn't up to par with his I can live with that. I got no problem learning from those who can teach me something. You on the other hand.....you know **** about boxing and want other people all the facts for you while you just make baseless ASSumptions. Its kind of funny, but you're quick to respond when you think you're on to something, but no where to be found when the heat gets turned up. You've disappeared a number of times when you couldn't answer a question rather than admitting you just couldn't answer the question. You've also resorted to twisting truths, exaggerating and flat out lying. You're one of the LAST people who should be questioning anyone else's qualities as a poster.

i respect EZ also.i respect you as well.but not everybody will have the same opinion and theres no need for lying.only facts i asked you for were the name of some books you read and the name of some authors who spoke objectively.then like a typical liar,you cant do that.i dont dont disapear lol .i have a ****ing life.im on the net a certain times and usually no longer than 1 hour lol.please post 1 lie.you can have all my points if you do

JAB5239
04-05-2010, 01:31 PM
i respect EZ also.i respect you as well.but not everybody will have the same opinion and theres no need for lying.only facts i asked you for were the name of some books you read and the name of some authors who spoke objectively.then like a typical liar,you cant do that.i dont dont disapear lol .i have a ****ing life.im on the net a certain times and usually no longer than 1 hour lol.please post 1 lie.you can have all my points if you do

You said Larry Holmes fought everybody. Now man up and give me the points.

EzzardFan
04-05-2010, 01:33 PM
lmao that is the point i been trying to get into your skulls.we can read all day,look up all day,in the end,all we can do is speculate,because we dont know lol.the same way you were able to post quotes from books,he should have been able to do the same.whats the sense in lying on the net?he's typed long ass paragraph after paragraph trying to disprove and make corny jokes yet when i ask what has he read he cant name 1 book,or has spoke objectivly and he cant name 1 author lol.he's a liar and i called him on it.as much as i would love to call you a liar,i cant cause youve obviously done the things you said

and secondly,he has been throwing insults since day 1 and in quite a few threads.he was very disrespectful towards me.so dont make it seem like i started with him 1st.you started getting outta hand also,i call you an idiot for comparing buster mathis to a klit and now you take offense.and that was after the monkey smileys,accusing me of being an alias,and callin me a troll..stop acting like a girl.its ok to disagree and do respectfully,which you or jab dont seem to understand

The issue that I have with you is that you have not contributed one post of any substance to this thread. This was a good thread about Harry Greb and several people were happily enjoying the debate.

Now since I've been kind enough to post stuff that you have requested, perhaps you'd be kind enough to return the favour. Please highlight what you consider to be the most valid, constructive, and informative, post of any substance that you have contributed to this thread. And then the rest of us can all rate it OK?

r.burgundy
04-05-2010, 05:42 PM
[/B]
You said Larry Holmes fought everybody. Now man up and give me the points.

i'll give you my pints when
A)you show 1 thing i lied on
b)you called me a racists for some odd reason.id like an explanation
c)you admit frazier didnt fight everybody
d)you admit your not well read when its come greb,and you couldnt find what i was asking

r.burgundy
04-05-2010, 05:51 PM
The issue that I have with you is that you have not contributed one post of any substance to this thread. This was a good thread about Harry Greb and several people were happily enjoying the debate.

Now since I've been kind enough to post stuff that you have requested, perhaps you'd be kind enough to return the favour. Please highlight what you consider to be the most valid, constructive, and informative, post of any substance that you have contributed to this thread. And then the rest of us can all rate it OK?
but heres a prime example of what im talking about and the problem with not being able to see.this is taken from espn which is 1 of todays most credible sports networks.
http://espn.go.com/sports/boxing/blog/_/name/boxing/id/5021795/age-losses-mellowed-roy-jones

"Roy Jones Jr.'s hands don't flash with the lightning rapidity they used to. The days in which he could stand in front of an opponent and make him miss time and again, or stick out his chin with his hands behind his back, then produce a knockout with a punch from seemingly nowhere, are in the past.

At his peak, Jones seemed impossible to hit and barely lost a single round. But he has lost five of his past 10 fights, three of them by knockout, the most recent a first-round stoppage by unheralded Danny Green."

now if there was no vid of roy,and all we had to go were articles.reading that top paragraph would make somebody think he was borderline invincible and superhuman.but weve all seen roy and as incredible as we was,he fought limited opposition.there is no getting around that.

glen kelly was 28-0 when he fought roy,so if i dont know any better and im reading about roy and i see he k.o'd somebody 28-0 with his hands behind his back,my mind would go crazy.but ive seen glenn,and he was a bum.he had no realistic shot at winning that fight regardless of record.so to act as if guys like glenn just suddenly popped up in the 80's is silly.these guys have been around since the beginning of prize fighting.

im not trying to take away these guys status,but i cant put them on the same pedestal as guys im actually able to see.do you agree that seeing is believing?

JAB5239
04-05-2010, 06:14 PM
[/B]
You said Larry Holmes fought everybody. Now man up and give me the points.

please post 1 lie.you can have all my points if you do

i'll give you my pints when
A)you show 1 thing i lied on
b)you called me a racists for some odd reason.id like an explanation
c)you admit frazier didnt fight everybody
d)you admit your not well read when its come greb,and you couldnt find what i was asking

Did you not write the above? Now that I've exposed you again you want to change the parameters of the deal you made? Lol!!

A. I already showed it.
B. You used the word "monkey" as a description of a poster...that is racist.
C. I NEVER said Frazier fought everybody to begin with.
D. I know tons more about Greb than you and I'll be happy to give you the links once you turn over the points you owe me.

EzzardFan
04-05-2010, 06:58 PM
lmao that is the point i been trying to get into your skulls.we can read all day,look up all day,in the end,all we can do is speculate,because we dont know lol.the same way you were able to post quotes from books,he should have been able to do the same.whats the sense in lying on the net?he's typed long ass paragraph after paragraph trying to disprove and make corny jokes yet when i ask what has he read he cant name 1 book,or has spoke objectivly and he cant name 1 author lol.he's a liar and i called him on it.as much as i would love to call you a liar,i cant cause youve obviously done the things you said

and secondly,he has been throwing insults since day 1 and in quite a few threads.he was very disrespectful towards me.so dont make it seem like i started with him 1st.you started getting outta hand also,i call you an idiot for comparing buster mathis to a klit and now you take offense.and that was after the monkey smileys,accusing me of being an alias,and callin me a troll..stop acting like a girl.its ok to disagree and do respectfully,which you or jab dont seem to understand

but heres a prime example of what im talking about and the problem with not being able to see.this is taken from espn which is 1 of todays most credible sports networks.
http://espn.go.com/sports/boxing/blog/_/name/boxing/id/5021795/age-losses-mellowed-roy-jones

"Roy Jones Jr.'s hands don't flash with the lightning rapidity they used to. The days in which he could stand in front of an opponent and make him miss time and again, or stick out his chin with his hands behind his back, then produce a knockout with a punch from seemingly nowhere, are in the past.

At his peak, Jones seemed impossible to hit and barely lost a single round. But he has lost five of his past 10 fights, three of them by knockout, the most recent a first-round stoppage by unheralded Danny Green."

now if there was no vid of roy,and all we had to go were articles.reading that top paragraph would make somebody think he was borderline invincible and superhuman.but weve all seen roy and as incredible as we was,he fought limited opposition.there is no getting around that.

glen kelly was 28-0 when he fought roy,so if i dont know any better and im reading about roy and i see he k.o'd somebody 28-0 with his hands behind his back,my mind would go crazy.but ive seen glenn,and he was a bum.he had no realistic shot at winning that fight regardless of record.so to act as if guys like glenn just suddenly popped up in the 80's is silly.these guys have been around since the beginning of prize fighting.

im not trying to take away these guys status,but i cant put them on the same pedestal as guys im actually able to see.do you agree that seeing is believing?

If we only had access to that one paragraph. But we don't have to look to far to find out the truth about Roy, and it would be possible to do that without seeing him fight.

JAB5239
04-05-2010, 07:49 PM
If we only had access to that one paragraph. But we don't have to look to far to find out the truth about Roy, and it would be possible to do that without seeing him fight.

But Ezzard, how could it be? According to some logic in this thread anything written today about Roy will have to be looked at 90 years from now as nostalgic and half truths remembered fondly by old timers. NO WAY a fighter could be that good with out any video to back it up. Its impossible!!

Do you mean to tell me you would actually trust the words of someone else and the eyes of people who DID see him? BLASPHEMY!!

bklynboy
04-05-2010, 09:04 PM
but heres a prime example of what im talking about and the problem with not being able to see.this is taken from espn which is 1 of todays most credible sports networks.
http://espn.go.com/sports/boxing/blog/_/name/boxing/id/5021795/age-losses-mellowed-roy-jones

"Roy Jones Jr.'s hands don't flash with the lightning rapidity they used to. The days in which he could stand in front of an opponent and make him miss time and again, or stick out his chin with his hands behind his back, then produce a knockout with a punch from seemingly nowhere, are in the past.

At his peak, Jones seemed impossible to hit and barely lost a single round. But he has lost five of his past 10 fights, three of them by knockout, the most recent a first-round stoppage by unheralded Danny Green."

now if there was no vid of roy,and all we had to go were articles.reading that top paragraph would make somebody think he was borderline invincible and superhuman.but weve all seen roy and as incredible as we was,he fought limited opposition.there is no getting around that.

glen kelly was 28-0 when he fought roy,so if i dont know any better and im reading about roy and i see he k.o'd somebody 28-0 with his hands behind his back,my mind would go crazy.but ive seen glenn,and he was a bum.he had no realistic shot at winning that fight regardless of record.so to act as if guys like glenn just suddenly popped up in the 80's is silly.these guys have been around since the beginning of prize fighting.

im not trying to take away these guys status,but i cant put them on the same pedestal as guys im actually able to see.do you agree that seeing is believing?


Now that's a good point. However it is ONE article by one writer. If you had dozens, if not hundreds of articles all saying much the same thing; if you had his opponents and trainers and other boxing insiders saying he was a great fighter you would (or at least I would) accept that Roy Jones Jr. was considered by his contemporaries to be one hell of a fighter.

If that's all we had to go by, and no film of his contemporaries, we would have to shrug our shoulders and not list Roy Jones amoung the greats for we would have no way to know.

But that is not the case with Harry Greb. It's true we don't have any film of him, BUT we have film of his opponents like Gene Tunney. There were also some VERY good fighters that were in their prime, and on film, only a few years after Greb died (he died at 32, Floyd Mayweather Jr. is 33) and many people who saw both said Greb was better. This would not be a case of men romanticizing their youth. It's only a question of 15 - 20 years. A 60 year old doesn't romanticize the fighters he saw in his 40s.

Greb was somebody special. How special nobody knows. I don't know how anyone can come up with a TOP 10 middleweight list and not have him there. In the TOP 10 P4P I can see not placing him there because we don't know, but, at the very least, he deserves an honorable mention.

r.burgundy
04-05-2010, 09:58 PM
Now that's a good point. However it is ONE article by one writer. If you had dozens, if not hundreds of articles all saying much the same thing; if you had his opponents and trainers and other boxing insiders saying he was a great fighter you would (or at least I would) accept that Roy Jones Jr. was considered by his contemporaries to be one hell of a fighter.

If that's all we had to go by, and no film of his contemporaries, we would have to shrug our shoulders and not list Roy Jones amoung the greats for we would have no way to know.

But that is not the case with Harry Greb. It's true we don't have any film of him, BUT we have film of his opponents like Gene Tunney. There were also some VERY good fighters that were in their prime, and on film, only a few years after Greb died (he died at 32, Floyd Mayweather Jr. is 33) and many people who saw both said Greb was better. This would not be a case of men romanticizing their youth. It's only a question of 15 - 20 years. A 60 year old doesn't romanticize the fighters he saw in his 40s.

Greb was somebody special. How special nobody knows. I don't know how anyone can come up with a TOP 10 middleweight list and not have him there. In the TOP 10 P4P I can see not placing him there because we don't know, but, at the very least, he deserves an honorable mention.

there are many articles at that time talking about his behind the back k.o..i just took the 1 from the most credible source of today which is espn.but the point about the article wasnt to highlight roy.it was to shed some light on who he did it against.glen kelly was 25-0 when he fought roy and was a top contender.much like grebs foes were upper tier contenders.only difference is we have the video to know that even tho kelly was 25-0 he was no threat whatsoever to win that fight.so what im saying is,how many guys in 250 fights did greb fight that were really capable of winning.now imagine if roy retired on that note and never fought tarver or johnson?imagine if calzhage carried his exact same resume back to grebs days,or even ricky hatton who has only lost to 2 atg fighters.

every generation has some truly special fighters and i dont really think theres a ton of seperation from the best of the best at the lower weights,but mw on up,i think there is a huge gap between the talent of old and new fighters.its easy to look at greb and say he musta been special cause he won so much,but ive only seen vid of tunney and i was far from impressed.tunney would not be a titlist fighting today

as far as greb to floyd,greb died in 26.somebody born in 1920 would be 90,so there arent many around who saw both.my father is 63.he says the best boxers he's ever seen were in order ray robinson,ali,ray leonard,duran,and mayweather.he said he's never seen anybody switch from offense to defense as fluidly as mayweather.

i agree he should make any top 10 mw list but p4p all time,i think should be reserved for guys we can actually see.

r.burgundy
04-05-2010, 09:59 PM
But Ezzard, how could it be? According to some logic in this thread anything written today about Roy will have to be looked at 90 years from now as nostalgic and half truths remembered fondly by old timers. NO WAY a fighter could be that good with out any video to back it up. Its impossible!!

Do you mean to tell me you would actually trust the words of someone else and the eyes of people who DID see him? BLASPHEMY!!


well we wouldnt have to trusty anybody but our own eyes being that theirs tons of vid to make good judgement

r.burgundy
04-05-2010, 10:04 PM
If we only had access to that one paragraph. But we don't have to look to far to find out the truth about Roy, and it would be possible to do that without seeing him fight.

we would have to look damn hard to find the truth about roy if he died young like greb and fought in the time of no video.do and experiment and find some pre-tarver articles and compare to greb

now if roy fought in the 20's and tarver fought in the 90's and i said i think tarver would beat roy,i would get laughed out of house and home.well they fought,and tarver won

r.burgundy
04-05-2010, 10:09 PM
[/B]



Did you not write the above? Now that I've exposed you again you want to change the parameters of the deal you made? Lol!!

A. I already showed it.
B. You used the word "monkey" as a description of a poster...that is racist.
C. I NEVER said Frazier fought everybody to begin with.
D. I know tons more about Greb than you and I'll be happy to give you the links once you turn over the points you owe me.

im really startin to think your illiterate.i gave an opinion on what i thjought of holmes resume.my opinion is not a lie being as how it is not a fact

im black socrates.so why would i use monkey to describe a poster.if you took time to read instead of bein so quick to attack.i said he used a monkey smiley in reference to me goofus

JAB5239
04-05-2010, 10:20 PM
im really startin to think your illiterate.i gave an opinion on what i thjought of holmes resume.my opinion is not a lie being as how it is not a fact

im black socrates.so why would i use monkey to describe a poster.if you took time to read instead of bein so quick to attack.i said he used a monkey smiley in reference to me goofus

Look Ron Im getting tired of going back and forth with you. If I misread the "monkey" statement you have my apology. As far as Greb goes you're in the severe minority with you thinking. You seem very close minded or it could be you're just being stubborn. About Frazier....we both have our opinions. I done entirely disagree with your opinion I just think there is more to take into consideration than you're willing to do in this particular thread. And Im pretty sure you did say Holmes fought everybody. That wouldn't be an opinion, but a statement of fact. Its no matter. I don't want your points and I've tired of flaming and going in circles. Lets just get back to civil debate. If we agree, cool. If we don't....so what. Cool?

bklynboy
04-05-2010, 11:30 PM
as far as greb to floyd,greb died in 26.somebody born in 1920 would be 90,so there arent many around who saw both.my father is 63.he says the best boxers he's ever seen were in order ray robinson,ali,ray leonard,duran,and mayweather.he said he's never seen anybody switch from offense to defense as fluidly as mayweather.


I wasn't clear. I don't think many people saw both Greb and Mayweather (that's a span of more than 70 years). The point I was trying to make was that many 30 and 40 year old professionals and boxing insiders saw Greb and then, in the next several years saw many excellent middleweight from Tiger Flowers and Mickey Walker to Zale, Graziano, La Motta and Robinson. Not to mention fighters in other divisions, Barney Ross, Willie Pep, Henry Armstrong, Joe Louis.

Harry Greb was consistently ranked among the best almost always in the TOP 5 and often in the TOP 3 behind SRR and Henry Armstrong.

Let me restate this:

A boxing insider (fighter, trainer, promoter) gets in the game at 15 or so and stays in the fight game until 65 or so. Many started younger and many, such as Cus d'Amato, stayed in the game way past 65.

Say you're 30 years old in 1915 you would have seen (if you were lucky enough to have been there) Ketchel and Johnson in their prime. At 40 you would have seen Greb and Dempsey, Harry Wills and Tiger Flowers, Benny Leonard and others. In your 50s you would be seeing Barney Ross, Henry Armstrong and Joe Louis. In your 60s you would be seeing Willie Pep and SRR.

You have seen some kick-ass fvcking fighters in your professional career. This professional man in his 60s will not be romanticizing a fighter who came along while he was in his 30s.

If it was the consensus of boxing professionals that Harry Greb is among the TOP 5 of that era I believe it. It's up to us to compare that era with this era.

McGoorty
07-23-2011, 12:53 PM
Newspaper decisions were quite a feature in that era, no decision was made by the referee so they went with the majority of newspapers reporting.
Re judging a fighter you haven't seen you just have to take a view maybe read some writers who did see them and whose opinion you respect and also take into account fighters that they beat who you have seen. Regarding Greb there is a fair bit of footage of Tunney, Walker and Loughran floating around tha shows them to be great fighters so any figter holding wins over them must himself have been pretty good, no?
Yeah Greb only stopped when a sick man and Tunney a bigger man, 299 fights, dominated, no question Greg was great, after all it's not the method that matters just the result. Regarding ND newspaper verdicts, that situation was mostly an American peculiarity during that period. All the big fights in Australia were 20 rounds with official judges, so there is much more certainty of the verdict. Darcy has no newspaper decisions on his record, handy for us.

McGoorty
07-23-2011, 01:20 PM
Harry Greb's Best Wins: (number of wins over that opponent)
(http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9046&cat=boxer)

(http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9046&cat=boxer)
Gene Tunney (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9046&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer – World Heavyweight Champion – Beat Dempsey twice
Tommy Loughran (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11326&cat=boxer) (4) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Jimmy Slattery (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11337&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Maxie Rosenbloom (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11349&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Jack Dillon (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11273&cat=boxer) (2) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Battling Levinsky (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10598&cat=boxer) (6) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Mike McTigue (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11287&cat=boxer) (2) – World Light Heavyweight Champion
Mickey Walker (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9035&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer – World Welterweight & Middleweight Champion
Tiger Flowers (http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11336&cat=boxer) Hall of Famer – World Champion Middleweight Champion
Mike Gibbons (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11267&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer
Tommy Gibbons (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11254&cat=boxer) (2) – Hall of Famer – Went 15 rounds with Dempsey for Heavyweight Title
Kid Norfolk (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11318&cat=boxer) (1) – Hall of Famer
Billy Miske (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10592&cat=boxer) (2) – Hall of Famer - Fought Dempsey for Heavyweight Title
Jack Blackburn (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11022&cat=boxer) Hall of Famer as a trainer
Al McCoy (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10530&cat=boxer) (2) – World Middleweight Champion
George Chip (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11253&cat=boxer) (2) – World Middleweight Champion
Johnny Wilson (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11328&cat=boxer) (3) – World Middleweight Champion
Eddie McGoorty (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11292&cat=boxer) (1) – Claimed World Middleweight Champion
Willie Meehan (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10585&cat=boxer) (2) – Beat Dempsey twice
Gunboat Smith (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11290&cat=boxer) (2) – Top Heavyweight
Bill Brennan (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10603&cat=boxer) (4) – Fought Dempsey for Heavyweight Title
Augie Ratner (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11283&cat=boxer) - Defeated four world champions in his career
Young Ahearn (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11269&cat=boxer)
Jeff Smith (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11274&cat=boxer)
Soldier Bartfield (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11280&cat=boxer)
Leo Houck (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11295&cat=boxer)
Tommy Robson (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11298&cat=boxer)
Bartley Madden (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11303&cat=boxer)
Tommy Robson (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11298&cat=boxer)
Joe Borrell (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11242&cat=boxer)
Bob Moha (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11264&cat=boxer)
Chuck Wiggins (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11300&cat=boxer)
Jack Renault (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11315&cat=boxer)
Charley Weinert (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=13546&cat=boxer)
Billy Shade (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11321&cat=boxer)
Homer Smith (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10589&cat=boxer)
Lou Bogash (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11329&cat=boxer)
Bryan Downey (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11330&cat=boxer)
Jackie Clark (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11259&cat=boxer)
Jimmy Delaney (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11340&cat=boxer)
Jack Reddick (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11345&cat=boxer)
Roland Todd (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=11354&cat=boxer)
Allentown Joe Gans (http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=40820&cat=boxer)
Jeff Smith also was a "claimant for the world MW title" was the Australian version or the WMWT, the so called champion Al McCoy was beaten by all of the top 10 MW's except of course Darcy who would've made very short work of McCoy, McCoy lost a few to Chip, Clabby and others. You would think in this day and age when there are a hundred odd WORLD CHAMPIONS and 7 to infinity per division No one today can point the finger, in fact after Walker the division usually had two champs for well over a decade when it stabilised with the reign of underated (today) Tony Zale. Anyway after Darcy we have Greb to thank for dominating the rest.

McGoorty
07-23-2011, 01:27 PM
Re the win over Norfolk, I wonder why the IBHOF has it the other way around: "Norfolk dropped the “Human Windmill” in the first round and captured the 10 round newspaper decision"?

Does BoxRec, where the fight is listed as a win for Greb, have one group of historians/experts who votes in Greb's favour - while another group at IBHOF reaches the opposite conclusion (after reviewing the same newspaper reports, I presume)? Seems strange to me... and if the fight was that close, would a draw not be a fair result?
I saw that BoxRec had Kid Norfolk getting a D.Q. Win in that fight, but is it accurate ??

McGoorty
07-23-2011, 01:36 PM
he looks terrible in his training and I think i've seen him spar. He may have been good in his day but nobody is going to convince me he'd beat Duran, Leonard etc


Harry Greb is the Bruce Lee of boxing, nobody has seen him fight yet he's p4p the greatest
I don't think those early films of big names sparring, I have seen a lot of them and I am yet to see one where they don't appear to ham it up a bit bit. Greb sparring Philadelphia Jack is just playing it up, just remember their fancy for Vaudeville, I mean nobody would survive long back then mucking about in a real 20's fight, does it look Fair Dinkum to any of you.

ghns1133
07-23-2011, 02:10 PM
maybe if u dont understand you should read about him.

McGoorty
07-23-2011, 02:27 PM
you keep sating "better fighters".well i ask better in terms of what?it cant be based on skill cause most of them havent been seen.at feather i think pacqiuo would maul anybody pep faced,pep included.so using pac as my example,how on earth can we say somebody like ray famechon,or sandy saddler is better than barrera,morales or marquez?they arent.but being that pep is over 200 fights,how is it fair to manny when you can a case that fought better comp in less fights?

but lets take an even more logical look.there arent 20 good fighters in any 1 division today,regardless of sanctioning body or ranking.but somebody has got to be a champ and somebody has got to be ranked 1-20,so i thinks its silly to assume that pep fought 20 capable opponents regardless of what bert sugar says.this is no bias,or hate.its just simple math.the most loaded div in i can recall was middle with bhop,roy,toney,mccallum etcand more recently welter and super middle and those were at tops 10 fighters deep.no way in hell these old fighters fought 20+ credible fighters
First you said that there's a small number of decent fighters in each division then seem to claim that moderns are better BECAUSE OF THAT ???// Not logical, do you have any idea how many boxers needed cash back in the 00's, twenties and thirties for instance in the U.S. alone. Slums galore, abject poverty and money to be made all you had to do to get it was to risk getting your head punched in. instead of say twenty good jr WW's, there were hundreds of hungry fighters in every city trying to make it into the bigger money fights. Those condition's are still alive in Asia, East Rurope Mexico so the baton has passed. Today's fighters are given """WORLD Interim CHAMPION'''' Belts, some very ordinary boxers are goin' around the world telling us that they are 3 Weight div. world's CHAMPEEN's (Fitzsimmons, Ross, Armstrong, Canzoneri anyone ???), and Charley Burley couldn't even get a shot ??? and they say that the belt that Jeff Smith, Eddie McGoorty and Les Darcy wern't proper world Champs, How Absurd, insulting even to guys who had to survive and conquer in 20 round fights with some real destroyers. AND 5 and 6 oz gloves, these men were iron hard, Ray leonard would've busted his hands on Greb's head and Harry would carve him up, bit like a hairdresser fighting Spartacus in the arena. Today's fighters should forego a few months training a year and fight more often instead of trying to turn a 16 Million dollar paycheck into an 18 Million dollars and taking 12 months to sign, and then maybe they'd get a 150 or more fight's experience and we might produce a true top 20er.So welcome to Harry's world of sacrifice and pain,............ ......... What is the WBU or WBf or WWWWWWUUUFFFBBBBB , WHAT ???

McGoorty
07-23-2011, 03:26 PM
this post is filled with tom foolery.1st off,just like any other sport,boxing advances.better athletes,more sophisticated techniques.the more athletic you are the more your capable of doing.and thats not a theory,thats a fact.i can walk you across some sports if you like to show this.so to say a fighter out the 20's,who you or nobody else on here could have possibly laid eyes on is better is just ignorant.

post proof that there are less boxers today please?
fighters fought once a month cause purses where tiny,so fights were less complicated to make.but a better buisness model,doesnt mean fighters are less talented.i agree that it causes less matchups to be made tho

there are way more gyms and clubs than ever before.especially do to the fact that in this age of million dollar purses,thats where alotta fighters choose to put there money.larry holmes,joe frazier,kelly pavlik,mark breland to name a few

to say there are less trainers with experience is also silly.prize fighting as we know it is little over a century old.so therefore guys like bouie fisher and alton merkeson would have way more experience than a trainer out of the 40,50,or even 60's.only way a trainer out the 20's or 30's could have similar experience is if they were doing it since birth.

yes refereing is sometimes poor,but there are way more rules and these prima donnas need to be protected.depending on what period your talking about boxers used to have a 30 count to get up from a k.d.if saddler was fighting in this age he would lead boxing in d.q's.he wasnt tough.he was just plain dirty.

heavys in those days were less than 200lbs so of course they would move faster.but marciano,and louis,werent exactly speed demons so i dont know what heavys your refering to that are moving so quickly.mike tyson probly has the fastest hands in heavy history,and he's modern

nobody cared,cause less money was at stake.you wanted to make alot of money.you had to fight.alotta those guys back then had 2 and 3 jobs.in this day and age of million $ purses,i cant in call anybody a ducker.lets look at judah,he took a tough fight with baldomir before floyd and lost.that cost him about 3 mil.bad gamble.

they same way contenders were manufactured now,is the same way they were back in the days.its called marketing.only difference is there is no film all of those old contenders so nobody can see how bad or good they were.we just have to take peoples words.

# of k.os we see today is cause guys are much bigger and stronger.this is just a fact.no need to dispute it.in boxing moreso than other sports,size really matters.imagine if mike tyson or lennox lewis hit some of the 170 lb guys joe louis fought.that would be a homicide

and as usual,you guys who live in the fantasy world miss the point.even if everything does go to 3d,we still have tons of video of the 2d guys.and if you think a newspaper article of the hometown hero is better than your own 2 eyes you might need your head examined
And you call yourself an expert ????????? HAW HAW HAW, less fights equals a better fighter than The vastly more experienced man forged in regular combat. I can just imagine JULIUS CAESAR allowing his Xth Leg. to go to a callithstenics camp with all the modern conveniences and have their mummies tuck them in at night, instead of forced marches and Daily weapons drills, and the odd crucifixion to let 'em know who's boss, cause all that old fashioned army stuff they learned in WAR, is just stoopid old people trying to look wise. You see warriors sleep on the ground rain, hail or bombardment. The boxers of old fought under rules that remind one of the U.F.C. more than this 12 rd run away fests we've had since the mid 80's. Why don't you make two TOP 100 lists, one for ANY fighter who has never been filmed, and another for everybody who has been, then both camps might end up happy. But then how do you compare Bantams to Light Heavies, oops another Quandary.

PunchesNbuncheS
07-23-2011, 04:06 PM
Just a simple question to R. Burgundy.





Since you seem to hold Leonard and Mayweather in such high regard (as I do too), what if you had been born 100 years later and all of the footage of Leonard and Mayweather had disappeared somehow and you never got the chance to see what they were like in a fight. All you had was their records against the fighters that they faced during their time. Would you question were they would rank just because you didnt see them like youre doing with Greb?

JAB5239
07-23-2011, 04:15 PM
I saw that BoxRec had Kid Norfolk getting a D.Q. Win in that fight, but is it accurate ??

It is accurate but misleading. Neither Greb nor Norfolk had any love loss for one another and Norfolk started the fouling with Low blows and charging Greb with his shoulder and butting him out of the ring. From there the ref lost all control and it was a very dirty fight by both men. At the end of the 6th Norfolk hit Greb with a vicious right slightly after the bell and Greb went after him punching with both hands and they continued to fight for 30 seconds after the bell until their corners, the commissioner and police broke it up. Once the fighters were in their corners the ref declared Norfolk the winner by DQ. At the time it was a close fight many thought Greb was winning. The decision had been made but commissioner Gene Buckley later made it clear that in his estimation Norfolk was the first offender. A week later Massachusetts suspended both fighters for 6 months.

In a side note: By this time Greb was losing site in his eye after being thumbed in the first fight by Norfolk and needing surgery.[/FONT]

McGoorty
07-23-2011, 05:19 PM
where much more accurate at measurement because we can review video"cough,cough"

boxers throw less punches because alot of them are bigger and stronger and defense has evolved.fighters fight at a more measured pace.paticularly the bigger weight classes
So that's the technological breakthrough eh, less punches wins fights, so 122 punches over 12 short rounds will beat 1622 punches and their DEFENCE IS BETTER AS A RESULT, GUFFAW,,, he haw he ha,,,,, GUFFFFFFAWWWWWW,,,, OHH,,,, I'm done for,.. and they are bigger and stronger ( I'll give you the heavyweight's if you want ? and good riddance, people rubbish the Klitchko's but it's all the #### y other bums), SINCE WHEN WAS a WELTERWEIGHT NOT a WELTERWEIGHT ????? ,,,,,, As I said about the less is more theory, GUFFAWWHW !!!!!!!! Do an experiment, you can use a Crimean war single shot rifle and I'll use a UZI but you'll have the BIG ADVANTAGE of less is more, Gee I've got no hope with all those hundreds of bullets a second, I need a REDBULL.

SCtrojansbaby
07-23-2011, 05:32 PM
There's enough footage on Greb's opponents to make a judgement on how good he was.. One thing's for sure - he didn't sit inside a sprawling country mansion for months on end wearing silk pyjamas, and waiting for a an offer in excess of 10 million bucks to persuede him into the gym..

Here is another thing for sure is that if he could wait in a mansion for 10 Million dollar offers he and every other fighter would.

JAB5239
07-23-2011, 06:02 PM
Here is another thing for sure is that if he could wait in a mansion for 10 Million dollar offers he and every other fighter would.

And they wouldn't be as great of a fighter because of it. You judge things on what actually happened, not what you think may have happened had the circumstances been different.

McGoorty
07-23-2011, 06:04 PM
my facts are strait.roy won a hw title,greb didnt.is that incorrect?
Beating That 4 rd sub-bum prelim tent fighting amateur John Ruiz ????????????????????? JIMMY WILDE would've K.O.'d RUIZ the worst joke (you're just re-inforcing the overall weakness of your argument) in the 300 years of boxing history, in your wildest dreams can you imagine Danny Green Knocking out Harry Greb, can you ,........ and if you answer that Green's vitamin pills are the answer,,,..................... we're done,,,,,,,,,,,,So how did Jones inherit John L. Sullivan's heavyweight Belt,.... he scored history's biggest borefest, yeah boxing's Improved since SUGAR RR and Willie pep who'd won near 200 fights before we see him on film in his past prime and looks brilliant to me,. I don't get it first they want film of GREB, but they then try to lamely prove with Film that ZAB or some other mod is better than the BEST Featherweight in 80 years at least. Last point, ever wonder why the Tarvers of boxing are hitting their peaks in their 40's now, EXXXPERIENCE, more than 39 fights but 50 plus. Just Imagine RAY LEONARD with 170 fights under his belt and still only 27, FIVE times Smarter and Tougher,...get the pic.

SCtrojansbaby
07-23-2011, 06:12 PM
And they wouldn't be as great of a fighter because of it. You judge things on what actually happened, not what you think may have happened had the circumstances been different.


LOL man you're stupid

JAB5239
07-23-2011, 06:16 PM
LOL man you're stupid

Really? Tell me what Im wrong about than.

SCtrojansbaby
07-23-2011, 06:23 PM
Really? Tell me what Im wrong about than.

You think that some ancient business model makes you a better fighter

JAB5239
07-23-2011, 06:30 PM
You think that some ancient business model makes you a better fighter

What the hell are you talking about? Fighting the best and doing it often makes you a better fighter. And as I said greatness is judged by what has actually happened, not some fantasy guess of "Here is another thing for sure is that if he could wait in a mansion for 10 Million dollar offers he and every other fighter would."

SCtrojansbaby
07-23-2011, 07:03 PM
What the hell are you talking about? Fighting the best and doing it often makes you a better fighter. And as I said greatness is judged by what has actually happened, not some fantasy guess of "Here is another thing for sure is that if he could wait in a mansion for 10 Million dollar offers he and every other fighter would."


Yes Harry Greb hated money he would have never tried to make more of it... lol yeah who is the one making the fantasy guesses again?

JAB5239
07-23-2011, 07:43 PM
Yes Harry Greb hated money he would have never tried to make more of it... lol yeah who is the one making the fantasy guesses again?

You. Im not the one making assumptions on what a fighter may have done if he had 10 million dollars, am I? Like I said, greatness is judged on what has actually happened, not what you think would happen if circumstances were different.

Now do me a favor. Either grow up and post like an adult or go post in NSB. Your snide remarks and insults are annoying myself and other posters. If you can't act right you will be asked to leave.

SCtrojansbaby
07-23-2011, 08:47 PM
You. Im not the one making assumptions on what a fighter may have done if he had 10 million dollars, am I? Like I said, greatness is judged on what has actually happened, not what you think would happen if circumstances were different.

Now do me a favor. Either grow up and post like an adult or go post in NSB. Your snide remarks and insults are annoying myself and other posters. If you can't act right you will be asked to leave.


First of all who have I ever insulted that didn't insult me first?and its ok for others to make and "snide remarks" towards me but I make a few myself and you want me banned?

As for Harry Greb everything you think you know about him as a boxer is an assumption because you have never seen him fight heard him talk or barely even know what he looks like. For all you know he could of been a Sven Ottke type of fighter

JAB5239
07-23-2011, 08:53 PM
First of all who have I ever insulted that didn't insult me first?and its ok for others to make and "snide remarks" towards me but I make a few myself and you want me banned?


First off you insulted me by calling me stupid. Second, worry about yourself and I'll worry about everyone else. Third, if I want you out of this section you will be gone. Im trying to give you an opportunity, so grow up!

As for Harry Greb everything you think you know about him as a boxer is an assumption because you have never seen him fight heard him talk or barely even know what he looks like. For all you know he could of been a Sven Ottke type of fighter


Is that so? So everything written in history is also an assumption, correct? And newspaper accounts, magazine articles and the testimonials from other fighter, many who fought him are assumption to, right? Stop being so naive.

SCtrojansbaby
07-23-2011, 10:18 PM
Is that so? So everything written in history is also an assumption, correct? And newspaper accounts, magazine articles and the testimonials from other fighter, many who fought him are assumption to, right? Stop being so naive.

EVERY fighter sounds amazing when you're reading about them .

JAB5239
07-23-2011, 10:25 PM
EVERY fighter sounds amazing when you're reading about them .

So what you're saying is every newspaperman, magazine writer, historian, fighter and former foe made up the exact same story about Greb and his abilities as a fighter, and nobody ever felt the need to contradict them till now? THAT is quite a conspiracy my friend. :thinking:

Ziggy Stardust
07-24-2011, 12:46 AM
Is that so? So everything written in history is also an assumption, correct? And newspaper accounts, magazine articles and the testimonials from other fighter, many who fought him are assumption to, right? Stop being so naive.

"Sven Ottke" type fighters don't have a win over a prime Gene Tunney......just sayin' :boxing:

Poet

Marchegiano
07-24-2011, 01:05 AM
EVERY fighter sounds amazing when you're reading about them .

Nah, twelve rounds of a Klitschko jabbing some fat guy is even worse when you've got to read it.