The pre-WW2 boxers are vastly overrated but today's so called "experts" and "historians" love to romanticize these guys and the casuals eat it up. The old timers were ok for their time but boxing has since changed and improved drastically throughout the ages.
The way I see it, if one weren't there to witness these guys fight live, then it's silly to even try to rank these guys or their greatness.
You have to evaluate old guys according to the times they fought, not by modern standards.
I will always respect Sam Langford much more than Andre Ward.
The guy beat 15 Hall of Famers, went 50-0 in one year and regularly beat guys 30 pounds heavier than him, including giving Tunney his only loss in 80+ fights. He was 5'8 with a 71 inch reach and weighed less than 160 and he beat up Heavyweight Champions. That's basically like Crawford going in and beating up on Usyk or Briedis.
I respect his credentials, and don't get me wrong, he must have been good in his day.
That shadow boxing is s*** tho, I don't care what anyone says.
In 100 years time some kid on futureinternet will be looking at a gif of Fury uppercutting himself "lulz no way this guy was good"
Yeah fair point lol.
The guy beat 15 Hall of Famers, went 50-0 in one year and regularly beat guys 30 pounds heavier than him, including giving Tunney his only loss in 80+ fights. He was 5'8 with a 71 inch reach and weighed less than 160 and he beat up Heavyweight Champions. That's basically like Crawford going in and beating up on Usyk or Briedis.
In 100 years time some kid on futureinternet will be looking at a gif of Fury uppercutting himself "lulz no way this guy was good"
LMFAO excellent point.
Many of those very old timers were badly overrated because the guys rating them were as old as they are. When you see actual film of them it is plain to see they were not very good compared to the best more recent boxers. Boxers made very little money back then so the was not much reason for a athletic young man to become a pro boxer.
I laugh when I see these young ass dudes whose never seen Harry Greb fight listing him as the greatest whatever..
If you didnt live through his time as a boxing fan, you cant really analyze him. How the fuk can anybody break him down when they never saw him fight live? Hearing folk tales from grandfathers dont count, that sht is laughable.
Ive been crazy about Boxing since the late 80s yet i dont know enough about Harry Greb to rate him. I dont care what the old timers claim.
From the wack ass black and white footages ive seen of him lmfao, he would get the dog sht beaten out of him by any modern contenders.
Hell, Julian Williams and Chavez Jr would beat the crap outa him.
That's exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you, good post.
He doesn't look anything special to me.
1925 newsreel footage of all-time great middleweight Harry Greb training #boxing #history pic.twitter.com/vLEZeHKTHe— Boxing History (@BoxingHistory) August 25, 2016
The pre-WW2 boxers are vastly overrated but today's so called "experts" and "historians" love to romanticize these guys and the casuals eat it up. The old timers were ok for their time but boxing has since changed and improved drastically throughout the ages.
The way I see it, if one weren't there to witness these guys fight live, then it's silly to even try to rank these guys or their greatness.
I laugh when I see these young ass dudes whose never seen Harry Greb fight listing him as the greatest whatever..
If you didnt live through his time as a boxing fan, you cant really analyze him. How the fuk can anybody break him down when they never saw him fight live? Hearing folk tales from grandfathers dont count, that sht is laughable.
Ive been crazy about Boxing since the late 80s yet i dont know enough about Harry Greb to rate him. I dont care what the old timers claim.
From the wack ass black and white footages ive seen of him lmfao, he would get the dog sht beaten out of him by any modern contenders.
Hell, Julian Williams and Chavez Jr would beat the crap outa him.
Many of those very old timers were badly overrated because the guys rating them were as old as they are. When you see actual film of them it is plain to see they were not very good compared to the best more recent boxers. Boxers made very little money back then so the was not much reason for a athletic young man to become a pro boxer.
In 100 years time some kid on futureinternet will be looking at a gif of Fury uppercutting himself "lulz no way this guy was good"
This is a good point. There's some unflattering footage of Fury out there, doesn't mean he's no good.
Lol what even is the point of this thread? You can do the same thing with almost any other sport. It would be pretty messed up if your sport couldn't evolve in a hundred years.
Humans were less evolved back then. Im pretty sure i could knock this punk out and probably a third of the posters on here could. The rest of you sorry sissys share your wives
Fury destroys any of these old timers.
But stay on topic pls.
Still campaigning for mod, I see.
Remember dumb-dumb, Tyson Phooey would NOT last in the 19th century ; no way does he fight over 100 times, and most importantly there were no PED's, and fighters back then used open palm-striking, along raking the face Gypsy-style -- so his advantageous are nullified.
Cya sunshine, I can tell I upset you.
BOMBSQUAD!!!
He was a middleweight giving Tunney, future heavyweight champion, his only defeat. he fought him at jr. heavyweight.
I guess he was very good.
I'm sure he was, 100 years ago.
No way he beats any modern boxer.
I'm just going off what i see with my own eyes.
How anyone can look at that footage and say he's the best fighter of all time is beyond me.
I wouldn't say anything about anyone after only seeing training footage. No different than sparring.