Greb vs Robinson

[JAB5239]

Lol you maybe the worst poster here and that is saying something. Besides Rocky Marciano fanboys every other poster here will occasionally make a intelligent comment. But 100 percent of the stuff you type is just utter ******ity. There is no footage of Greb but there is footage of other guys from the era be it Gene Tunney, Jack Dempsey, Sam Langford ect. All of these fighters were crude by modern standards. Logic will state Greb was just as crude. So because some so called boxing "Historian" states Greb could beat guys from more skilled era's doesn't mean anything. It is like Bert Sugar having the top 10 heavyweights of all time and having Ezzard Charles, Rocky Marciano, Gene Tunney, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson,. Neither one of these guys are heavyweights by modern standards, some of these guys weren't skilled by modern standards but he has these guys on the list over Lennox Lewis for example.

Greb was a crude fighter and so were every other fighter from that era. Any decent middleweight from the 1960's to today would destroy him.

The film was crude, not all the fighters. Tunney, Loughran, Langford, Dempsey, Gibbons....all some of the finest practitioners of the sweet science. Because you don't know what you're looking at doesn't make fighters any less great.

[QueensburyRules]

Are you as ****** in your day to day life as you are here? There most certainly is a difference from being blind in one eye from the get go compared to there being a possibility (no guarantee) of impaired vision. If you use your logic not only was Greb blind in one eye, he was always at risk of having his vision impaired in the other. Congratulations you have just won the grand prize playing the perpetually slow, dim and ******.

- - Functionally there is no difference between you and a turnip. Tiger was just as physically disabled and worn out as was Greb as his record would prove after that fight. Boxing is something you did but never understood.

[JAB5239]

- - Functionally there is no difference between you and a turnip. Tiger was just as physically disabled and worn out as was Greb as his record would prove after that fight. Boxing is something you did but never understood.

So you are laying off your claim Flowers was blind and admitting Greb was. Excellent, you're making progress. You're still a Turd, but you've graduated from steaming Turd.

[QueensburyRules]

So you are laying off your claim Flowers was blind and admitting Greb was. Excellent, you're making progress. You're still a Turd, but you've graduated from steaming Turd.

- - I stated they were both past it as their records show, and neither could even survive their era, so I leave you to your banal disrespect of arguing over 2 great fighters giving their all in their day.

[billeau2]

Lol you maybe the worst poster here and that is saying something. Besides Rocky Marciano fanboys every other poster here will occasionally make a intelligent comment. But 100 percent of the stuff you type is just utter ******ity. There is no footage of Greb but there is footage of other guys from the era be it Gene Tunney, Jack Dempsey, Sam Langford ect. All of these fighters were crude by modern standards. Logic will state Greb was just as crude. So because some so called boxing "Historian" states Greb could beat guys from more skilled era's doesn't mean anything. It is like Bert Sugar having the top 10 heavyweights of all time and having Ezzard Charles, Rocky Marciano, Gene Tunney, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson,. Neither one of these guys are heavyweights by modern standards, some of these guys weren't skilled by modern standards but he has these guys on the list over Lennox Lewis for example.

Greb was a crude fighter and so were every other fighter from that era. Any decent middleweight from the 1960's to today would destroy him.

"crude" is an ambigious term at best... ThemApples posts usually mention specific reasons for his opinions. Your off on so many levels: many of those old "crude" looking fights, when remastered start to look amazing. It is all there on Youtube... What you call crude is the difference between fighting under different conditions. Look at bare knuckles fighting today...it looks like a parody of boxing, and there are actually many reasons. Among the reasons, most bare knuckle guys are not that good, But, in bare knuckles you have different priorities. You have to protect the hands, be more precise (though also less accurate) it is fundamentally different than boxing with modified hand protection.

Combat has not changed like sports. Japanese Ju Jutsu, in its many forms, including the hybrid Judo, still essentially works the same as it did in the time JuJutsu became codified... Striking each other is the same. Ancient human beings had much more body awareness and had to learn how to maximize their weapons, including the fist. Boxers have not "evolved" only the rules and conditions that protect them.

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE=QueensburyRules;n31849444]

- - I stated they were both past it as their records show, and neither could even survive their era, so I leave you to your banal disrespect of arguing over 2 great fighters giving their all in their day./QUOTE]

You suggested because they both died having surgery that Flowers was blind n
because of scar tissue, equating it to Grebs actual blindness in one eye. Were you to drunk to remember that? Its in the thread, you can go back and look.

I'd say both did incredibly well during their era, especially greb who fought more hall of fame fighters and all time greats than if not the most than nearly more than any other fighter in history. You of course Ewell refuse to take into account the number of fights he had and blindness because it probably doesn't suit your agenda.

Mind you, I was arguing over two great fighters, I was arguing over your perpetual ******ity.

[shawnkemp804]

"crude" is an ambigious term at best... ThemApples posts usually mention specific reasons for his opinions. Your off on so many levels: many of those old "crude" looking fights, when remastered start to look amazing. It is all there on Youtube... What you call crude is the difference between fighting under different conditions. Look at bare knuckles fighting today...it looks like a parody of boxing, and there are actually many reasons. Among the reasons, most bare knuckle guys are not that good, But, in bare knuckles you have different priorities. You have to protect the hands, be more precise (though also less accurate) it is fundamentally different than boxing with modified hand protection.

Combat has not changed like sports. Japanese Ju Jutsu, in its many forms, including the hybrid Judo, still essentially works the same as it did in the time JuJutsu became codified... Striking each other is the same. Ancient human beings had much more body awareness and had to learn how to maximize their weapons, including the fist. Boxers have not "evolved" only the rules and conditions that protect them.

Lol you can remaster skill levels now? If you think boxing skills haven't evolved from 1910 to today then you get a big ole fashion ignored. Bye bye.

[JAB5239]

Lol you can remaster skill levels now? If you think boxing skills haven't evolved from 1910 to today then you get a big ole fashion ignored. Bye bye.

Freakin clown ignores anyone he can't debate against. Such a brilliant tactic.

[historical boxing society]

Freakin clown ignores anyone he can't debate against. Such a brilliant tactic.

It's almost like he never read a ring magazine. They state so much how boxing took decline's from a particular era to the next era. They never preached that each new era was the best era and that's a pleura of different writers in ring magazine.. Obviously trainers had a huge impact many of the best were from the original era such as Jack Blackburn he didn't just start teaching guys in the Joe Louis era.

Stating every old fighter is crude is just ridiculous. Even more ridiculous passing judgement on a fighter with no film like your option is a fact (its not)
There was a guy on here who made a great post about film transfer I think it was Kara (but im not sure). But he had beautiful insight on it. The film speed & poor quality leads to a severe deception was basically his take.

Certainly there was an abundance of crude fighters in the white hope era but you can't group them all together particularly all the weight classes.

[JAB5239]

It's almost like he never read a ring magazine. They state so much how boxing took decline's from a particular era to the next era. They never preached that each new era was the best era and that's a pleura of different writers in ring magazine.. Obviously trainers had a huge impact many of the best were from the original era such as Jack Blackburn he didn't just start teaching guys in the Joe Louis era.

Stating every old fighter is crude is just ridiculous. Even more ridiculous passing judgement on a fighter with no film like your option is a fact (its not)
There was a guy on here who made a great post about film transfer I think it was Kara (but im not sure). But he had beautiful insight on it. The film speed & poor quality leads to a severe deception was basically his take.

Certainly there was an abundance of crude fighters in the white hope era but you can't group them all together particularly all the weight classes.

Good post. Let's not forget there was only one camera angle as well back then.