I dont get Harry Greb's boxing Record

[EzzardFan]

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]

[/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]

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/blo...owed-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]

[/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]

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/blo...owed-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]

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]

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/blo...owed-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]

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]

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]

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