I dont get Harry Greb's boxing Record

[r.burgundy]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[StarshipTrooper]

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

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?

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

Poet

[r.burgundy]

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

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

[StarshipTrooper]

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

Poet

[r.burgundy]

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

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]

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]

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?