I dont get Harry Greb's boxing Record

[louis54]

the golden age fighters were the best. period

[mickey malone]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

[QUOTE]

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]

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]

[QUOTE=JAB5239;7964208]

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]

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?

[Telepath]

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.