I dont get Harry Greb's boxing Record

[bklynboy]

where much more accurate at measurement because we can review video"cough,cough"

boxers throw less punches because alot of them are bigger and stronger and defense has evolved.fighters fight at a more measured pace.paticularly the bigger weight classes

There's no particular reason a middleweight of today can throw harder punches than one 80 years ago or 180 years ago or 480 years ago. (I know boxing as a sport didn't exist 480 years ago but people were throwing punches at each other back then.)

Do you think that if we went back to 16th Japan and took their best warriors and measured their punches that today's boxers would be far superior? Do you think that the best warriors from Thailand, Meso-America, Africa or Europe wouldn't have punches on par with today's fighters?

We're just talking about punching power here. Nothing else

[EzzardFan]

boxers throw less punches because alot of them are bigger and stronger and defense has evolved.fighters fight at a more measured pace.paticularly the bigger weight classes

The only ones who are bigger are the heavyweights where there is no upper weight limit. Having said that there have always been big heavyweights, it's just that prior to the introduction of the cruiserweight division the big heavyweights often got beaten by the smaller ones. The smaller fighter being able to impart similar momentum into their punches but by virtue of greater speed and mobility to strike faster, more frequently, and more effectively.

If you really think that defence has evolved then go and view some 2D video of Jack Johnson, Maxie Rosenbloom, Benny Leonard, Tommy Loughran, Gene Tunny, Willie Pep, Ezzard Charles, and 1960s vintage Ali.

Todays boxers fight at a more measured pace because they are unable to maintain the average of 300 punches per round which Marciano was clocked at. If they could sustain those punching volumes over 15 rounds then they would because clearly that's a big advantage.

[The Hate Giver]

OK - just for you I'll go back and dissect your post from page 8:

That first section is essentially an attack on me. "You would favor...", "You just want to...", "You keep making it", "If your life depended...", "you get off in...", "you would abandon" etc. Please spare us the mind reading and the accusations.

Umm... how am I supposed to respond to that, it's borderline incoherent.

If you say so.

Absolutely nothing.....

Have you read any of my other posts on this forum? For example:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=352394

On the issue of racism we are in heated agreement. However the racism mainly affected the heavyweight division, the other divisions frequently had black champions. This thread is about Harry Greb. Greb dished out equal opportunities beatings to black fighters, brown fighters, yellow fighters, white fighters. He'd have happily taken on a green Martian if one had landed his flying saucer in the ring. You couldn't have picked a less accurate example of racism if you'd tried.

I took that to be a rhetorical question.

So now you are trying to quarantine racism to the heavyweight division? All black people had no equal rights & suffered racism, but acccording to you in sports it only extended to the heavyweights. ok. suuure.

Jackie Robinson must be rolling in his grave right now.

I never accused greb of racism. Dont know if he is or isnt but the powers that be, the referees, promoters, judges in that time period were all white in a racist time where black people didnt get equal rights IN LIFE. How much more in sports where people pay money to see their white fighters beat on a black man. A lot of fighters to this very day suffer racially. How much more in the 20s,30s,40s, & 50s?

As you are already aware I disagree on this. I am extremely sceptical on the subjects of sports science and sports nutrition. You haven't actually presented an argument here, just stated your opinion. There's nothing for anyone to respond to.

I have never claimed that today's athletes are physically inferior. I do support the claim that today's boxers are less experienced and therefore technically inferior in terms of their boxing skills.


Well they aren't! Physically they are top athletes, as were the boxers back then. There's noting much between them other than perhaps a bit of airbrushing. And the current crop of boxers are imbued with just as much natural talent, and in many cases incredible reflexes. The point that I've been making is that someone with 10 hours of fight time isn't going to have the experience or gleaned the ring craft of someone like Greb that had clocked up 150 hours of fight time. The boxers in the golden era had honed their craft in a way that is no longer possible due to various external factors.

A great fighter with 200 fights vs a great fighter with 40-50 fights? I truly dont think technical superiority is that big of a difference. If you are classified as a great fighter with 40-50 fights i reckon you basically got your **** together & have proper boxing technique, have the confidence in what you do & how to get the job done. You act as if a great fighter with 100-200 fights is gonna be so overwhelmingly superior to a great fighter with 40--50 fights.

Greatest modern era example julio cesar chavez vs pernell whitaker;

Chavez had what close to 90 fights, while whitaker had less than 40 fights. HOw did that fight go?

A great fighter with 200,100 fights is BASICALLY THE SAME technically, confidently, craftily, strategically as a great fighter with 40-50 fights.

You already stated that. But boxing is greater than the sum of it's punches. Having the best punch doesn't win fights, otherwise those guys that punch through bricks would be the world champions. Boxing is about: confidence, observation, remaining relaxed, deception, peripheral vision, mobility, range, defense, timing, counter strking, balance, weight transfer, leverage, and tactics. And most of all heart.


That's an accusation. How am I supposed to respond to that. The people on this thread are having a debate. Take Bundana there for instance (since you've already cited one of his posts). You don't see him throwing accusations about do you?

I'm not an art critic so I wouldn't know.

That's another accusation followed by another failed attempt at mind reading.

What do you mean "visually see 2d", like as opposed to smelling 2d? Of course I can "visually see 2d", anyone that isn't blind can see something that is 2d. If you want to try this for yourself then take your eyes of the TV for a minute a look at something called a "photograph" (note to other posters - apologies for the sarcasm but the OP was extremely forceful in his request that I respond to this post).

Absolutely nothing. The 2d/3d comment was aimed at you saying this;

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!

You can see & make a accurate analysis of how great a fighter is in 2d or 3d compared to old newspaper articles & analysis from old men. Because old men remember everything accurately & vividly.

Umm I guess so.

That is a great first attempt at logic, specially coming from someone who dabbles in mind reading. In fact the way you constructed that sentence it was almost predicate calculus. Keep it up. Unfortunately I'm going to have to counter it. I'm not an expert on boxing, and I doubt that you are either. If we were to watch a fight with half a dozen of boxing's greatest trainers then there's a high probability that they'd see a lot of things that we don't and that their impression of what took place would be more accurate than ours. That's why I am happy to accept that expert opinions are more reliable than my own eyes when it comes to boxing analyses. That's why I am happy to accept expert accounts of Harry Greb from 85 years ago. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Greb in action but I'm not vain enough to think that I'm better placed to analyse his capabilities than Ray Arcel. Bert Sugar is a different case as he was primarily a journalist.

Absolutely nothing. Of course Ray Arcel & Bert Sugar are gonna say old fighters are greater. Where are they from? Who did they admire growing up? Of course they are gonna favor oldschool fighters for the sake of preserving history & their fighters time's greatness. Ray Arcel said that benny leonard was a superior fighter than roberto duran. You can believe that. I wont. Just like i wont believe Phil jackson when he says kobe is better than michael.

That's an insult. There's no need to bring insults into a debate. When someone resorts to insulting someone else it's usually because they feel unable to argue their own position effectively, because they've been outclassed.

You mean hypothetically? OK I'll play. I pick Greb. What now?

The world does not revolve around you LOL. This thread is about Harry Greb not you. There was no conspiracy. You really need to get some sleep.


I'm 39 years old so obviously I haven't seen Greb fight. Was that a trick question LOL?

Just as i thought. Never seen the man fight yet so sure of his refined style. Absolutely dishonest.

Here are some more stats, just for you, although I think some others *AHEM* might also find them interesting:

PLEASE NOTE: THESE NUMBERS ARE AT TIME OF FIRST TITLE WIN, NOT CAREER TOTALS:

Harry Greb - 234 official bouts. 2,078 rounds. 104 hours of officially recorded fight time.

Bernard Hopkins - 29 recorded bouts. 131 rounds. 6.5 hours of officially recorded fight time.

THE FOLLOWING NUMBERS ARE CAREER TOTALS:

Harry Greb - 299 official bouts. 2,590 rounds. 129.5 hours of officially recorded fight time.

Bernard Hopkins - 57 recorded bouts. 408 rounds. 20.4 hours of officially recorded fight time.

***

I rest my case.

So harry greb wins because he fought more times, more rounds? I have already explained this earlier. This fight would more than likely resemble whitaker chavez. another whitewash landslide victory by the black fighter followed by your usual robbery by the white establishment. Statistics can be very misleading.

We're also much more accurate at measuring performance, particularly time. In a certain sports like tennis, many people feel that the technology has spoiled the game, by focusing more on the serve rather than the clever stuff. I'd have to agree with this. These days it seems like tennis favours the bigger stronger player and we no longer see the epic battles of the Borg-McEnroe era (which I am old enough to remember).

That's why federer is winning all these grand slams. power. Forget his amazing skillset & incredible ad libbing of creative shots. Lets all credit the racket. No wonder andy rod**** has so many grands slams because tennis favours bigger stronger players.

whoops.

Todays boxers fight at a more measured pace because they are unable to maintain the average of 300 punches per round which Marciano was clocked at. If they could sustain those punching volumes over 15 rounds then they would because clearly that's a big advantage.

Is that done by compubox 1960 or a old man with a foggy monocle & a feather tip pen?


Absolute horse****.

Im done with this thread.

[EzzardFan]

Is that done by compubox 1960 or a old man with a foggy monocle & a feather tip pen?

This is the only coherent part of you post which doesn't accuse me of being a liar or a racist, so I'll deal with that and ignore the rest of your diatribe.

They had moving pictures back then (hell they even had TV), so they can retrospectively measure it the same way as they can modern fights. Alternatively you can bring his fights up on YouTube, play them in slow-mo and count them yourself.

[Telepath]

Im done with this thread.

Yes, and you should be.

You're intellectually inferior to and you have less experience than the person you fail to try to debate with.

Now go **** off.

[r.burgundy]

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!

this is a nice objective post.as far as history,nobodys debating what did and didnt happen.were not debating the end ,were debating the middle.which is highly debatable cause all we kow is and ending.the middle provides the plot.so based on this you imply greb could k.o jones because he's been k.od 3 times before based on the fact that greb fought a 25lb heavier guy and wasnt k.o'd.well how about the guy didnt try hard ala clottey/pacman,or johnson/klitscho.jones at mw was close to unbeatable.he aso fought a heavy and won unlike greb.the fact that the outcome of a fight is debateable doesnt give any credibility whatsoever to your argument.it really should open your eyes up.

think of how many absolutely terrible decision weve seen over the past 20 years,now imagine if there was no video of them.in 1 of the worst decisions in history holyfield was given a draw against lewis.thanks to video,anybody who watched that fight knows it was a crime.we cant do the same for fighters like greb.and i dont know about you,but me being educated and a free thinker,i dont think highly of other peoples opinions when i form my own.yes it is fact that greb beat every great fighter from his era,but its also very reasonable to say that alot of the fighters were oly great for that paticular era.

[r.burgundy]

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?

i wouldnt say i put no value,i just take everything with a grain of salt.most old timers dont talk objectively.like i said,when i hear bert sugar criticize,and talk about the flaws of these old fighters,that is when i can take their words more seriously

[JAB5239]

i wouldnt say i put no value,i just take everything with a grain of salt.most old timers dont talk objectively.like i said,when i hear bert sugar criticize,and talk about the flaws of these old fighters,that is when i can take their words more seriously

Who are these "old timers" who don't talk objectively? Futch? Arcel? Every boxing historian? Who?

[r.burgundy]

Who are these "old timers" who don't talk objectively? Futch? Arcel? Every boxing historian? Who?

pretty much.ive never really heard futch go in depth except when talking of his own fighters,but bert sugar is tops of my list.

as far as this thread goes,look at you and some other guys posts.to hear you guys tell it greb didnt have any flaws.nobody talks about his flaws because the focus is more on the fights and the fact that he won.you act as if its unreasonable to think that he had any flaw that would be exploitable.

[EzzardFan]

he aso fought a heavy and won unlike greb.

Greb fought every HW who would take him on and beat them all. He as never granted a title shot because Dempsey ducked him after Greb dominated him in sparring to the extent that Kearns ran Greb out of the training camp. If you're going to debate here then please at least get your facts straight.