How do people have the nerve to say Harry Greb would be competitive in any era?

Maske, that fighter from a hundred years ago?

I stopped hatin' on the old timers once it clicked with me that if Carl Froch could be a success in today's era, a lot of those guys could as on film they are clearly faster and more 'skilled'.

 

To be honest... we just don't know. What we do know is that he is the only man that ever got a win vs. Tunney. He also beat Maxie Rosenbloom, Mickey Walker, Tiger Flowers, Tommy Loughran, and a bunch of other good fighters. He lost some but was never dominated.

He probably could have done well in any era actually. Do people talk about him too much? Probably

 

Ok.

 

Soldier Bartfield

 

Because of his awesome record. Greb beat more greats, HoFers/Champions/Champions-to-be than just about anybody else in all of boxing history. He beat top men much larger than himself. (We can clearly see how great some of his victims, like Tunney were on film). He ducked no one, black or white, fought 'em all, and towards the end of his career with only one eye. He fought over 300 times, racking up more fights in one year (45, I think) than some modern fighters have in their entire protected careers. Greb was phenomenal. We will never see his like again.

As for the the strange 'training footage' against the 55 year old gym owner, Jack O'Brien, here's some thoughts I've previously posted on the Classic forum:

People today live with cameras all around them and photos and film bombarding their senses every day.

But back then it was a real novelty to have a camera pointed at you, and people didn't know how to act naturally.

For example, in a Channel 4 documentary about the history of pornography it was noted that the earliest nude models no idea how to act sexily for the camera. They tended to freeze up, or act unnatural. Of course, nowadays, even children (see the ridiculous American child beauty pageants) know how to put on an act, pouting and preening for the camera.

Look at early movies. There was no 'naturalistic' acting to start off with. So people did what they thought was expected of them...which was usually act in a very, overblown, theatrical way...because theater was the medium people knew. They hadn't grasped the potential of film yet. (I can remember watching Karloff's 'The Mummy' 1932, where everyone seems to make a speech and dramatically exit stage left.)

Harry Greb had little understanding of film, and was acting as he was instructed for the camera. Making a recording of a fighter was probably a novelty to the camera man, too! Maybe they thought the film would come out more clearly if Greb acted in a more deliberate, artificial way.

 

But how would Froch do in the 90s or 80s for that matter? Froch is pretty much a gatekeeper today with a few decent wins.

 

Not a massive stretch to imagine fighters or already acknowledged a looking better than Froch doing even better than him.

Ward wouldn't beat Mustafa, Galindez, Saad etc etc either

 

Nice to see you here, Chaney. Pop in more often.

 

:thumbsup

He was one tough cookie though, and every one has an Achilles´heel. Perhaps Bartfield was Greb´s stylewise? And losing a few if you fight as often as he did you´ll bound to lose some.

 

thanks PP

 

Greb is the GOAT, deal with it...best resume of all time.....

 

I used to think this same thing.





Then I learned about boxing.


Here's some wise advice: Pull your head from your ass and do some research. You may change your mind.

 

It's so easy to be a troll here.

 

:deal