Who Has The Best Winning Resume At175lbs?

Thats like saying the Pac-Bradley series is 1-1 only ten times worse because Greb was that much better than Tunney in their rematch. Furthermore if you are going to give the last fight to Tunney (which everyone does) then you have to give the fourth fight to Greb since he won the majority of newspaper decisions. Bottom line is that Tunney didnt have a decisive win until their last fight and Greb entered that with a broken rib which was reaggravated in the bout. People will always believe what they want to believe but the sources are there, go look at them yourself. I have no interest in rehashing old threads in which Ive hammered the above opinion into the dust using actual sources as opposed to tired old tales that have been mistaken for fact in the retelling.

 

True. Either way Greb's LHW resume is miles ahead of Tunney's

 

It's almost funny how Kid Norfolk is brushed aside as everyone hails Greb as so great at 175 ( which he was ) when Norfolk essentially gave Greb his two hardest, nastiest bouts .. it's like Pep and Saddler ..

 

I just stated the facts.
Yes, I've heard that most newspaper men (not all) had Greb winning the rematch too.
Two of the judges had Tunney winning, that makes Tunney the winner. Those are the rules. They may have been way off, I don't know.
I can't see the fight for myself, so I'm not sitting here to overrule it. We can view Pacquiao-Bradley as much as we like.

Unless you want to share footage of the fights, the rest of us will remain in the dark.

 

Ok, in that case, the series at 175 :

2-1 Tunney and 1 ND.

 

I 'give them' to no one.
They were NO DECISION bouts, they went the full distance.
I haven't seen them.

 

Whatever. Keep your head in the sand. The title specifically states "RESUME" as in overall "RESUME." Care to make a case for why Tunney's RESUME should be rated as better than Grebs at LHW??

 

Nobody brushes Norfolk aside but why should we go out of our way to mention him alongside Greb when his resume wasnt as good at any weight and he never asserted his dominance over Greb. Struggling with Gus Christie, Gunboat Smith, and Clay Turner, all of whom Greb owned, in Norfolks prime is hardly the stuff of legends. His resume comes up pretty short at every weight he fought at. Some might argue he was avoided, and thats true to a degree, but against those that didnt avoid him he was hardly dominant.

That being said Norfolk was a HW for their first bout and there was a great deal of speculation as to the actual weight of both fighters for the second bout.

 

No, I don't care to make that case. I never said anything of the sort.

I merely stated the record. The facts.
Your claim that Greb achieved "THREE WINS" against Tunney is false.

 

No its not. If the judges get it wrong and/or are fixed in the process then their ruling means nothing to me. I dont believe that Bradley ever beat Pac. I dont believe Valuev beat Holyfield. I dont believe that Toney beat Tiberi. I dont believe Park beat Roy Jones and I damn sure dont believe Tunney beat Greb in their second fight. Given that and the fact that he won the ND in their fourth then I stand by my assertion that Greb notched three wins against Tunney's 2 and I find it ridiculous to claim that Tunney "defeated" Greb more than twice. If you want to keep pretending that judges are infallible and not corrupt on occasion then the discussion can end here because there is no point arguing such nonsense. Otherwise, my claim (and the claim of experts at the time) that Greb notched three wins against Tunney is well supported and well documented.

Just for everyone in the cheap seats here so we can clarify your position: Do you believe Park DEFEATED Jones??

 

I trust that you've seen those fights.

.. but have you seen this fight ?

Are you more "damn sure" about a fight you haven't even seen ?

1. It's not a "fact" that Greb "won" the fourth fight ND. It was an ND.

2. I've never pretended that judges are infallible and not corrupt.
You do seem to have that opinion of the "newspapers" collective though.

3. I certainly haven't claimed that Tunney "defeated Greb more than twice".
In fact, I've stated he has exactly TWO wins against Greb, and one of those was a hotly disputed decision.

 

You're making the weakness of your position obvious with this line of argument.


Anyway, for "everyone in the cheap seats", here's the fight you requested.

[yt]KMa4nGf9hSY[/yt]

Enjoy. People are free to score it for themselves. :good

 

Like I said: whatever. If you knew what you were talking about youd be worth arguing with but you dont. Im sure some Korean newspapers thought Park won. Im also equally sure that when a vast majority of papers voted Greb over Tunney, including a majority of papers from Tunney's hometown and neutral papers, and knowing that Greb was never "the house fighter" and never had the money or influence to pay off so many writers to write favorable copy for him and also knowing that Tunney used his influence with politicians, the mob, and even his friendship with the ranking member of the Athletic Commission at that point to influence the fight in his favor, well, thats all I need to know. But you go on pretending that just because some crooked ass referee voted against Greb that the win was legit. Or that the majority was wrong every time out. Or that bad boxing decisions only happen when you can watch them on film. Pure ignorance. The decision in their second bout was legendarily bad. It, along with the next horrible decision in New York, ushered in a new rules system for scoring fights there and greater transparency. The fourth fight has only been remembered as ND-W for Tunney because its been repeated so often. That has no basis in fact. In reality only two newspapermen gave that fight to Tunney and within a year one of those guys was working as Tunney's publicity man. So spare me the skepticism until youve actually studied the subject.

 

So if we're going by newspapers, the majority of writers had Mosley winning the Delahoya rematch and Pacquaio beating Marquez in their third fight. Newspapers reporters are very often clueless or biased.