Greb vs Hagler.

So when the best fighters you ever saw just happened to be active, when you were a young man... that has nothing to do with nostalgia? I mean, were're talking 70+ years back, when you started to develop an interest in boxing... so how could those boxers not have a special place in your heart today? Besides, how much can you really remember about boxers that long ago? I saw my first world champion (Griffith) 52 years ago, and, to tell you the truth, I remember very little about how he boxed. I DO remember, that I was VERY impressed, and isn't it that kind feeling that stays with us... rather than a perfect recollection of the style/ability/skills of those boxers we saw a long, long time ago?

 

Log onto FaceBook and check the following link .... dude claims to have a Greb fight:
https://www.facebook.com/3658822835...59.1073741868.365882283543370/530164640448466

 

I saw Rocky Graziano, the most exciting fighter I ever saw, I saw beau Jack, Kid Gavilan, Billy Graham, Sandy saddler, I saw Bob Montgomery etc, and I don't regard those guys as the best fighters I ever saw. If it is nostalgia as you imply to me B, why
wouldn't I regard them as the best I saw ??? I am an always have loved boxing since I was a pup lo these many years ago and when I make a choice I mull it in my mind without regards to
only "nostalgia" as you put it...We all have our favorites but I try to be objective and if not why do I feel in my soul that a GGG today was the best MW I have seen aside from SRR, and I am doubtful of that..One thing I am sure of in my youth we had the greatest big band music ever.

 

That's the post of the day , cool as ever Burt

 

I understand your logic, but I disagree. My response to this post would be longer than the usual, I'm not sure if you or others will be interested in reading it.

 

Not to belabor this topic thread , my post implies that I strongly contend that the great fighters of the 1940s [70 years ago] most who I saw such as SRR, Willie Pep, Ike Williams, Sandy Saddler,
Kid Gavilan, Beau Jack, Bob Montgomery, Billy Graham,
Ezzard Charles, Archie moore, Billy Graham, Jimmy Bivins, Joey Giardello, Emile Griffith, Carmine Basillio, Charley Burley, Rocky
Marciano etc, were not as SKILLED as the "EVOLVED" fighters of today ? you claimed in a previous post that that the fighters of yesteryear were not as "evolved" as todays fighters...Period !
So therefore your evolved fighters today would be better than the guys I mentioned from the 1940s....I would wager a shilling or two that you are sadly mistaken...

 

I saw Henry Maske. He was a Golden God. They haven't invented the ring that could ever contain him. They haven't conceived the science that could explain him. He was no mortal, no mere Greb, no mere Tunney nor Foster nor Moore. Because I saw him.

 

Exactly many boxers eras ago couldn't even throw a proper jab and most had cement feet little footwork along with no defense b/c they mostly fought with their hands to their waist.Lamotta is the biggest example of how boxing looked liked bar room brawling no defense and telegraph punches from a mile away.

 

I think there are a host of varables to consider when comparing across generations. Take Dempsey for example, a supporter of Dempsey can correctly make the claim that he had more first round KO'S than any other heavy and his demolition of Willard is unparalleled to this day. All true.

However a detractor of Dempsey will point out the rule change that no longer allows a fighter to stand over an opponent and hit him when he rises and they will point to the less padded gloves used at that time. Both positions are equally valid, which is why generational comparisons are so difficult.

 

If it were true it would be worth a fair few bob, I'd say. I listened to that interview with Klompton that McVey linked to on another thread, and apparently tons of silver nitrate film was recycled for the silver content in WW2 atsch:| Alas

 

I'm sure I would!

 

Silly question, But what exactly is a bob? Let me guess, it's slightly less than a bill.

I Suppose l could Google it but. ..

 

British slang. A bob was an old shilling coin. It's roughly the equivalent of buck, ie "worth a few bucks".

 

hold on now, unless I am mistaken the "BOXING HAS EVOLVED" argument is mostly related to the heavy weight belt because of SIZE increase?

To me that is a fair debate.

Guys of old at lower weights are more often than not ranked at the top of the heap.

The way you are talking is if the old timers have been written off completely by the new guard of boxing fans, personally I didn't think that was the case.

 

And, a bill is worth less than a james Sorry, I'm not British but British slang can be ubiquitous