Harry Greb-Walker film 1978?

**** no. we'd all love to see greb but this aint the one to be pinning hopes on.

totally, and that's not me bring superior, i'm much closer to the first option than i am any sort of expert on the subject.

 

Of course you don't! Yet there are numerous who said 1 ) You have not seen the film, and some also call you well... I won't bother saying it.

I offered you a bet. You balked because you know what I said is correct.

You won't even post what you think is junk even though you claim you have it.

Didn't you say the stills are not great. The day of the fight has sunlight until approximately 8:30PM.

Bottom line. Several people who saw it say it is legit. You're the only one ( who has not seen it ) saying it is not. I'll settle for that.

 

You've made that call on two fights you've only seen highlights of.

Joe Louis v Arturo Godoy 1 & Joe Louis v Jersey Joe Walcott 1 Aren't you also making that call on this footage, ie sight unseen?

BTW. I love Klompy's description of you.


" I think its already made you look much worse than you already did and you were already considered one of our pet racist nutjobs who twists and lies in order to try to formulate a reality that never existed anywhere but in your own mind."


The elephant in the room here is that no one from your side has produced jack sh*t to authenticate this"footage".
Don't even you find that strange ?
Why would you not release a still at least ,an identifying film sample that can be dated and checked?

Do you see anyone on this forum siding with you, taking your part?

No? Well there are two reasons for that, the first is the aforementioned lack of a s**** of proof/evidence that this is the real McCoy.
The second is your track record for providing primary sources to reinforce your claims .
Track record as in ZERO,ZILCH,NADA.:nono

 

Wait, so now you want to argue both sides of the fence? That this film clearly was filmed in the daylight but that it was daylight when Greb fought Gans?? Dont you say this footage is of the last five rounds? If the card started at 7 to 7:15, which we know it did. Then do the math. We can even be conservative and pretend one of the long undercard bouts was a walkout bout. You have a 2 round fight, a five round fight a six round fight, plus five completed rounds of Grebs fight before this film supposedly starts (and again, how do you know what round the film is without titles?). Thats 18 rounds x 3 minutes, plus a minute between each round and lets again be conservative and give only five minutes of announcements/introductions/entrances gloves being put on etc. between fights. Thats a very conservative estimate. VERY conservative. That gives you roughly 92 minutes from the start of the card until this film supposedly starts. Which puts it past 8:30pm WHEN THIS FOOTAGE STARTS. And at 8:30 it would be DARK, not just dusk, that means that by the end of this footage in the final round of Greb's fight with Gans you want us to believe it was still daylight out. Not possible, unless someone is mistaken and this takes place in Alaska... This doesnt even address that you want us to believe it was raining, which means cloud cover. So explain to me how at 9pm when this fight was drawing to a close its still bright as day on a cloudy night???

Here is a comparison for you. This is a photo of the lights at the Polo Grounds nearly 30 years later. That means better lighting and a bigger stadium. Notice how powerful those lights are.

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIzNlgxNjAw/z/t3wAAOxyqKVRiXGc/$T2eC16NHJGQFFh)!MIUWBRi(GbOFrg~~60_57.JPG

This is a film of Marciano-Charles 2 taken at the same stadium not long after the above photo was taken. This means better lighting, better camera equipment, etc. What do you see beyond the first couple of rows? Darkness. Why? Because its at nighttime. And thats a fight that was specifically lit with lights above the ring especially to accommodate the films. Yet somehow you and Kurt want us to believe that a film shot nearly 3 decades earlier at a smaller park, with less powerful lights, on slow exposure film stocks, using more primitive equipment, somehow turned out brighter...

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN-XjXONPrU[/url]

Im the only one? I suspected you havent been reading any of the posts because youve ignored so much of what Ive printed which explains you not understanding that absolutely ZERO people watching this thread have expressed any support for you or Kurt. When those experts want to actually attach their name to this piece of **** and get exposed for being not so expert then we can talk about all of these supporters you have. Until then, like most of your other arguments, its all in your head. Ive said it before and I'll say it again, if you have so much faith in this film then put your money where your mouth is and pony up with Kurt's ridiculous $100,000 request. No? Im sure he would cut you a deal. How about $500, thats a GREAT DEAL for a moron like you who believes this idiotic snake oil salesman.

 

I'll end my comments with the following:

1 ) People I know and trust say you have not seen the film! I listed some names to surf-bat. There are more. Not one but several and they say they think it is Greb. I was willing to offer you a ban bet on this points, you balked. So its you vs 9 others and counting...

2 ) Many details of the film match. 13 of them!

They are:The footage was closely examined by a face and body identification expert, with thousands of cases of video forensic experience, with law enforcement in Minnesota. 1- Height of Greb matches, 2- Body width matches , 3- Same chest split, 4- same unusual nibbles location, 5- same dimensions of face 6- , same referee , 7- same opponent , 8- same weather (drizzle ) conditions , 9- same punch that wobbled Greb (right hand), 10- correct round getting wobbled (6th) 11- inoculation of left arm, 12- same fighting stance. 13- correct era box camera at ringside.

3 ) Many say you have not seen the film ( So how are you so sure on nighttime ), and your 11th hour claim that you own the film is lame, as is your willingness to post a portion on you tube for what you think is a worthless film.

4 ) Regarding day or night, I'll have to see for myself. I'm not sure. The film is not in 1080 HD. Its 80+ years old, and lights can play tricks.

5 ) You clearly have an agenda with the owner.

That's all I have to say. I'll stand on all of my point given as accurate. If this were Box rec, your posts would have been deleted by now, in fact they were. There is a reason why you have been banned on two boards before. As an expert on Greb, you run the risk of looking very foolish if current momentum on THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN IT keeps saying yes it it Greb. Meanwhile you go out of your way to submarine your favorite topic without producing evidence you have viewed it yourself.

Moving on...

 

Hmmm... this **** is still going on.

I'll check back next month.

Carry on.

 

How many men of that era do you think had inoculations on their left arm?
Unusual nipples location? That settles it!

[url]

This content is protected

[/url]



The forensic expert has his experience in Minnesota?
Is he the one who caught Lester Nygaard?

 

I've seen the film. It isn't Harry Greb, it's Francisco Scaramanga.

 

Mendoza, if the fight was at night and this film was in the day surely it rules it out of being the fight in question

 

I could say I'm Holyfield

We're both men, both have short hair, both fight from the orthodox stance, both have taken selfies common of the era, both out reached when compared with Lewis, both have stubble.

The only real difference is he's black and I'm white.

 

Dragged back in for one more comment. None of those who saw it had a problem with that point. Old films can be dark and grainy, and lights can play tricks.

Can you tell from the still shots? If sure looks like the lights on the still shots are shinning down on the crowd, would you not agree? If so, that would indicate a night fight. Check the link below and tell me if you think that is plausible. In fact I would be interested in others looking at the sill shots and making a call if this was day or night.

[url]http://www.ringwise.com/archive.html#greb[/url]

 

Aaah,now we know!

 

I've seen it mentioned twice in this thread ..... what does "same unusual nibbles location" mean?

 

If Kurt whatever his name is , is a fight expert with 35 yrs of trading under his belt and he has never conned anyone or misrepresented films as other than what they really are , why did he not threaten Klompton with a suit for libel when Klompy made his allegations about his probity and honesty?
If Kurt has not done the things Klompton has accused him of he has a clear case for damages don't you think?

 

It's daytime for sure! Evening I'd guess.