Would Film Of Greb Confirm His Legendary Status,Or Could It have An Adverse Effect?t

I think that it would depend on who was watching the films. Serious boxing enthusiasts would be impressed while watching the greatest fighter of all time in action.

 

Can't tell what's worse.

When people have unrealistic expectations of historic legends. Or when they critique them for not living up to those standards.

 

Ah, knew you would respond in you own unique way. Let's breakdown what you wrote: "If anything it should cause the viewer who is not impressed to reconsider what they know of effective boxing.

This seems to be addressed to the viewer which I am one. Reading further you state: who is not impressed to reconsider what they know of effective boxing.

Please what you mean about effective boxing, is it cos he beat everybody? Remember the question was, would film have an adverse effect on Greb?".
Didnt say anything about his record or who he fought. I would think most people wouldnt know who Greb was or did and as the thread asked would a film tend to adversely effect his stature.

If I read you right, then so is every single winning fighter who wins, is practicing "effective boxing", interesting.

"By virtue of his incomparable record, Greb is the definition of highly effective boxing." Nothing in this thread said anything about his record and who he fought or what he did. When you say say: "If anything it should cause the viewer who is not impressed to reconsider what they know of effective boxing." You are in reality saying the viewer if he doesnt agree with your comment then they has to reconsider their knowledge of boxing. Please explain how I or anyone else should reconsider what they know of effective boxing cos you have say so. Maybe you explain effective boxing and how your view is better then anyone else's on "effective boxing" and calling someone to task cos they have a different view

 

Even if he looked awful on film, it would still be hard to argue with his results.

 

I think he meant that whatever Greb was doing, had to be right. Because he won a lot against great opposition.

Basically any critique of Greb, is a critique of effective boxing/fighting. Hard to argue with that imo.

 

This has been discussed in a thread here a few years ago.
Some people fear that, if we discover a Greb film, he proves to be a rough and crude fighter.
One of the commentators (I don't remember his nickname) even said that, in order to preserve Greb status, is even better than we never find a film Harry Greb, to avoid a big disappointment .....

 

My point is that if the film increases or decreases his legendary status (greatness?) it can only do so by some aesthetic rationale. The results are already there.

As I have pointed out many times, boxing is not ice skating or high diving and aesthetics should not come into play. We have seen both footage and the records of many of the men he beat. We have the records of many more. It is agreed by almost all who are knowledgable that Greb is either the best (most effective) fighter of all time or at the very least in the top-5.

So, perhaps people would need to change the aesthetic sense they are labeling as great boxing rather than changing Greb's legendary status, which is pretty much chiseled in stone. Or given the scenario of found footage, the quality of the object is already known. The quality of the subject is what would come under scrutiny.

 

This is probably close.

 

Sort of what I think.

The modern day analogy would be Golovkin. He's starting to build a really good record, and based on that people want to see total dominance. But when his opponents land some good ones he's "exposed".

Greb might be in the same boat.

If you get a film of him against a great, and its a to and fro struggle, people might well argue "well he only just beat X so, he can't be that good". Uh, yeah, but he won. And he beat Y, Z and #atg as well, so that says something. It says he was a cut above, even if he did have a hard time beating some of his illustrious opponenets

 

In a way he does benefit from the lack of film, because it just enhances his legend.

He is an enigmatic creature, and it gives our imaginations licence to run wild.

I am not sure that it could be significantly detrimental to his standing however.

If a film was produced and you said that he looked cr4p, I could just counter that this proved your inability to assess fighters based on film, because he was a lot more successful than the fighters that you regard as being good.

 

Ok, your vote on the topic of the thread is that it wont effect his legacy, my view is that it would. Most fans are uninformed about who he fought or what he done, I believe that a view of him would adversely effect his legacy just on the view. His fight by fight record would standout but seeing him in action in what little vid that there is would tend to be a wtf moment to most people viewing it, without digging into his record. What does standout in the press reports is that he was a windmill throwing punches from all angles, speed, jumping bean movement. People today would want to see something different, and judge him from today's perspective. Think of what people said of Corbett on seeing him on that Edison tape, or when he "sparred"
with Tunney. Styles were evolving into what we see today. Think how long it was from Sullivan's time to when Greb fought. People today would laugh at those views of old time fighters, as they have. I am not saying Greb was terrible just answering the question about viewing him.

 

I don't know about that. I've seen extensive and 'reasoned' comments from persons on this forum that imply even fighters like Joe Gans and Packey McFarland are relatively crude/primitive boxers, despite their records, based on footage, and that the whole era was of a lower standard in skill (again, based on footage).

 

Lets say the first Tunney fight is on film.

Let's say he looked as good beating on Tunney as Calzaghe did beating on Lacy. That would irrefutably enhance his rep.

Let's say the Walker fight is on film and he looks as scruffy as Calzaghe did outpointing Bika. Even then you would have to acknowledge his ability in nullifying the assault of Walker.

Let's say the Flowers fight is on film and he looked as clumsy as Calzaghe did against Hopkins, people would probably give him the benefit of being old but still deserving the victory.

Any film would be of great benefit.