Yeah, it shows his tendency to circle opponents, constantly changing angles while maintaining balance and punching flexibility. There are differences as well. ooooo!
Some people tell us to pay attention to the man behind the curtain. Others tell us that their 1-0 Pro fighters are better boxers than Greb. Do you think you could defeat Harry Greb, with your knowledge on modern boxing on your side? You haven't answered that one yet.
I always hesitate to dismiss the views of anyone who trains fighters, so I'll ask the anti-Greb side: Does a decent 1-0 modern fighter beat Loughran, Walker, and Tunney? On the other side of the fence, does the pro-Greb side have any explanation for why Greb and other 1920s historical fighters look terrible doing shadowboxing? Was stupid-looking shadowboxing an accepted training technique back then, or what?
News Flash, he wasn't always maintaining balance in that clip, nor was his footwork in position to properly punch with anything meaningful.
You can tell all that from less than 30 seconds of footage? If so, you’re far too talented for this board and a future in Televangelism beckons you...
Look I’m more than willing to agree that the awestruck worship of what is being displayed in the shadow boxing video is silly. On the other hand Harry didn’t have any idea that 100 years later nerds would be pouring over this meager footage to pass judgment on his entire career. If he did have Internet access I also think he would’ve found a better doctor to perform his rhinoplasty.
If you had told Greb that this footage would cause the controversy it did, he'd probably make it look even worse, deliberately, just for amusement.
Is it possible to look worse? Unless your name is Primo Carnera, who funnily enough Reznick considers better than Riddick Bowe.
Yeah, it would be a challenge to look worse. So am I correct in assuming that your answer to, "How did a fighter as talentless as Greb beat Tunney, Loughran, and Walker?" is that all of these guys were really bad as well?
It’s kind of like judging how good of an actor Robert De Niro is by watching him brush his teeth at home.
I meant that I wouldn't expect (bet on) a 1-0 cruiserweight to beat Jack Dempsey. Why did you ask me though?
This is one of the dumbest most pointless threads Ive ever seen. Jeff Smith Augie Ratner Gene Tunney Tommy Loughran Kid Norfolk Mike Gibbons Mike ODowd Tommy Gibbons Bill Brennan Frank Moody Jimmy Slattery Jimmy Delaney Mickey Walker All look good on film. Greb beat them all. Several are in the HOF. So the inference that Greb sucked because he looks awkward (which is exactly how he was described) in a short outtake of a training film is comical or sad depending on how you look at it. But more to the point, Mike Gibbons and Mike ODowd also look silly in shadowboxing but look great and very modern on film. Tommy Gibbons and Jeff Smith likewise. Ever consider that people just approached shadowboxing differently back then? More as an aerobic exercise than to practice technique? Remember, mirrors were only just heginning to be incorporated into shadowboxing by a few fighters. Its also likely that these guys viewed cameras in their camps and motion pictures in general as novelties and as such clowned for them. I know this was the case when Eddie McGoorty and Augie Ratner sparred for the cameras before the 1918 Inter-Allied Tournament. Neither man sparred in the same style they fought in. They just goofed around. Likewise when the army team shadowboxed they all gyrated around just like Greb does in his training and Mike ODowd can even be seen laughing and sheepishly walking away. These guys would have been hyper aware of this big bulky camera unlike today where every move we make is filmed and recorded by somebody. Thats all above and beyond the fact that Greb was often called awkward or amateurish looking or it was said he didnt know how to punch correctly or where his punches would land when he threw them yet he still managed to defeat great great fighters indisputably. So while he may not have been pretty (and these films may not even be indicative of his actual style) he was effective. I always fall back on a guy like Mayorga who looked totally amateurish but still beat fighters “better” than himself in spite of that. He had an equalizing punch but Greb had several things that make you very hard to beat in any era: Durability, speed, high volume, and brains. If you cant stop him because he is so durable and he throws a lot more punches than you then you are in trouble if it goes to the cards because he just buried you on points. Regardless of whether he was awkward or not thats tough to beat.
Your criticism of my clip showing Carnera landing two jabs is a perfect example. You don't think it was highlight worthy. I did. So I put it in. People like the video, which means they agree with my content selection. Which reflects my ability to decipher what is and isn't highlight worthy. Which reflects my ability to decipher what is and isn't impressive in boxing. A specific skill of mine that comes under fire often by you. However, your criticism is conflicting with the reality that 39,000 people (and growing!) are subscribed to those very choices I make, which you endlessly criticize. That's the significance.
Just a few points... - Denoting a 'like' for something is not the same as 'agreeing' with something. - There is no need to 'decipher' highlight worthiness; just to have an eye for watchable and explainable action. - Selecting watchable and explainable action does not reflect anything other than the ability to select watchable action and annotate accordingly. - It's a skill used by the tens of Ad Agencies, generally responsible for composing movie trailers, and requires little, if any, knowledge of acting, directing, casting, writing or any other of the skills used to produce the action sequences themselves. In short - A talent for making watchable, popular boxing montage videos does not equate to knowing what is or is not impressive in boxing.
