Serious thoughts on this Harry Greb shadow boxing video?

Why do you care what I think? I don't care what you think. Do you resent that I'm not in lockstep with you and the Bert Sugar crowd?

Since my thoughts on boxing bother you, here's some more. If Greb and Tunney could be brought back to life and were fighting next door to my gym with exactly the same skills and abilities that I've seen on video, and my kids were sparring that day, I wouldn't walk next door to watch Greb and Tunney. You do the math.

If that blows your circuits, maybe you need to understand that IMO boxing has progressed, like all other sports. I've seen excellent modern boxers train and fight live, from Ali, Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis, McCallum, Hearns, to name a few, and more modern still like Tank Davis and all of the Gary Russells. So you'll have to excuse me when I don't do Cheetah flips when I see video of the people who were boxing almost 100 years ago. They were the best of their time, but IMO, the best of 100 years ago are not the best today.

If you want to read opinions from Bert Sugar followers, maybe you should put me on "ignore."

 

Could you perhaps expand on what skills you find Tunney to be lacking? We have film of him fighting and it would be interesting to hear where you feel he is lacking.

 

Also its bizarre you bring up Ali given his prime ended more than 40 years ago. How does he qualify as modern any more than Greb does?

 

That makes sense I just found it odd you would bring up old-timers like Hearns, McCallum, and Ali whose primes were 25+ years ago.

There seems to be some pretty glaring exceptions to the newer is better argument. For example LeBron James has been in the NBA for 15+ years and so far nobody has emerged to challenge him despite the fact that an entire new generation has entered the NBA since LeBron's debuted. Why is it nobody has emerged that is better than LeBron despite the passage of so much time?

 

I mean if you were trying to argue that the NBA has improved over time the fact that LeBron was still considered the best NBA player as late as 2018 would seem to torpedo that argument.

 

His argument is garbage. If there were any merit to it, you would see these super Boxers of the last 40 years dominating all over on top 20 p4p lists …. Where are the Tyson's, Mayweathers, etc.?? No where to be found ..

 

Has anyone argued that newer is always better? I don't think you need to make such an extreme claim to recognize that some pretty big changes (in my opinion, technical improvements) occurred and disseminated throughout the sport sometime after Greb's era.

 

Huh? There are any number of reasons why those guys aren't higher on p4p lists and it's not because they weren't as good or better than their predecessors.

 

From a skill and talent perspective, the NBA has most certainly improved over time.

 

OK great … would love to hear the reasons/excuses

 

I'm sure you can figure them out yourself if you try.

 

Oh I know the answer, which is scattered throughout this thread in my posts … I was asking you for yours and I did the same with Pat M and like you …. all I hear is crickets .. I was quoting some else and you chimed in and quoted me … so let's hear it

 

Great lets hear it

 

So has the NFL, NHL, MLB, any major sport admits this.

 

Then in the many years since LeBron entered the NBA why have none of the younger players who entered the league since then managed to replace him as the number one in the NBA?

Isn't 15 years a pretty long time for someone to dominate in a supposedly dynamic, changing sport? There are guys playing against LeBron who are young enough to be his biological children.