What are the odds of Harry Greb Film ever being discovered?

So your constant refusal to accept any consensus opinion to the point of DENIGRATING them all as “drunks” is what? You giving credence? GTFO with that bull****. Dont try to back track and run. The simple fact that you categorically think his rep would take a hit says it all. Period. Why didnt Burley’s rep take a hit when film of him surfaced? What about Attell or Kilbane? I could list a multitude of fighters that film has been discovered of that it didnt effect their reputation.

Now, go back and answer in specifics all of my points above or dont come back here talking that trash. You made several claims about me and this era, none founded in fact, and Im not going to drop it until you either take that **** back or back it up with examples and proof. Dont be the cowardly troll we all know you are, either put your “knowledge” on display or shut the **** up.

Maybe if you do Ill post that exhibition of Jeanettes from 1909 you want to see so bad that shows Jeanette stumbling around on two left feet like a drunk with concrete shoes. Hope that doesnt change peoples opinion of your hero...

 

What?

Believe me. You can post all the Joe Jeannette footage you want. And you can make fun of it all you want. What did I ever say that made you think I gave two squats about Joe Jeannette? (LOL)

He's not my hero. No fighter is my hero. Christ (LOL)

And I recall when I was buying boxing mags in the late 70s and early 80s, all these articles about the INCREDIBLE Charley Burley.

How he was the greatest this and the greatest that. All these guys who remembered watching him when they were young (and were then old men) talking about how everyone ducked Burley and he was the best at this and that.

Now we can see Burley. He was a fine fighter. But when was the last time someone printed an article about how Charley Burley was the best anything?

Charley Burley is fine. But all that over-the-top praise died off when you could watch Charley Burley and there were plenty of guys on tape who looked just as good if not better than Charley Burley.

You, yourself, said you picture Greb as freaking Mayorga without a punch.

Burley didn't look like Mayorga without a punch. If he did, all the "Burley was the greatest at this and that" would've ended even faster than it did.

But feel free to post any videos you like. Then make fun of the guys in the video. That's what we do when we can see fighters on video.

That's what we'll do when we see Greb on video, too.

 

Oh sure, nobody ever talks about how great Burley was and more importantly its because of the film of him LOL. Jesus you are a ****ing moron.

 

If you think the only thing a boxer is measured on is his official results ...

And how well or poorly the winners and losers fought ... how young or old, or green or beaten down an opponent was ... how exciting or poor fans thought the matches were ... or whether people thought verdicts were correct or corrupt or wildly off the mark .... all of that .... means nothing when it comes to a fighter's reputation ...

Then I don't know what sport you think you're watching ... but it's not boxing.

 

Don't insult me because "you publicly stated you imagined Greb looked like Mayorga."

You said you collected boxing magazines back in the day (unless you were lying). I did, too. I can paste all the Burley articles I have. He was the "flavor of the month" for old-timers back then because people couldn't see him we'd just hear stories about him from people who remembered watching him decades earlier.

When we could all see him, he was very good. But those articles were typically over the top.

Imaginations tend to run wild when reading stories from the early days of boxing.

Film footage brings fans down to earth. (Where's that Jeanette footage you promised so we can all laugh at how the film of him doesn't match his reputation?)

Since you can't seem to respond with anything but insults, that's it for me.

 

It's you that is not getting the point. You are claiming that because there is no footage of Greb that his resume would be a liablity. When in fact, it's precisely the resume of a boxer(competition, when they fought, the result of the bouts, how active was he, etc.) in which makes him great .. so actually is you who needs to figure it out

 

You are totally lost.

I AM NOT saying since there is no footage of Greb it's a liability. I'm saying the exact opposite of that.

For the thousandth time, I'm saying WHEN THERE IS FOOTAGE AVAILABLE, and he's critiqued like every other boxer is (every poor showing, every wobble, every time he looked bad or his opponent looked bad, every bad decision) ... his reputation will likely take a hit because HE isn't under the same scrutiny NOW that fighters we can see are under.

How many times have you disagreed with a verdict when watching a fight? How many times did you watch a fighter get a unanimous decision and you said "I thought the other guy won." And how many times, when that boxer who "won" is discussed, do you tell people in threads "I don't give him credit for that win because I thought he lost?"

Greb had nearly 300 fights. Which verdicts do you disagree with? Which fights did you think Greb looked like crap in? Which fights did you think Greb's opponent wasn't trying? Which fights did you think Greb's opponent got robbed? Which of Greb's fights did you think were poorly officiated? Which of Greb's opponents were at their very best and beat Greb? Which of his opponents were at their very best and lost to Greb? Which opponents had seen better days and still beat Greb? Which underdogs fought their hearts out and could've gotten the decision that night and didn't get the nod because Greb was "in today's terms" the A-side?

All the crap we discuss about all the other fighters, we don't with Greb. If the record says he won or he got a draw, then that's it. He gets a pass. And that benefits him.

When we can start see some of his fights, those fights will come under scrutiny like we scrutinize everyone else, and he's reputation will likely take a hit. Because everyone's reputation does when people can watch with their own eyes.

Got it?

I don't think I can be any clearer.

 

Once again, people have been looking for Greb footage for decades, we're extremely unlikely to end up with a large portion of his career on film to critique and analyse.

 

Like I said, if you are going to be intellectually dishonest and make all of these claims about me and my work without giving examples then you are nothing but a troll who isnt worth my time. I dont see anyone agreeing with the ludicrous notion that a well documented record of 300 fights is misleading or your other ludicrous notion that a film of Greb would absolutely hurt his standing so until you wish to stand behind any of the claims youve made citing actual examples then Im not wasting my time on your ignorance.

 

Again, I understand what you are saying but it doesn't hold water .. because you are absolutely saying that footage of him would be a liability to him.. Do you even read what you write?? That is the theme of all your posts!! You are claiming that footage would be scrutinized? How the **** do you know that? How about praised? Where in your posts does it say that? We already know he wasn't a fight behind the jab boxer and his "technique" was different .. So why would we need an armchair quarterback like yourself to pick apart one of the most successful boxers of all time ??? The answer is we don't .. his resume speaks for itself … So ******** what if he looks like the Tasmanian Devil out there … He got the job done .. And only a guy like you can't put 2 and 2 together and understand this

 

But Dubblechin happens to be right.
If we see footage of Greb, and he looks bad or we see that he didn't win a fight he is credited with, then that automatically downgrades him.

 

Well, the most respected authority on the subject has weighed in.

I guess that ends the discussion.

 

It probably has been found already. Some library has the film archived, that was the way the last training film was " discovered "

Or maybe some collector has it now. When exactly was it announced that the Greb boxing films were missing? He was filmed at least 4 times.

So what would Greb look like. Fighters generally look as they were described. I've seen Greb opponents plenty so I have an idea of what he looked like. He was fast, he threw lots of punches and he had good defense, and a great chin. He also was considered a somewhat dirty fighter by the press and Greb wasn't shy about rule bending. That combination is hard to beat when you add it all up. Greb's work rate his " punch stats " must have something. It is my observation that the guy who throws and out lands more wins sometime like 90%-95% of the decisons time especially if its by a large enough margin in fights with no-knock downs or knock outs. Bar controversial decisions. Exceptions to this can be found but they are rare. Aren't they? Yes, I think so. That's Harry Greb. The posters going back and forth might agree on this.

 

If I may call a temporary cease fire between Klompton2 and Dubblechin, two posters who seem to know their stuff, has there ever been punch stats discovered for Greb? I would like to see them to judge for myself if he was as active as they say. Now pucnh stats can have some mistakes in them but they do paint a picture of the activity of the fighters. Anyone?

 

Newspapers published them sometimes, though I can't recallseeingthem for Greb. Not sure they're accurate, and you probably can't really compare then with compubox though