Harry Greb Footage

It sounds like hed just ignore it or treat the fight as an exhibition, which no one else at the time seems to agree with.

 

You're right that would be the response from the broken record.

 

Let's see how he responds.

If ND bouts that go the distance do impact how he ranks the 2 x fighters involved, let's see how and on what basis? If newspaper scores are to be ignored, does he still factor in the content of their reports, and if so to what degree?

If they have no impact, I.e. he ranks the 2 fighters exactly as he would do had the fight never happened, then his 2 x choices are - 1) Limit his all time rankings to c.1930 onwards; or 2) Base his ranking of Greb, and many of his peers, on a very incomplete (less than 50%) portion of his career only. Which imo, invalidates that ranking.

Yes, assuming we got a direct, and preferably concise, response, we'll be getting closer to the crux of the matter. I doubt we will get a direct response though, because he really has nowhere to go with this if he does.

 

At the time, did newspaper decision bouts effect who got title shots?

 

Is this the same Frank Moody that Greb cut to pieces and stopped? Why didnt he carry him for another payday?

 

Yes

 

I thought so. Then I really don't understand how someone 100 years later can dismiss them like they didn't matter, when they clearly did.

 

A no-decision was an official result.

Not something to be ignored. Not an exhibition.

You won by KO or it was a no-decision. It's a very simple and easy concept to grasp ... until, apparently, you guys came along.

A no-contest and a no-decision and an exhibition are not the same things. Why would I treat them as the same?

I thought this was the Classic Forum?

Instead, everyone's just making up scoring systems for fights and if you don't agree with them then you must want to "throw everything out."

A No-Decision was an actual result.

Harry Greb knew how many no-decisions he had on his record.
This was Harry Greb's record when he was alive. http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/greb.htm
Harry Greb signed the contracts to fight all those no-decisions.
Everyone who fought in them knew there was only one way to win, by KO.
And everyone kept fighting in them.

A no-decision as an official result. It was great when you scored a KO. It certainly wasn't a negative when you didn't.

The people who don't seem to have clue ARE YOU GUYS who, 100 years after the fact, want to change them using your own invented way of determining a winner (counting articles).

You all appear to abhor official records.

You don't seem to have a clue what no-decisions are or were because you desperately want to change the results of them.

These replies boggle my mind. I can't argue with people who just make up records and can't believe it when people don't want to go along with them.

Harry Greb was fine with this record, because those are the fights he won, those are the fights he lost and those were the fights that ended in a no-decision.

He was good with his record. His fans were good with it in their time. So I'm good with it. I don't feel any overriding urge to change his record, or add wins and losses to guys records who didn't official win or lose those fights in their lifetimes.

Sorry. Rewriting history and making up new rules for fights isn't an interest of mine.

I don't need to explain anything. I follow the official results like everyone did until you guys came up with your own NEW WAY to score long-dead boxers' fights.

You're the ones who are screwing up.

 

Do Greb's newspaper decision fights that went the distance have ANY impact on how you rank him all time? If so, how?

 

His newspaper decision fights that went the distance? Did you just invent this, too?

Are you referring to no-decision fights that didn't end in a KO?

I don't hold a no-decision result against anyone. The goal was to score a KO. It happened or it didn't.

Lots of guys fought lots of ND fights. Nobody held it against them. http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/walker-m.htm
Many scored a lot of KOs in ND fights and they just appear as KO wins on their record.
Many got knocked out and they just appear as KO losses on their records.

You probably can't tell which or how many fights each boxer had that were no-decision bouts because they ended in a KO.

It's only a ND (no-decision) result if the KO doesn't happen.

They all have A LOT of no-decision fights on their fight logs, whether they scored a KO in the bout or whether it officially ended in a no-decision, and many were considered greats long before you guys were born with a lot of those NDs on their records.

Why this desperate need to change those results came from, I have no idea.

But you're the ones trying to change records and results that the people who engaged in those fights had NO PROBLEM with.

So, any explaining to be done is on your end. I follow the official records. You guys don't.

And you guys are the ones ham-handedly rewriting history any time you do a web search and employing your newly invented 'counting media polls method' to determine a 'decision' winner in a 'no-decision' fight ... so you can hand a loss to a guy in death that he didn't suffer in life.

 

Seems like best thing to do is just not consider fighters pre 1930s then since there weren't any official results

 

Perhaps for someone like you who doesn't buy into the old timers would you separate them as pre 30s era greats and post 30s era greats?

 

Sure I just don't think you can compare fighters from pre 30s to post 30s way too different

 

Do no decision fights that didn't end in KO impact how you rate fighters from an historical perspective? If so, how,? Or do you rank them EXACTLY as you would if the fights hadn't happened?

These are simple questions. If you consider your position so weak you can't answer them DIRECTLY, then just say so and I'll leave you alone.

 

To be honest I think it might be a good common ground for some of these old times vs modern fighters debates for people who think one is much better than the other.......