Harry Greb Footage

If newspaper decision bouts don't have any impact on how you rank fighters all time, then yes, I agree, you should limit your all time rankings to fighters who competed post c.1930. That's the very point I'm trying to make.

 

Yes and the same Moody that dropped Lou Bogash for the 1st time in his career.His brother mentioned fighters wouldnt aim for the cuts

I cant see if this was a fight with Grebs tite on the line or if it was just a nd fight? Klomptons book isnt near by right now for me to check

Greb destroyed him anyway and with Moody stopping Bogash he was takin no chances.Too vicious,Too violent even for the roaring 20s.I think he absolutely loved the all out bloody mayhem vs anyone from fighting greenhorns to elite professionals

Might have been a sadist when looking at all the Greb opponents.He didnt care

I want to see Greb vs Walker

 

Why would I consider a no-decision fight as not happening?

For all your chest thumping, you clearly don't understand the differences, either.

A fighter's record had WINS, LOSSES, DRAWS, NO-DECISIONS and on rare occasions a NO-CONTEST

The first four were all official results.

The only one that didn't happen was a No-Contest (where they ruled an incident occurred where the bout couldn't be ruled as official).

So, I don't consider a NO-Decision bout, where no one scored a KO, as not having happened. It happened. Usually, someone got knocked out. That was the goal, after all. If no knockout occurred, it was officially a no-decision (because there were no judges and neither guy was successful in winning by knockout, which is the only way you could win).

It still happened, but nobody scored a KO.

Going back to the NFL and gambling comparison yesterday, you can run for more yards in a game and pass for more yardage, and that can lead to a win, but that's not how you win. You win by scoring at least one more point than the other team.

Greb could throw a lot of punches in a round to try to chop down a guy, and the other guy could throw minimal punches and walk around looking for openings, but the only way either could win was by KO.

We know changes in rules can impact how fighters fight and impact their strategies. And having no judges and no scoring system in place in no-decision fights, and the only way you won was by KO, would certainly impact the way people fought then and NOW, if that was put into place.

So, just clumsily adding a fake scoring system a century later, is not only NOT scientific or accurate, it's a freaking joke.

I honestly can't talk about this anymore because NONE of you have explained why you have this need to change boxers records. You just make demands on people who follow the official records and badger them, like you're doing to me, because we don't agree with your half-assed approach to demolishing historic records.

I'm not for changing records. I'm not for taking fights or wins away from anyone or adding losses to some dead guy's record. I have no clue what makes all of you so damned cocky while your just stomping fighters' official records and history, but it blows my mind.

Honestly, to hell with you and anyone who is in favor of jamming some new rules into old fights and changing the official outcomes.

To hell with you.

Have a nice evening.

 

Do you have any more cartoonists that don't mention Harry Greb for us? Walt Disney maybe? What about the south park animator.. any idea on his thoughts?

 

So, if fans don't agree with you doing web searches for newspaper articles and counting up your search totals, then your point is to what, let you run roughshod over old-timers' records and change them at your whim?

Screw that.

Leave their records ALONE.

 

You still haven't directly answered my question.

For the fourth time, and I'll rephrase it to make it easier for you to understand - do you rank fighters EXACTLY the same as you would, had the no decision bouts they contested that went the distance, never happened? A simple yes or no will suffice, please? If you can't respond with a simple yes or no, I'll assume it's because you've worked out that my follow up will leave you with nowhere to go.

If your answer is yes, I no further questions, just some conclusions to follow.

If no, could you please explain how those fights impact how you rank those fighters?

 

Was Walt Disney the President of the Boxing Writers Association of America, a columnist for the NY Post for decades, did he cover boxing from ringside and witness and write about some of the biggest fights in history from feet away ... and also draw cartoons?

It's funny, you bash those guys. And you have no idea who is altering newspaper decisions on Boxrec, who is doing the web searches, which fighters they do web searches for, how many searches they do, when they feel the need to stop, whether any of those searches are even accurate ... you don't seem to care that one day one guy is named the newspaper winner of the fight and the next day another guy is named the newspaper winner of a fight because another article was found ...

OR HOW ANY OF THAT IS ETHICAL?

You just gobble it up and regurgitate it like you have a clue.

I'm glad I'm not on your side.

 

You've answered none of mine for days.

 

I'm just trying to understand what impact, if any, ND bouts that go the distance have on how you rank the fighters from an all time perspective?

If you can't make your position clear on that very simple point, our exchange ceases to be a debate or even a discussion, but rather a perpetual exchange of me asking you a simple question and you responding with repeated statements that don't address my question.

 

WHAT IS ETHICAL ABOUT CHANGING HISTORIC RECORDS on a whim and then bashing people who don't agree with you?

What is ETHICAL ABOUT CHANGING THE RESULTS OF FIGHTS based on rules the boxers didn't compete under?

WHAT IS ETHICAL ABOUT USING RULES FIGHTERS DIDN'T FIGHT UNDER as a basis for compiling a new scoring system for determining DECISION winner in NO-Decision fights?

WHAT IS ETHICAL ABOUT HANDING LOSSES TO DEAD FIGHTERS who didn't suffer those losses in life?

WHAT IS ETHICAL ABOUT any of this?

Leave the official records alone.

Jesus Christ. They were fine records for the lifetime of the fighter and for 100 years after.

Now, there's something wrong them.

You guys screwing up these historic records reminds me of this clown who went in to touch up and ruined a master painting.

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/59ff...ter/2560.jpg?width=620&dpr=2&s=none&crop=none

 

Ok, you refuse to answer a simple question, and we both know why.

You can only have answeres in one of two ways:

1) "no decision bouts that went the distance do have some impact on how you rank fighters all time". If this is the case, then the question is how? The only information you have on those fights are the newspaper reports, which scored a winner. Clearly, you do NOT want to be giving this answer as it will destroy your entire argument.

2) "you completely disregard no decision bouts when ranking fighters from an historical perspective. I.e. you rank them EXACTLY the same as if those bouts never happened". This means you disregard over half of Greb, and many of his peers, contests, and as such, you obviously and irrefutably cannot possibly properly assess their careers. You should exclude them from your all time rankings entirely and refrain from commenting on how or where others rank them.

 

What is unethical about using newspaper reports to better understand, interpret, and provide context to what happened in the past? What is laudatory about maligning people who choose to use those methods in adding to their enjoyment of researching boxing history? If you choose to ignore sources of information outside of what you understand to be "the historic record," that is your personal prerogative. It is not a reason to wish them eternal damnation, which is what you did in a recent post.

 

I responded to you and ham-handedly changed how I responded to how you wished I responded.

Of course you did. You're the guy who is happy to change historic records.

So why would you have no trouble changing my actual response?

Any time you want want to answer my questions, that I've been asking for days, feel free.

I won't change your responses to fake ones like you did to mine.

Classic end to a conversation with a guy who wants to rewrite history ... He rewrites your answers and screws it all up.

 

What is unethical about awarding decisions in official no-decision fights fought 100 years ago ... based on how many rounds a fighter won in a fight not officially scored at all, let alone by rounds ... according to only the newspaper reports that just happened to be saved and uploaded to the internet ... and having someone (who knows who) search for those and then stop searching when they have enough to claim one guy won ... then have another guy change results when he finds other reports ...and people going back and forth for days trying to determine, based on the random number of articles they can find, who won a fight via decision (based on rounds) ...

In a fight that had no judges, neither fighter agreed it would be scored by rounds, neither was compelled to win the most rounds (because that didn't determine the winner) and both fighters agreed the fight could only be won by knockout?

And then changing the official records to show one guy actually won and one guy actually lost, when neither guy scored a knockout, which is the only way you could win.?

And then bashing people who won't go along?

What's unethical about that?

All of it.

There was nothing wrong with the official records. Leave them alone.

 

Ok, I'll have the decency to answer your loaded questions, even though you won't answer my simple question as to whether ND bouts that went the distance, impacts how you rank those fighters.

Q. "What is ethical about changing historic records?" A. I don't propose we change historic records. I propose we use the available information on these fights, including the opinions on who won of those who watched them, to help appraise the fighters careers.

Q. "What is ethical about changing the results of fights?" A. Same as above.

Q. "What is ethical about using rules fighters didn't fight under"? A. I don't propose we change any rules or circumstances. Fighters were acutely aware that if no decision bouts went the distance, the official result would be a no decision, whilst newspapers would score the fight and that would influence the perception the public had of how good they were, influence what fights they were offered, what purses they were offered, whether they got title shots, etc. If they couldn't win by KO, you can be certain they wanted the newspapers to score the contest to them. Obviously.

Q. "What is ethical about handing losses to dead fighters?" A. Again, I don't propose we change their official records, I propose we factor newspaper decisions into appraisals of their career.

Furthermore:

Firstly, you've linked Cyberzone's rankings and said those were the records at the time these boxers were active. You're wrong. There was no Internet. There was no entire career records in the public domain. The only things in the public domain were newspaper reports of their bouts. Be that reporting a KO, an official decision or newspaper score in an ND bout.

Secondly, newspaper decisions were the rule, not the exception. There were used to determine who the best fighters were, who got title shots, hell, they were even used to determine the outcome in betting! The fighters were acutely aware of all this.

Finally, you're correct that the official results are no decisions. This is not in dispute and so you do not need to state it again. The pertinent discussion is what impact, if any, newspaper decisions have on how a fighter is ranked. If 20 of 20 papers all score a major fight for Greb, should we ignore that when assessing his career? Greb ĥad over 100 ND fights go the distance and the vast majority were scored for him. Are they all a result of biased or incompetent scoring?

Now, I've answered your questions. So please have the courage and decency to answer mine - Do no decision bouts that went the distance impact how you appraise a fighter's career in any way? If so, how?