If you have Ray Robinson as P4P number 1 please explain....

Have another!
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...J&pg=1138,5613709&dq=armstrong+robinson&hl=en

 

Greb is a fighter that you have to have an element of 'faith' in especially when you are considering P4P ratings .. Greb doesnt have to encounter the kind of strict analysis that other fighters have to go through due to the fact that no footage of his fights exist .. I always enjoy reading about Greb but knowing the guys on ESB his style would be picked apart like anybody elses. He got beat 4 times by Tunney, thats in no way a negative because i think Tunney was a brilliant fighter but could Greb really handle a 'Boxer' with speed and movement ??

 

Ray idolized Henry. His pro debut was on the undercard of Armstrong-Zivic at Madison Square Garden no less and he watched Henry take a beating from Fritzie -who was vicious even by his own standards. Ray vowed revenge on Fritzie, though his own mother said she didn't want him "ever to fight that Zivic." Ray beat Zivic and good only 12 months later.

Sugar Ray didn't want to fight Armstrong. He claims that after he landed a shot to Henry's midsection, Henry sagged. So he sparred him the indignity of a KO. His behavior during that fight confirms this.

Henry, for his part, claimed that Ray was afraid of him, that Henry openly challenged Robinson during the course of the fight to come closer and jam with him, but Robinson was like "no thanks." But Henry also said that he never would have been able to beat the Sugar Man. I believe him...

 

This stuff about Harry getting beat by Gene 4 times needs to go away and die!

 

Your nuts, and clearly not an unbiased researcher .. Greb was a phenomenal fighter, thats not in question but so was Tunney even if you dont like his style .... Tunney was a prototype, a template of modern 'hit and move' boxers .... Why do you hate guys like Tunney and Ali ?? You seem totally biased in your opinions, Slakka to evaluate fighters in an even fashion you must put your favouritism aside and judge the positives and negatives of each individual fighte, I think Greb is great, I think Ali is great, I think Tunney is great, I think Tyson is great, I think Ricardo Lopez is great, .... Just because Tunney beats Greb 4 times at LHW doesnt mean that Greb is a bad fighter .... Styles make fights, you need to get rid of you biased/favourites approach to boxers and judge them as they are based on styles ..

 

Greb was already on the downslide and facing a naturally larger man by the time of the first Tunney fight. He proceeded to give Tunney the beating of his life in that first encounter. The rematch, though recorded as a draw, seems to have favored Greb more tha vice-versa going by contemporary accounts. The next two fights, though close, seem to have gone Tunney's way more than Greb's (though one could be argued either way, and keep in mind Greb is continuing to age and wilt throughout this strenuous series).

The final fight was just as conclusive in Tunney's favor as the first fight was in Greb's, as Tunney had fully matured and grown into the fighter he would become throughout the duration of their series. All the while Greb continued to deteriorate, affected by years of ring wear and an increasingly useless eye that would eventually end it all for him.

Coming to the conclusion that Greb may've had difficulties with mobile boxers based on this is simply preposterous. Tunney was the bigger, stronger, fresher fighter who happened to be an all time great in his own right. Greb had no advantages aside from his inherent fighting heart, experience and ability, which is what nearly always won him the day. I'd say Tommy Loughran fits the mold of mobile boxer-puncher even moreso than Tunney (who was a bit more multi-faceted) and Greb took care of him multiple times. Tiger Flowers was considered virtually incapable of being out-boxed. If a fight went to the decision, or he was in with anything less than a remarkable puncher, he was as difficult a task as existed during his day. Greb, despite being well on the decline for all of their bouts, managed at least a win out of their 3 fight series officially, and according to most accounts deserved the nod in at least 2 out of 3.

Here was a fighter who defied styles because he simply plowed through them with his relentless aggression, speed, stamina, durability, and punch putput. There was no marked strategy for beating a man like him because there had been nothing like him to strategize for. If there's a more proven fighter in the entire history of the sport, a fighter that has faced a wider variety of size and styles and came out victorious so consistently, well then I'll be goddamned.

 

Im growing tired of doing this and you have no idea who your talking to.

You may want to mention during the entire 5 fight series with Gene little Harry had one eye!!
My Ali evaluation is from Eddie Futch

 

He handled Tommy Loughran, Bill Brennan, and both Gibbons brothers well enough.

 

I don't question that the second half of Armstrong's WW reign could've been better than it was, but the old "He ducked Burley" story is just another angle used to prop up Burley's reputation more than anything else. The fighter that he should've fought more than anyone was probably Milt Aron, who was rated #1 across the board at one point; and after him, Holman Williams or Cocoa Kid were considered the most deserving in reports from that day.

 

To me, that fight was proof that Tunney meant to stick with prize fighting. I tried to tell Gene that Greb was too fast for him . . . to go after a softer touch. But less than a year later they fought again and Tunney won the decision in 15 rounds. I scored that fight for Greb

This is from the pen of the almighty Grantland Rice!

 

Thats a great post .. But you made a mistake by saying 'Here is a fighter that defied styles' .. Thats very easy to say when no footage exists, i know and everyone else knows that Greb was a great fighter but you have 'read' what i have 'read' about him .. We have not actually seen this guy fight, which makes Greb an 'untouchable' of boxing, and what we've read may fit into the agenda of the guy who is writing it in the 1920's etc .. Harry Greb was a great fighter but Gene Tunney is also a great fighter, and is it such a huge leap in imaginaton to believe that such fighters as Moore, Charles, Foster or Jones could beat Greb ?? Nobody 'defies styles' theres always a style that neutralizes a single style but once again Greb doesnt have to stand up to scrutiny, Greb isnt endlessly analysed like every other champion in history because he isnt on film .. Are we truly to believe that Greb was by far the greatest fighter in history based on what is written about him regardless of footage .. Are we once again going to denigrate Gene Tunney's contribution to boxing ?? Tunney beat Dempsey and Dempsey fans hate it and make excuses, Tunney beats Greb and Greb's legion of fans dont like it and make excuses .. When is Gene gonna get some credit for anything ?? Greb and Dempsey are held in mythological terms by boxing fans and a guy like Gene Tunney isnt going to ruin that vision for them, isnt that the truth ??

On a seperate issue Pea, how do you see Whitaker v Duran .. I see Pernell beating Floyd, Pac and Pryor but being knocked out by Leonard, Hearns and Curry .. I just cant decide on Pernell v Duran .. What a fight that would be, Pernell the 'surgeon' v Duran the 'Panamanian street dog' .. That would be better than Floyd v Pac by a mile, Pernell v Pryor would be very nice too .... Any thoughts on how these would go ??

 

Im growing tired of you Slakka, your just rehashing things ive read, never coming up with any original opinions of your own .... Every fighter that loses has an excuse of why he loses .. If Greb didnt want to fight with one eye then he didnt have too, how does that affect the glory of Gene Tunney apart from to Greb fans ??

People cant just endlessly criticise Tunney because Greb had eye problems and Dempsey was inactive ... That is so lame, is there anybody out there who will give Tunney some credit ?? I doubt it, as your all following the Dempsey/Greb line that Tunney in reality was a bum fighter that got 'lucky' against these 2 'unbeatable' fighters '6' thats right 'SIX' times ..

Wake up people, Tunney beat Greb because Tunney was the better fighter on the night, Tunney beat Dempsey because he was the better fighter on the night ....

You guys just cant give Tunney any credit at all, it kills you even thinking of the possibility, that Tunney was a great fighter ...... Live in your dream world !! Gene Tunney was brilliant whether you can stomach that fact or not !!

 

Slakka you are the biggest idiot on 'Classis Forum' .. You have no idea what your talking about and saying things like, 'you have no idea who you are talking to' doesnt make you sound anything special ..... Your clearly a 17 year old moron who doesnt know what hes talking about who gets brave by writing on forums about what 'Eddie Futch says' ..... How about you come up with something that you yourself think ??

Harry Greb never made excuses about his eye, just like Joe Frazier never made excuses about his eye before 'Manilla' .... But fans of these 2 great champs latch onto this question and presume that things would have been different .. Its bull****, what happened, happened ...... Give Gene Tunney some credit, Slakka before you give Tunney credit watch some footage and read some articles, from your previous posts it sounds like you've never even seen Tunney .....

 

So you've quoted Futch and Rice .. Who is next, Schulberg ?? Mccilvanney ?? Mailer ?? Hemingway ?? Arcel ?? Dundee ??

Come up with some thoughts of your own !!

 

Ha. Bravo! This is, in my opinion, one of your best posts... And not just because I happen to agree with you.