Is anyone else getting tired of the revisionist?

Greb Tunney and Greb Walker were all film, plus a few other Greb fights, belive vs Gibbons. and Maybe one of the Flower fights.

Now these fights are "Lost". So this fun and games was not the first time Greb was film.
Greb in 1925 perhaps didnt know his classic fights would be lost.

Besides, what would it relly prove if he ko a 50 plus year old man.

 

It won´t get truer the more you repeat it.

:rofl:rofl:rofl


In some ways you are worse than redrooster.

 

Yes, you can see how much love and attention the Klitschkos are getting in comparison to Lennox Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield etc...

 

Either way you can go easy in sparring while maintaining your fighting style, sparring rarely is bout ko'ing your partner actually. 'Clowning for cameras' is an excuse because the Greb fans thinks it looks bad but theres no evidense he was. If you look through the full footage at the shadow boxing you can get a better idea of his style. Grebs style is perfectly normal for the time and it certainly has its merits, the hand movement in the sparring is probably something he employed. It just has flaws that would be exposed by better fighter from later eras and certainly doesnt look like the best of all time.

Bottom line fighters begging for a title shot like greb dont purposely try to make themselves look bad on camera

 

I don't agree with PP, I don't think there has been a sonic leap forward over the decades in boxing, as there has been in other sports. For example, Miguel Cotto was widely touted as one of the best fighters in the world a couple of years ago, a guy who could box and brawl with equal ease. Cotto was never viewed as a Micky Ward style brawler, he was perceived to be a highly skilled boxer - and he didn't come to have this reputation by chance, in his career he had actually shown to be a very good fighter against the guys he had been in with. Then we get to Cotto vs Margarito, and we find that the highly skilled Miguel Cotto has no idea how to defend himself. He doesn't know when to hold or turn his opponent or when to cover up, he simply lets Margarito (a very limited fighter himself) keep plodding after him and bouncing uppercuts off his skull all night til eventually he crumbles. In this era as well, we have people proclaiming Joshua Clottey is a defensive master because he knows how to hold his hands up at his face. Everyone seems to disregard the fact that his defensive style means he is never in a good position to counter nor does he have any way of deterring attacks, instead people drool over the fact that this walking punchbag has limited his opponent to a lowly Compubox connect percentage... whilst losing fights. And then we have guys like Wladimir Klitschko, lauded in some quarters as an ATG heavyweight, when he does the exact same combination 5000 times a fight, and is terrified to leave his over-cautious defensive coccoon. We have guys like Arthur Abraham and Mikkel Kessler, both hyped to the hills, and both exposed as one-dimensional when they meet fighters with a bit of movement and boxing ability.

I could go on, but the point has been made. Consider the rave reviews Cotto has being a complete fighter, before his defence was horribly exposed by Margo. Consider the near legendary status that Clottey's pinata defence has on the General Forum right now. Consider how basic Wladimir Klitschko is in terms of skillset and variety. Consider how inept Abraham and Kessler have been when they were confronted with bad stylistic match-ups for them respectively. All of these guys are top stars in the current climate. Are you telling me that their skills are a sonic leap forward from the skillsets of the same level of fighter from the 30s and 40s and 50s?

Are these guys' glaring limitations really light years ahead of the skillsets of guys like Kid Chocolate, Ike Williams, Manuel Ortiz, etc? No chance. Those guys may not have had the benefits of modern nutrition, training, blah blah blah, but their technical game was superior to that of today's overhyped mediocrities.

 

I never thought Cotto to have amazing boxing skills and always thought his defense was far too open but to say 'he had no idea how to defend himself' is silly when he slipped the vast majority of Margaritos punches. He simply got overwhelmed by the pace/quantity of punches and didnt have the same type of stamina with a broken nose and may well have been unable to compete with some cheaty gloves

Should we say Barney Ross and Ali had no idea of how to defend themselves for their defensive frailties against 100punch a round fighters like Frazier/Armstrong? Yes Frazier/Armstrong were greater but their skills werent amazing they were quantity over quality attrition merchants

You downplay Abraham who you are right is a terrible plodder who was always prone to be outboxed, but then in the next sentence hail Ike Williams who would also often got outboxed due to similarly plodding footwork

I do agree that in man terms the last 20years has seen a decline of skills with the loss of boxing clubs, prominance of other sports and loss of trainers. Not to mention a fighter these days can be set for life from fighting 20bums and getting a title shot then retiring

 

1. If I had a few miniutes of Ali sparring, shadow boxing, training speed back we'd have a good

2. You all overrated what he has achieved, he largely proved himself the best of his era over a course of years. But his era was full of technically and physcially inferior fighters and against the very best (Gibbons bros, Tunney, Loughran, Flowers) he struggled and picked up losses

Take a college standard of runner back to the 1920s and he'd dominate the best in the world for a decade, it doesnt make him the best of all times

 

:goodi know where your coming from.when posters say thing about james j caveman being a top ten heavy or an 11 stone middle from 1143 beating lennox lewis i just have to laugh.just don't take it too seriously.

 

I wasn't directing my post squarely at you PP, I am aware you wouldn't have bought into the Cotto hype (he's not black for a start ). However, I think it is indicative of falling standards that he was widely perceived to be a very skilled all-round boxer, when in reality he was extremely flawed.

I disagree that Frazier and Armstrong didn't have great skills, I think they did. They don't have conventional slick outboxing skills like the type you appreciate, but they were very skilled offensive machines, they were not merely 100 punch per round windmills as you suggest.

Picking out my selection of Ike Williams is just pointless nit-picking (I wrote down names from those eras that I thought represented different styles off the top of my head, it wasn't carefully considered), OK I could have chosen a better name for my sentence, but the point remains the same anyway.

Your last part I agree with.

 

When Jack Dempsey spar with McAuliffe who was near 50 years himself in the early 20's(Think it was 21,) The film of that sparing sesson did not relly put Dempsey in good light.

Dempsey's punchings were mere slaps, hardly no foot work as he show vs Willard. Hell McAuliffe look better than the killer Dempsey.

In the end, I would RELLY question of how good of a fighter Dempsey was if the McAuliffe footage was the only thing left.