Look, you can blab **** all you like about theories and newspaper reports, but when you have it infront of your very eyes, how can you just excuse it? Or atleast, with actual footage, literal proof, how can you not understand where i'm coming from?
You don't think the visual evidence is somewhat tainted considering it was shot in black and white, usually from a distance, at only one angle and at a speed that doesn't let you see the finer details of a fighters ability? If we put your favorite fighters of today on the same film, at the same speed, in B&W, at only one angle, do you think they would look any better than the fighters you're choosing to criticize? And if so, why? You've also left out the level of comp faced back then. It was simply a tougher era with more fighters, less weight classes and less titles. How do you just ignore that?
your comparing poor **** film footage here, NOT people, athletes, and especially fighters. men were men, fitness was fitness, people were people - always have been phenominal tremendous elite at every era of life, always one of the things that is missing today versus then is Toughness, get the head down and just get on with it, fight every few days or couple of weeks and in many instances work fulltime as well, do with out, sacrafice and just plain mental toughness Hard *******s. you can improve film footage, but you'll never improve on toughness born in harder times my freind.
Firstly, if you think that Gene Tunney and Tommy Loughran look like sh1t then you either don't know what you are looking at or need your eyes tested. These two are clearly much better than any light heavyweight around today and I would challenge you to justify the contrary. Secondly, there comes a point where it dosn't matter what a fighter looked like on film because his acomplishments override any interpretation of how good he looked on film. If he can dominate a fighter as great as Gene Tunney, who is clearly great on film, then it is virtualy irrelevant how good or bad he looked doing it. The point is he did it. If we found footage of the Tunney fight, and Greb looked clumsey dominating him, it wouldn't change what Gene Tunney did to Jack Dempsey on film.
I love you guys who come in and vote his comp wasn't very good, but fail to back that up with any solid reasoning.
Listen,Harold Greb p4p plus resume 4 resume is hands down the GOAT. There may be better fighters by virtue of style,technical ability,weight jumping or aesthetics. But none more effective or successful. Records based on 299 fights,and fighting and beating dozens of bona fide greats dont lie... Eat your heart out pachilles and all you jones nuthuggers...
People get **** for padding records with tomato cans. Well everybody back then looks like a ****ing tomato can
Tunney moving like Charlie Chaplin: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0tMBpsRgTU[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W--qSmoMMDQ[/ame]