Harry Greb-Walker film 1978?

No matter how many circumstantial things Mendoza claims support this find, the day/night difference absolutely smashes it to pieces.

The fight was at night.
Those stills are evidently day.

Case closed.

 

Mossad have set up a "Harry Greb Footage Squad" on the basis that Greb might have had some Jewish ancestry, and are working to secure the film and preserve in a museum vault in Tel Aviv.

Working closely with the forensic experts of the FBI's "Nipple Squad" they are currently following a lead that suggests sixteen reels of Greb film are being held ransom by a notorious 100-year-old German gentleman currently living in Iran under the name Abdullah Himmler.

 

I don't have an opinion on this one way or another.

But it seems like the more relevant point here is whether or not the fellow featured in the video is Harry Greb.

Frankly, at this point, who cares who the opponent is. Greb fought 300 times over a couple decades. There aren't even photographs of many of his opponents. Identifying the opponent is secondary. Whether the fight is taking place during the day or at night is secondary. Whether it was a real fight or an exhibition is secondary. How much a guy is trying to sell the fight for is secondary (on this thread).

The first thing that needs to be proved is whether or not it's Harry Greb.

Apparently, a handful of people feel it is. Klompton is an expert on Greb. He says it's not.

I'd like to hear more about why Klompton feels that person physically isn't Harry Greb.

Forget all the daytime, nighttime, who's the ref, how much the guy selling it changed his mind about who the opponent is... all that.

Based on the film ... and taking into account a fighter's appearance can change after a lot of fights and over many years (see Ali or Pacquiao at the start of their careers and at the end) ... what about that guy resembles Greb and what about him doesn't?

Or maybe what about his style is reminiscent of Greb, and what about it isn't?

I'm not choosing sides. I'm just curious.

Mendoza mentioned the physical attributes people tried to use to identify him. Klompton didn't seem to agree with them.

So looking at the film, Klompton, what about the fighter (physically or otherwise) made you feel it wasn't Greb?

Or, do you think it could be Greb (because he does resemble him and he does demonstrate a similar style), but you just want more proof as to the age of the film, etc.?

 

^ interesting and fresh perspective

 

Thats not true. I have photographs of almost every one of Greb's opponents barring a handful at most and those guys were A. white, B. early in his career, and C. very minor in terms of their importance and popularity, which means they were unlikely to be filmed.

Its not secondary. Thats exactly the logic they are using to justify this. They are saying "Its Greb against..." and then pretending we can just fill in a blank. No. It doesnt work like that. Greb didnt spar Tate. Ever. So it wasnt Greb Tate the first time around. Greb only fought a handful of black fighters in either real contests or exhibitions and every one of them can be ruled out as this film. So the opponent is extremely important in this case due expressly because they are claiming its Greb.

No its not because they claimed to have positively and scientifically identified a film of a Greb fight that took place at night even though the film is clearly in the daytime. Thats not secondary. Thats a major point.

Coming from a con man it goes to his motivation in trying to pass off a film he knows isnt of Greb.

And this is the problem right here. You dont take an unidentified film and presume its one fighter out of all of the thousands of fighters it could be and then try to shoehorn evidence in to suggest you are right. You take criteria like all of the above (which you think is secondary but is actually not) along with the actual film, etc you use actual criteria to narrow down things like when this film was shot, time of day, location, venue, etc etc. They cant do any of that with this. They refuse to post or even acknowledge an edge code which could date the film. I know its because they dont even have film (and lying about that, amid all of the other discrepencies in their story further damages credibility). Thats one piece of criteria eliminated. The audience and style of shorts dont even look like they are from the 1920s Thats a problem. None of the black fighters Greb fought or appeared against in an exhibition match this fight. AT ALL. Thats a problem. You have three major red flags, one of which totally prevents this from being the fight they claim. Then you look at the provenance of this "film" where did it come from, where did this story start? Kurt is the person making all of these claims. What is Kurt's history? Kurt has a history of making false claims to having discovered fights that arent what he claims. Numerous times hes done this. Thats not me bashing Kurt it can be proven just by looking at his website. Then you look at the motivation for why someone would do this. Kurt often uses these lies to lure in people as bate to purchase from him. $$. Then you realize he was trying to market this clip to people who had more money than sense for $100,000. Suddenly this story loses all credibility. If you want you can then back that out and ask, what evidence is there that this is Greb? None. The word of a proven liar. Thats it. Thats where this story begins and ends. Put your faith in that if you want but I wont.

Only three people who supposedly think this is Greb have been named. 1. Denied he thought it was Greb. 1. Was totally unaware that Greb fought Gans at night and admits thats a problem. Beyond that his only reason for saying this was Greb was because he "imagined thats what Greb would look like." and the third I actually know but havent spoken to yet. Im anxious to get his side of the story.

You dont identify a film based on how one of the participants MIGHT look in it. Especially a film about which we know nothing and the subjects of which we only have photos of in actual action. Darius Michalczewski KIND OF resembles Greb. If you took him and film him in BW and then copied that film to vhs and the copied it again about half a dozen times would you be able to tell me hes not Greb?? Kid Carter, who was a Greb contemporary looked like Greb even close up. There are plenty of fighters who, if you use your imagination and really really want to believe it, could resemble Greb when filmed in BW and shot from a distance away and then displayed in a poor quality fuzzy, multigenerational VHS. People will see what they want to see. You have to be more precise than that. Here is an example from a film I identified a couple of years ago:

[url]http://***************.com/showthread.php?39209-Another-Boxing-Film-Mystery[/url]

That film was of Ernie Vigh but notice Thistle who is from Britain and who is interested in the late 1930s and 1940s British fighters thought it as Ernie Roderick, a guy who was 30 pounds lighter than Vigh and unless Im mistaken never fought in the USA where this film was shot. He saw what he wanted to see. Here is another example and this one is close up and in color:

[url]http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=166441[/url]

Nobody even came close to getting that one right, even guys who were around the LA scene at that time. Even after I had positively identified it one guy refused to believe it. Thats why you cant just rely on what you think someone is supposed to look like on film.

Why not just ignore every relevant aspect to this film and pretend its what he says...

See above. Pointless.

You mean the style that nobody alive has seen and was described as indescribable at the time or as no style at all??

No, Im sorry but "nibble placement" and "innocculation marks" and "chest splits" are a ridiculous criteria for identification.

atsch Im not going to be asked to leave my common sense at the door. Go back and read my posts from beginning to end.

No, I dont. I dont even think this film was taken during Greb's lifetime. I think its a training film of a known (but unidentified) fighter taken sometime in the 1930s. There is absolutely no evidence AT ALL that this is Greb. Even if you ignore everything that any responsible researcher would look at which is essentially what you are proposing we do. Essentially you want us to identify the film by squinting our eyes and seeing if we can imagine this guy as being Greb and disregard everything else. Thats what Silver did and thats not how its done.

 

All fair counterpoints for a historian ^ you can't just take a film and say it looks like Greb. Many reasons for this but least of all- is someone unscrupulous may take your words and run with them that it is verification of Greb.

 

This debate is beyond ridiculous at this point. Reminds me of a debate I had with a guy who defended the Papke-Ketchel "sucker punch" myth. Never mind that there wasn't a shred of evidence in the next-day reports to support it. His entire argument was deconstructed bit by bit.

The piece of wreckage he clung desperately to in order to keep the debate going and somehow "win"?? Drum roll please:

"Because you can't prove to me that it didn't happen".

Strong stuff. Don't become a lawyer anytime soon, OK?

Sometimes you just need to realize when you've been licked. Or at least when your argument has weakened to the point where you have the good sense to slink away gracefully and not keep trying to "win".

 

I understand this completely. But it helps if you can START with "well, that certainly looks like Harry Greb" or "that's clearly not Harry Greb."

For instance, if you have a silent film of Archie Moore and Harold Johnson, and you say one of them is Muhamamd Ali, I'm going to say it's not because neither looks anything like Muhammad Ali.

I can START there. Neither looks like him. I don't need to see an original film reel and identify any markings on them to tell you that. I can see that it's not him.

What troubled me about Klompton's explanation is, when I asked if the fighter looked like Greb and if his style resembled Greb's, he said how the fighter looks is "pointless" and said of the style: "You mean the style that nobody alive has seen and was described as indescribable at the time or as no style at all??"

So does this mean Klompton will never be able to identify a fight film of Greb unless he knows who the opponent is and can identify him, too?

Boxers (today and throughout the decades) have engaged in exhibitions and sparring that aren't documented and don't show up on their records.

Which is why I was just curious if Klompton thought it even resembled him. (I haven't seen it, so I don't know.)

Klompton and Mendoza are arguing over whether the "opponent" resembles the guy he was supposed to be, and about the location, and the time of day it took place, and the temperature that day ... but I'm not hearing anything about the guy Klompton is actually an expert on -- Harry Greb.

What did Klompton think of the guy who was SUPPOSED to be Harry Greb? Any thoughts on that guy in the film at all? Anything? Any comments on his style? Any comments on his ability? What was Greb's best punch and did the guy in the film throw it? Was he good, even if he wasn't Greb? Any idea on who it might be if it's not Greb? ANYTHING?

All I've gotten from this whole discussion is one guy in the film apparently resembles Harry Greb down to his nipples

And some people are willing to say it's him and others aren't without seeing the source material first because they don't trust the seller.

But I was more curious about how the fellow who is "supposed" to be Greb looked by the person who is an expert on Greb.

I'd rather hear a lecture on that rather than on film stock or the temperature that day in Pennsylvania (or wherever the hell it was).

 

Footage of that quality and at that distance, it could certainly look like almost anyone. You could just as easily say it looks like Maxie Rosenbloom. He ticks as many boxes here. White, roughly the same height as Greb, fought in the same era in the same weight classes, fought a number of black opponents, similar nipple alignment. Like Greb no footage of a Rosenbloom fight exists (I believe). And they did look vaguely alike. At a distance they'd be hard to distinguish in poor quality footage. So why is it Greb and not Slapsie Maxie?

 

But you don't understand, Mendoza has his forensic experts on the case,and they are," boxing people he trusts".

IBRO members no less!

 

Rosenbloom was innoculated on his right arm, just above his "NO PORK" tattoo.

 

According to Mendoza you have endorsed this footage?:huh

 

An ethic group? Any ethical group likely won't want your mate Kurt as a member.:-(

btw It's RACIST not RACISTS as in singular not plural.

What is it in you that makes you lie ,and lie, and lie,ad nauseum are you from a particular group? As in the
" Mendacious Trolling Club"?

 

I don't know, I haven't seen it. Have you seen the film? How long does it run? How many rounds does it show? Any closeups? Is it all shot from the same distance? Any ring entrances/exits?

I've seen the same couple small stills you have from Noltimer's site that were linked in this thread. Looking at a couple tiny screenshots and watching a fight film are two different things.

I understand Klompton and the guy selling it clearly don't get along at all. And I'm not saying anyone should blindly agree it's Greb.

But an expert on Greb/or any fighter should be able to watch a film that runs several rounds or 10 or 15 minutes ... or any substantial length ... and have some idea if it may or may not be that boxer ... and be able to tell us why they feel it is or isn't ... even if more research is needed.

All I'm asking is what did Klompton think of the fighter who is supposedly Greb? How did he look? What did he fight like? What did he see?

Just saying the "opponent" doesn't look like the guy he's supposed to be doesn't tell me anything.

If someone posted a film of the Muhammad Ali-Lyle Alzado exhibition ... and he mislabeled it and said it was the Ali-Foreman fight ... and I said that's not George Foreman ... and the guy said, okay, it's Joe Frazier ... that might make the guy posting the film an idiot, but that doesn't mean the other guy in the ring isn't Ali.

Saying Ali didn't fight Foreman and Frazier in the the Miami Orange Bowl doesn't make it not Ali, either.

Ali can be in the ring ... and the other guy could be mislabeled. And it could be still be Ali and not show up on his record.

Klompton's an expert on Greb. Nobody is doubting that.

But what about the fighter on that film told him it wasn't Greb? Did he not look like Greb? Did he not fight like Greb? Anything?

Or is it just about the locale and the opponent and the guy selling the tape?