Salvador Sanchez KO2 Harry Greb

Too much is being made here about Greb's alleged lack of skill. He didn't apply skill, he applied wanton aggression.

I have argued many times about the relative primitive skill of boxers before 1920. I would argue that the evolution boxing began to accelerate towards the more efficient, active, and effective style in the 1930s. It was heralded by exceptional pioneers and early technicians like Gans, Blackburn, and Leonard. It peaked in the late 40s through the early sixties. Incidentally, I think that demographics and structural-cultural shifts had an effect -boxing was huge in the 50s -it rivalled baseball here in the States. Here in Boston, there were over a dozen gyms. Now there is about 1 or 2. More kids went to more gyms and the WWII values of hard work and toughness were more apparant in the culture then. But I digress...

I see skill in Dempsey. Tunney beat him because he had more skill. Greb beat Tunney because of sheer output and this has always been an effective way to neutralize superior skill -overload it and short it out. Anyone who believes that Greb was devoid of skill must be wrong. It's like saying Jones is devoid of skill. They cannot be termed "technicians" and anyone who argues that they were are eternally wrong, but they didn't rely on it because other things worked better for them. They relied on speed and power. In Greb's case, it was pure aggression. Keep in mind, he lost to Tunney ever after. Skill tamed him.

Greb would absolutely overwhelm Sanchez, regardless of the latter's technical superiority. Imagine what Pryor would have done to Arguello had he been naturally 35 pounds heavier and an inch taller. It would have been a homicide. That's a hint as to what would happen here.

 

Wrong, Foreman had a great variety of skill for his style.

Excellent jab, adequate timing, good footwork, good sense of distance, one of the best ever in cutting off the ring in the HW divisions history, good pacing(save for the rumble) and even though his defence was very leaky for the time, it was more well rounded than any of the guys that I am slamming. Foreman also was a freak in terms of power and chin.

And all of this was shown very tight, against a very good crop of more highly evolved fighters than the primitive era's that I am talking about.

Had he fought the way he did in the 70's in the 30's, he'd have never been defeated, KO1's filling up his record.

But you can't note these things right?:huh

 

Much more evolved footwork, timing, punch variety, defencive skill, sense of distance, punch sharpness*, positioning*, throwing within proper range, guard technique, combinations that relate to modern punching technique etc. etc. etc.

All of the guys I am talking about are wide open to be hit at every moment, just note the differences in punch sharpness and little defencive manuvers.

Can you do that though?

 

Anyone who thinks this way is a mental ******. Greb beat lightheavyweights and heavyweights and was never really knocke dout in 300 fights. How the hell is Marvin Hagler going to stop a guy who beat Gene Tunney little own a Featherweight beat him. Ridiculous.

 

OK

Do you think that George Foremans technique was better than that of say Gene Tunney.

Yes or No?

 

Who the hell cares about video's LOOK AT WHO HE BEAT!

 

You refer to me, I assume...

You mentioned a while ago that you practiced martial arts in addition to boxing. What are they, and how old are each of them? When were they invented, and under what conditions?

Also, are there any martial arts other than boxing that you would consider to be near its level in terms of punching ability?

I assume you're overstating your point in this thread (as Zakman does when he wants to make a point). Nevertheless...are you aware of how many fighters there are with genuinely poor technique? Boxing is often less skill-based (in the conventional sense) than many would assume...it's practice based and talent based as much (if not moreso) than skill. Guys like Mayorga, Hamed, Foreman (his technique WAS terrible most of the time), and Baer are successful because they're tough guys with loads of athletic ability and lots of practice fighting. Other combat sports are similar--guys like Tank Abbott and Bob Sapp annihilated fighters with a far better theoretical grasp of the technical niceties of their sport because they had the physical talent and the practice.

Saying that a year of training will prepare an average guy for Greb and Tunney is absurd. Boxing may have advanced, but it did not advance THAT much. A punch is still a punch, a block is still a block, and there have been no magical methods that have been invented in the meantime that would save an average joe from the speed, power, athleticism, workrate, and 300+ fight experience of a fighter like Greb.

 

Some people think the moon is made of cheese,in the words of Rod Mckuen "godamn Amsterdam"

 

I think Dempsey would look primitive if he was boxing today. Not even close to as much as say, Fitzsimmons, but he would be out of place and as a result of that, wouldn't break to the top 10 in either the cruiser or heavyweight divisions.

I'd expect Greb to be slaughtered if he was boxing today. If we use the argument that he has time to train to modern boxing and whatnot it's different, but the Greb we "know" would get smashed to pieces tommorow.

 

Physical attributes will only get you so far. I've seen countless boxers who have so much desire to be the best, to the point that they will do anything to win. They, like Greb would, throw as many punches as their bodies will allow, never even think about giving in and are more dedicated than the average elite fighter, however, they lack skill.

A boxer could have good power, speed and chin, but if he lacks the talent to hit and not get hit, he isn't going to beat anyone.

Considering Greb would not be used to a modern jab and lateral movement, I certainly see him getting hit by a lot of straight punches. His defence would not be suitable to prevent such attacks, and when it comes to offence, all his nifty little, short shots would not be anywhere near as effective due to the gloves and evolution of defence.

Greb was a quality boxer for his time, but I don't see why people say he could make waves today. He would simply be out of his depth. Despite being strong physically, he would lack the style to use his raw abilties to the full effect.

 

But there is still a big difference in style between Foreman and Mayorga, and Greb. Whilst the first two aren't nessecarily skilled at doing it, they are used to fighting against it.

It ridiculous to assume that Greb, whose entire career was against men who fought the same way he did, is the same as Mayorga and Foreman, who always went up against "modern" boxers.

I'm sure Mayoprga and Foreman would be considered to have a more modernised style than Greb anyway.

 

Load of rubbish mate, a legend like greb,in any era would adapt,he would be great in any time in boxing history.Cant beleive people think a guy like greb and others would be out of there depth in todays era,theres so many shitty boxers today who are champs,i fail to see it myself,guys like greb were cast iron warriors,who would kill some of todays soft as **** spoilt figters.:happy