I'm giving ground ?!? "One" punch, "a" punch, it's the same ****ing thing man. I see them clear enough right now. More modern ATG boxers like like Hagler, Monzon, Hearns, the Suga Man - will beat him to a pulp. Greb stands no chance whatsoever against them, let alone against a HW like Foreman, he does not exit the ring alive. Hell, there are even welterweights that I'd favor against him. My claims are not as ludicrous as yours. I said I can beat some champs from almost 100 years ago, upon which I have a clear advantage in height, weight, punching power and even technique. You claim a skinny ass MW who nobody has ever even seen fighting can beat Foreman. Foreman only needs to stumble and fall on Greb in order to win
Johnny, The problem you have here is that we can view footage of some that Greg beat. We can, in turn, see who they beat. On the flip side of the coin, we have a guy, who, having hit one of those fairground punchballs, is now proclaiming what can only amount to a complete load of bollocks.....no offence. Stop embarrassing yourself son.
Everybody could "afford to disregard his shots in order to get one of their own big ones in." There was no question of him stopping Brennan, Miske, Gibbons, Dillon, none whatsoever. It's probable that these men actually stated what you just stated before they stepped into the ring for their brutal thrashings. It wasn't the purvey of heavyweights that strategy. Still, Greb royally ****ed up some durable guys by lashing them over and over and over again. It horrifies me to think what he might do to some of these smaller, slower guys tbh. This emphasis on size is, in the end, just that. Either the big punchers land on him and he goes or they don't. If they do, he might go. If they don't, I think he'd have a very good chance to out-score the guys I mention. There's only one greatest fighter ever and it might be Greb. If he doesn't have serious chances outside his weight class, nobody does.
There's no way Greb over Old Foreman is crazier than you over Jack Sharkey. Sorry. Nobody can possibly agree that you're "the one who makes sense". You sound more like Charlie Z than anyone else.
Definitely, in a few years (if you hang around) you'll be about right... It certainly is not! "One" punch is conflated with "any" punch, whereas "a" punch denotes a punch of given quality (usually high if it's not otherwise expressed). So for example, almost any heavyweight with dig can knock out almost any other fighter with "a" punch, it qualifies no meaning. I thought you meant to express that these fighters would be killing each other with one single punch landed. Which, of course, has never happened in the real world, even in the hundreds of documented years before weight-classes. Though, now I think about it, Fitz might have killed a drunk actor with a single punch during some sort of vaudeville...no doubt you'd have done the same to Fitz had he been unfortunate enough to cross your path. Out of interest, who is "the Suga Man"? Yeah, you won't find very many serious boxing people who will accept the notion, say, that someone like Hagler would "beat the ****" out of someone like Tunney or Gibbons, who appear on film. People who know boxing and watch these fights will consistently predict a very good contest. We know this to be true, beyond all hope of contradiction, because the people who saw "modern ATG boxers" and WW2 and pre-era boxers consistently did so - in other words, people who watched both Duran and Benny Leonard, knew that the fights would be competitive. In fact, Leonard, who Arcel trained, was better than Duran. There's absolutely no way for you to support your position rationally. You just have to repeat, over and over and over again that X (including yourself) would beat the **** out of Y, when anybody that actually saw these people fight knows that X and Y would be in a competitive, exciting fight. In other words, you're base for these discussions is so far wrong you can't possibly ever be right, except by way of coincidence
I meant Foreman can literally kill him if he lands a clean hard punch, not a grazing blow. Sugar Ray Robinson is, wasn't that obvious ?!? I said modern MW ATG will beat the crap out of Greb, who was in a similar weight class, I never said they would beat the **** out of bigger guys. Tunney was a LHW and then a HW. Gibbons was a HW. Good joke. Leonard is not in Duran's level/class. Duran is far superior.
Not remotely! In fact given that you named Hearns, Duran and Hagler in the same post, it seemed far more likely that you meant "the Suga Man" was the fourth king, Sugar Ray Leonard. You know these emoticons you put up where you punch yourself in your face, you're not really doing that to yourself are you? Actually a middleweight, then a light-heavyweight, then a heavyweight. Interesting that you'd pick Gibbons to beat Hagler as he got larger though, didn't expect that. Which is your smaller problem in a nutshell. You're doing a ROFL at Ray Arcel, one of the greatest boxing men who ever lived. That makes you an idiot. Your big problem creidbility-wise is that you think you'd beat up ATG champions.
This does not constitute a "brutal thrashing" Newspaper win for Greb according to the Pittsburgh Post. The fight occurred at 4:30 PM on a hot July afternoon before 12,000 fans. According to Florent Gibson, Greb won 7 rounds, Gibbons took the 2nd and 6th, and the 3rd was even. It was a rugged, slashing battle. At the end of six rounds the fight was close. In the 7th a heavy rain started to fall and the spectators ran for cover. The men fought on and Greb seemed invigorated. He started landing well and Gibbons then hurt him with a smashing right to the jaw. Greb replied with a terrific rally that caused Gibbons to cover and Greb won the round. The rain continued to pour down through the final three rounds and it grew dark as twilight. Florent Gibson stayed out in the rain and described the fight to the other writers, who took shelter under the ring. "Those last four rounds were novelties, but I doubt that the fans in the stands saw much of them." Greb fought one of his greatest battles "in a furious electrical storm." As the rain poured, Greb was "all over Gibbons" and manhandled him. Gibbons had trouble getting set for his punches; the conditions seemed to favor Greb, the great improviser. Gibbons lost his temper and his effectiveness.
I mentioned Hagler, Monzon, Hearns and SRR, I did not mention Duran. You keep misinterpreting my words or you just make bad assumptions. I didn't pick Gibbons to beat Hagler, I meant that I don't think the modern ATG MWs I mentioned to beat Greb to a pulp could do the exact same thing to a bigger man like Gibbons. They have a chance of winning, but not in the same brutal fashion. That was my point That makes me a realist and I don't live in a fantasy world like some of you guys. Most modern boxers think old timers are a joke, they just don't say it out loud like me. Only in a sport like boxing do people such as yourself believe old timers from 100 years ago stand a chance against a modern boxer. In any other sport, people understand that old timers are a joke compared to more modern athletes. Take Jesse Owens for example. He was incredible for his era, he would be average at best in modern times. That doesn't diminish his greatness, but it just shows his level was beneath that of modern athletes.
So DO you pick Hagler to beat a bigger Gibbons? Presumably, you pick him to beat a middleweight one? No, it doesn't. It makes you an extremist, but one that appears ridiculous rather than dangerous. Ray Arcel, who saw old time and moder fighters is absolutely clear that fighters from the twenties and thirties would not just "stand a chance" against "a modern boxer" but would do very well. Nat Fleischer, who saw both old time and modern fighters, is absolutely clear that fighters from the twenties and thirties would not just "stand a chance" against "a modern boxer" but would do very well. Charley Rose, who saw elite fighters from the 1890s through to the 1970s was absolutely clear that fighters from the twenties and thirties would not just "stand a chance" against "a modern boxer" but would do very well. Ray Arcel trained both Benny Leonard and Roberto Duran and you are outright laughing at his opinion that Leonard was better. it's the absolute height of ignorance. Now, if i'm living in a fantasy world - with Arcel, Rose and Fleischer - and you're living in the real world, can you please produce for me some great boxing men who agree with your opinion? Let's hear of the men who have seen both Leonard and Duran (or equivalents) and found Leonard to be a joke whose chances against Duran would be laughable. It should be easy - after all, you're coming from a place of hardened reality, cold logic, and the unassailably obvious truth. I'll wait.
