How do people have the nerve to say Harry Greb would be competitive in any era?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by withoutwire, May 15, 2012.


  1. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,260
    48,598
    Mar 21, 2007
    These athletes have very short peaks.
     
  2. JAB5239

    JAB5239 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,470
    59
    Feb 23, 2008
    Tunney looks great on film and Greb was good enough to beat him. The question is how could anyone that knows more about him than a video with him clowning not think he would be competitive?
     
  3. luke

    luke Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,360
    9
    May 7, 2012


    he was blind in his lead eye by this point.
     
  4. thistle1

    thistle1 Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,915
    151
    Jul 30, 2006
    and old poor quality film and operators show NO representation of how we walk, run or go about our normal 'moving' day, does it?

    it's a rare gem when they get it right - see among others Tony Canzoneri & Frankie Glick, well giving how normal & EXCELLENT they look, don't you think their great peers were also?
     
  5. thistle1

    thistle1 Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,915
    151
    Jul 30, 2006
    here's some PROPER old footage for yah, 1938, where they've gotten it right...

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX7rvKFPCR8&feature=related[/ame]


    the movement looks pretty normal and the fighters are strong, skilled and hard as _uck, especially Boy Boon.

    So ALL of their top contemporaries were just the same, the 'captured' film IS the difference, some is normal, MOST is ****, the FILMING, not the fighters!
     
  6. dinovelvet

    dinovelvet Antifanboi Full Member

    61,629
    24,403
    Jul 21, 2012
    Back then if someone was given the opportunity to be captured by a technical marvel as a camera , surely they would be eager to give the best representation of themselves possible.
    The flailing - ungainly and uncoordinated - was imo the turest representation of Grebs "skill".

    Does anyone actually believe he would not get pelted unmerciful by Carl Froch...
     
  7. thistle

    thistle Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,551
    8,083
    Dec 21, 2016
    because he's Shite, is that what you want to hear?

    200 plus fights, loads of Champion's, Contenders and Noted fighter opponents on his career...

    you don't need to see Film as long as there is Proper Documented Multiple Actual Reports.

    Film was most often Poor from those days anyway...

    But, and lucky for you, there IS Proper Film of some of his opponents fighting others, and even greater for you to huff n puff through, Film of them others fighting into the 40s even when Film Footage became better 'opperated', viewable & preserved.
     
    Greg Price99 likes this.
  8. SgrRyLeonard

    SgrRyLeonard Active Member Full Member

    782
    134
    Jun 4, 2006
    Camera had been around for over 30 years at the time of this footage being made, so it was hardly a new marvel.
     
  9. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker

    25,576
    9,581
    Jul 15, 2008
    If you want serious answers , pose serious questions ... the debate over generations and styles is a legit one but when you phrase it as an attack on one of the all time greats you will alienate people ... that aside , you realize Greb was playing with O'Brien who was 47 when this was shot in about 1925 or so .. then you comment on a gulf in speed which lends one to think you don't know your subject ... while fighters may be stronger, speed is speed. Greb was by all accounts one of the fastest fighters ever .. Even Jack Johnson, never one to throw bouquets said Greb was the fastest man he ever saw. Greb was all about speed, punch output , stamina and chin. None of those got better with time ... Just my thoughts ..
     
  10. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,260
    48,598
    Mar 21, 2007
    I think, whatever knocks you out really.

    You believe one of two things when you watch Tunney fight Dempsey. 1) Tunney was a buffoon, which is consistent with the above opinion but something i've no interest in discussing with anyone because it is so divorced from reality in my opinion as to be ridiculous. Or 2) That Tunney looks awesome on film, a quick-footed, clever boxer, with a good punch and an elite all-time defence in footwork and parrying. If you believe the second you have to square it with the above opinion. I don't see how you can, really, the idea that Froch would defeat Tunney easily is just laughable to me. And we do know that Greb utterly thrashed Tunney on multiple occasions. Sometimes their bouts were literally non-competitive because Greb was so far ahead of Tunney.
     
  11. dinovelvet

    dinovelvet Antifanboi Full Member

    61,629
    24,403
    Jul 21, 2012
    You must have me mixed up with someone else.
    Im talking about Greb , not Tunney.
    Id pick Tunney over Froch.
     
  12. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,260
    48,598
    Mar 21, 2007
    I haven't mixed you up with someone else.

    You wrote that "The flailing - ungainly and uncoordinated - was imo the turest representation of Grebs "skill". Does anyone actually believe he would not get pelted unmerciful by Carl Froch..."

    Now you've picked Tunney to beat Froch.

    How do you square the fact that Greb completely thrashed Tunney?

    "He gave me the worst beating of my life. He was like fighting a swarm of bees. He was the fastest fighter I ever met — hands, feet, and head. I learned more from that one beating by Greb than from any other fight in my career."
     
    robert ungurean and Greg Price99 like this.
  13. HistoryZero26

    HistoryZero26 Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,035
    4,357
    Jan 6, 2024
    Old film can play tricks with the eyes. People need to stop trusting their eyes they will always let you down in the end.

    So far as old 1910s film goes that film doesn't look bad at all.
     
  14. Melankomas

    Melankomas Prime Jeffries would demolish a grizzly in 2 Full Member

    7,233
    8,936
    Dec 18, 2022
    Mfs still using training footage to judge an entire man’s career from as if we don’t literally have footage of the men he beat LOL
     
  15. dinovelvet

    dinovelvet Antifanboi Full Member

    61,629
    24,403
    Jul 21, 2012
    Tunney implied he would go on to be the better fighter than greb.
    In 6 fights , one victory means a lot less than 4 and one draw .
    It seems clear to me that Greb only got the win first time due fouling and tearing at his face and eyes.
    Once Tunney knew what he was dealing with, Greb never took another win against him.
    Many other fighter were supposed to have beaten Greb to pulp.
    There no doubt in my mind that Froch (not Tunney) would leather him brutally

    Toughest opponent: Tunney stated that of all the fighters he met, Greb was the one who was "least interested in the rules".

    First fight: In their first fight, Greb broke Tunney's nose in the first 10 seconds and opened cuts on his eyes in the second and third rounds. Tunney was able to go 15 rounds despite the injuries.

    Greb's style: Tunney described Greb as never staying still for more than half a second, and that his punches seemed to hit "empty air".

    Finding a way to win: Despite the brutal beating, Tunney said that it was during that first fight that he figured out how to beat Greb, which he was eventually able to do in their later bouts.