Greb vs Louis. What type of chance does Greb have?

Give him to the Angels can only be purchased in back issues, and a limited re-release by a guy who literally jumped the copyright and published it on his own in England. It had one initial printing and that was limited due to the legal procedings. So lets not pretend that the thing has been in print for the last 63 years ok? Do you understand how print runs work? If a book is pulled from shelves it doesnt mean that they went to every home that had purchased a copy and burned them in the street. It simply means the book was published, legal action was taken after it had hit the stands, and those copies which hadnt been sold were pulled from the stands. That is why you can still buy copies and that is why those copies are relatively expensive compared to other books published at the same time with longer runs.

Man you really are pathetic when it comes to ignoring hard facts arent you? So, because the publishers were sued you would never expect him to work again? Mark Kram was arguably more disgraced than James Fair and he continued to write and have a respectable career until his death in 2002 at which time he was working on a bio of Mike Tyson. You have the answer to your own question. The Greb book was published in 1946, the article you quote was 20 years later. Do you think anyone cared or remembered who James Fair was at that point?

Ring Magazine went through a major shakeup during the late 1970s due to a pretty massive scandal. Did they suddenly cease to exist? Last time I checked Golden Boy promoters owned them (and is doing everything they can to run them into the ground, but thats a whole different argument).

Your pathetic arguments just get weaker and more desperate.

 

"I think I'll take her word over yours"

So would I. Hers is not in question. You made a sensational charge--that Harry Greb's life was threatened. Was there an official police report? It is reasonable to ask where she was when she took the call and why such a threat would have been given to her rather than her husband.

Also, even if there was such a call, who made it and how would you know it was not just a crank rather than spinning some sort of elaborate conspiracy theory.

That Greb went ahead with the fight does undercut the conspiracy theory.

 

"Do you think anyone cared or remembered who James Fair was at that point?"

You think that Sports Illustrated would hire a writer to write on the same subject he was discredited on? And what has Ring Magazine got to do with SI? SI certainly had enough money to have lawyers check out contributers.

I never said the book was always in print. I said you can buy it today and you can.

"Your pathetic arguments"

I don't have to smear men like Nat Fleischer to attempt to make a case. Or to rely on a laughable claim that the fight was fixed. I just pointed out that Greb went from a 7 to 5 favorite to an 8 to 5 underdog after this fight and that basically trumps all the name calling.

 

old fogey

You have an HL Menken like blind faith in Nat Fleisher that I would question and zero knowledge of the man in Gene Tunneys world who's nickname was "Mister Connection"

messers Billy Gibson and therein lies an explanation for these olds you quote.

 

Fair enough, and I'm happy to read a polite post. It is possible I am wrong, but I do think, whatever his faults, Fleischer was a good reporter who sought to be accurate, and his article is a well-reasoned defense of the official decision, whether one agrees or not.

The odds I quote are on the third fight. Is your position that this fight was basically fixed also? The odds were accurate for that fight.


**Just as an aside, I don't understand how H L Mencken and "blind faith" go together. The Mencken I have read was the last word in cynicism about almost everything, especially religion and politicians.

 

I can tell you Nat in the entire run of his mag sold Harry waaaaaaay short in re ink.
In re the rubber match odds favoring Gene. Dopsters just witnessed highway robbery in a Greb victory in the rematch so why bet any differently next time out??
What do you know about "Gib"?

 

Mencken, right a truth teller!

 

So you think way back in 1967 Sports Illustrated was going through a lengthy process of vetting its writers by hiring lawyers etc to accomplish this task... For one article? Is that how think things are/were done? In all likelyhood Fair submitted a CV which would include credits writing for newspapers, Vanity Fair, Esquire, and others, that alone along with a properly edited article would have been enough to give weight to Fair's submission. Are you that obtuse?

I will smear Fleischer considering his work was subpar at best. Terrific ambassador and promoter, not so sharp on the facts.

Once again, whether you understood how odds work (which you obviously dont), betting odds swaying in one direction or another are not proof of anything and can in fact be used as evidence for my point as much as it can for yours. I have illustrated this point above but you seem to be the only person here who ignores the concept, much like you ignore everything else in order to maintain a grasp on the little myth you are so attached to.

A vast majority of papers state categorically that Greb should have kept his title but they werent the NY Times so they dont count.

There was dirty work afoot for months before to deprive Greb of his title but because Greb went through with the fight (which he was bound by a substantial forfeit to do) none of that adds up.

His stated in an interview before the fight that she recieved threats against Greb but because she was on her death bed she was probably lying... about something...

Journalists weight dont hold more water than champions or certified officials, despite the fact that we have quoted champions and officials (not the least of which was the judge who voted for Greb) who all thought Greb won, so you then fall back on journalists like James Dawson (a minority opinion), James Fair (a complete liar) and Nat Fleischer who by his own admission was on the fence as to who won.

I say the decision was a split decision and you say it was unanimous because it was "implied" by the Times and Time magazine (which didnt have a byline for the article so for all we know it could have been ghost written by Dawson). The fact of the matter is that the decision of each individual judge was not rendered ringside. It was through the work of Jack Lawrence (who always did a great job of getting inside knowledge) that it was revealed the decision was split and it wasnt until the day after the fight therefore there is no way Dawson could have known whether the decision was unanimous writing that article ringside. So Im sorry but IMPLIED doesnt mean ****, especially not when you are quoting an article so one sidedly biased in favor of Tunney.

And thats really the point isnt it? You basically quoted, through this entire argument, one single ringside account. The only one you have ever had access to and the only one to date that you can come up with (since you are sitting at home eating cheetos and not willing to get up and get the articles yourself, despite having them all laid out before by myself and others). You cling to this one article, the most biased of the meager minority that voted against Greb, and somehow I am supposed to accept everything Dawson says at face value? Doesnt that seem a little strange? Where is the concensus?

Your arguments have no weight, no substance, and most importantly little or no fact or even basis in fact. They are supported only by one biased newspaperman and a few native New Yorkers who attached their names to Greb's star AFTER he died and wasnt able to defend himself. Show me a quote during Greb's lifetime where he ever thought he lost any of the first four fights with Tunney much less the first two. He would have been mad as a hornet to hear quotes attributed to him stating otherwise and based on the information provided to you above (which you continue to ignore) one can easily see why.

 

Exactly, if you go to a fight wanting to lay a bet down. Do you bet on the guy that you KNOW cant win a decision against Tunney in New York? Why not just stay home and spend the night flushing your money down the toilet.

Nat Fleischer, his lacky Dan Daniel, and Jame Fair did more to hurt Harry's reputation after his death than anyone could while he was alive in the ring.

Why do you think Harry's star faded so dramatically after his death during the years when Ring was the dominant journalistic force in boxing? Pick up any copy of the ring well into the 1980s and look it over for stories on Greb. Thats where half the myths on Greb got started.

 

"Nat in the entire run of his mag sold Harry way short"

He rated him third at middleweight all time, behind Ketchel and Ryan, but ahead of Walker and Robinson. Greb was the first boxer to appear alone on a Ring cover, wasn't he? I think he also was the fighter of the year in 1922 and 1924.

"Dopesters just witnessed highway robbery"

Unless I know the third fight is also going to be "highway robbery", my money stays in my pocket. I would be very leery of betting against the clearly superior fighter in the first two fights in a third fight. I have to believe the gamblers back then would have felt the same way.

 

Ring Magazine didnt start publishing fighter of the year until 1928 when TUNNEY won it.

Tex Rickard and Lord Lonsdale appeared on the first cover of ring.

 

Your answering my question, what do you know about Tunneys Mgr Billy "Mr Connection" Gibson...Zilch!
Ring Mag was so barren of Greb ink a letter to the mag addressing this was published around 1943

 

1. Split decision--I will yield the point to you. Miles voted for Greb and he was outvoted.

2. Odds--So Tunney being an 8 to 5 favorite indicates Greb was viewed as the better fighter? You're right. I am not convinced.

3. Show me a quote from Greb's lifetime--fair point

4. But all the king's horses and all the king's men does not change that Tunney won the official decision and was the betting favorite for the second fight.

5. "Your arguments have no weight, no substance, and most importantly little or no fact or even basis in fact."

Really. Tunney won the decision in this fight, was favored for the next fight, and indeed won the next fight. Those seem like facts to me. You seem to want to be the prosecuting attorney, the judge, and the jury. I beg to be allowed to make up my own mind.

6. As your opinion is that anyone who differs with your opinion, such as Dawson, Fleischer, and Igoe, are biased or fools or in the tank, I am not shocked that you find the evidence one-sided.

 

old fogey

Billy Gibson was a front for messers Arnold Rothstein and this set up made things just a wee bit difficult for old Harry Greb when battling in old New York.
In addition the core ny boxing writers of the day were paid off as Gene himself admitted in both his books.

Arms For Living

and

A Man Must Fight


http://books.google.com/books?id=XC...=8&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=gibson&f=false