Are swarmers overrated?

You both have a point. We can obviously tell some things about past boxers from stuff other than film. But our precision might decline with inferior sources. Film is usually better than text.

Depending on how much you want to know, Harry Greb's boxing style might be one of those overly technical things that you need footage to answer relevantly. Imagine you're a coach preparing his fighter to face an opponent. How useful are written accounts of the opponent's fights going to be compared to films?

 

It wouldn't be very helpful, but we're not talking about the nuances of Greb's style. We're talking about him being a swarmer and all accounts paint him as someone who smothered his opponents close. It's understandable, he was short without long reach - especially for a LHW.

 

Was Calzaghe a swarmer?swarmed?

EDIT: That question aside, yes, I suppose it makes sense to argue that the slugger-swarmer-boxer archetype triad is general enough that it can be applied across eras with limited film evidence. Though I'd still like to see that argument.

 

I wouldnt call Pac or Frazier swarmers

 

Written accounts could give a broad picture. They aren't going to show exploitable weaknesses, but they'd at least let you know what kind of fighter to expect and prep for.

 

There are countless texts about the Roman army by respected historians, who can give you an objective description.
Most of what we have about Greb is descriptions/exaggerations made by biased journalists, most of who were ****ing clueless about boxing.

I don't know much about basketball, so I can't give you an opinion. I've never even heard of this guy.

 

How can you know they give objective description? I think you have no idea how the work with historical sources work. 95% of historical sources are extremely biased, because they were written for a purpose.

So journalists were so clueless that they couldn't differentiate pressure fighter from outboxer? Based on your history on this board, it seems that you truly believe that people were dumb 100 years ago. I suggest you to stay away from that path.

 

Calling a style of fighting is overrated is bizzare. However there is something that all the "overrated" fighters have in common in your list. They're all heavyweights. I would say heavyweights are more likely to be overrated than anyother weight class and It's not very close.

 

Also there's plenty of underrated swarmers too.

 

I was talking about historians (many of whom were not Romans) that described how the Army worked/fought,not about those who glorified Roman victories.

Journalists haven't changed one bit from 100 years ago, they are still just as clueless and dumb. Very very few actually know what they are talking about.

 

Who they were then?

Alright then, how about reports that didn't come from journalists?

 

Contemporaries from other nations who lived during those times.

Who did they come from ? Who are you talking about ?

 

Who were they?

All people related to boxing during Greb's time.

 

I'll have to search, I don't remember their name by heart.
You also didn't give any names.

 

Here is one example:

"He could hit from impossible angles. Once, after Harry missed a right to my face, he spun all the way around so that his back faced me. I relaxed my guard and waited for him to turn around. But before I knew what was happening, his left was stuck in my mouth. I still don't know how he did it, but he hit me while his hands faced in the opposite direction."
Mickey Walker

Sounds like a pressure fighter to me. Now, is Mickey Walker also clueless about boxing?