Greb Knocked Out By Body Shot

Was his the report that stated :
"Few in the hall saw the blow, but as one fellow remarked, "why should Ickie show the yellow when he was winning?" That was it. Greb had the first round and gave evidence that he was going to land a few more before the end of the battle, so why "lay down"?"

?

I don't find that kind of writing and reasoning much different to Jim Jab's article.
It's a poor attempt to hide a bias behind some sort of "logical reasoning", nicely accompanied with the customary quote from "one fellow in the hall".

OBVIOUSLY the counter answer to the question "why would Ickie show the yellow ..... ?" is that Rogers HURT him badly with a very good body shot. Knocked the stuffing out of him, legit.

Likely it was either that .... or it was a foul.
It's far less likely that he just "lay down" (ie. he wasn't hurt at all), so for the reporter to reason that way it just an attempt to distort things or his thinking is muddled by his own bias.

 

What you have here is a minority (just like 100 years ago) who are basing their argument on emotion and supposition and a majority who for 100 years have chosen to judge the fight based on exactly what transpired in the ring, leaving out all conjecture. Ill take the facts thank you very kindly and will continue to ignore the conjecture of a couple of dunces posted on a boxing forum 100 years after the fact after reading one article on the subject.

I say again, if you think you have something then new then by all means publish it and be sure to get the spelling of your name your name correct when you attach it to your work because I want everyone with half a brain to know exactly who they are laughing at.

 

many alts, I quoted YOUR articles that YOU posted. I was quoting something that was written at that time. Many alts, you have posted under different alts and then when you are called on it, you hide, deny or refer to yourself in a post with at least two different alts, that you hide behind. many alts who do you think you are fooling? Maybe the laughter you hear is directed at you. Like the Dempsey contract, you posted a while back, that you claimed everybody was laughing at. You may have all the articles in the world but you dksab. A true historian knows their subject and what they are writing about. Apparently you don't and can only quote articles that conform to your biases.

 

Their approaches to reporting are very much different to me. He is not excluding either possibility, unlike Jim Jab, and he gives a much more balanced overview of the bout, not fuming with bias and hatred.

 

Then go write a book you great ****ing historian. If you know so much do it. Your nothing but a talker with a forum account. Go put all of your special thoughts on paper and sign your name to them. Rewrite history for us champ. No? I didnt think so...

 

Many alts there ya go, never said I was a historian or that I wanted to be. I have and had better things to do with my life then waste 15yrs reading articles. I commented on your posts and used common sense to structure an argument. For instance on the facts of the matter. 1-Ref didn't see a foul or call it, 2-Greb decided to rest and not come out for the 2nd rd. You don't have to be a historian to argue a point, especially one that seems to have some homecooking. Commonsense and a little bit of boxing knowledge applied to this situation, says at the very least that Greb should have been DQ'd, when he refused to come out for the 2nd. It doesnt take reading 50 articles to come to an obvious conclusion. Boxing has rules that everybody but greb in this instance, follows. Argue all you want or go on a rant it doesnt matter what matters is the truth, and the truth was, the ref didn't see a foul and didn't call it, that greb sat in the corner and refused to come out for the 2nd and got a nice long rest. The ref if he wasn't intimidated which he seemed to have been, should have given Rogers the win when Greb failed to come out for the 2nd, end of story.

 

There is nothing new. It's old news. An insignificant 6-round ND. With some funny business included.

 

Funny business is right cos it robbed Rogers of a big win

 

blah blah blah. Come on Captain History, enlighten the world with your genius. Show something that hasnt been discussed before. You ****ing clowns come on here and act like youve got some new discovery when it was discussed and dissected in depth in my book. LOL. The only difference being I used EVERY first hand source to reach my conclusions and you used ONE. Your damn right your not a historian. Your a troll with too much time on his hands. Meanwhile Im busy working on my next two books and helping two of best modern boxing historians publish theirs. While I do all of that I'll be looking for your book "The Complete Idiots Guide to Boxing" Written by Idiots for Idiots to hit stands any day now..

 

Well if you dont want to be in the minority why dont you just admit what happened (which is based on your own reports). You dont need to add in any conjecture which only clouds things anyway.

So you accept that Greb couldnt continue after the first, claiming a low blow from a blow which was not ruled low. And ultimately No decision was rendered, ie Greb did not win?

If that is the case then it shouldnt be too hard to say yes I agree and move on.

 

Duh, pysstorian, we are talking about something that happened what a hundred ago? First hand accounts??? Am I wrong but didn't you post like 3-4 different newspaper accounts. I did comment on your own posts and even highlighted the key parts in your posts. In your book did you state the obvious that a strong ref would have called that fight when Greb didn't come out for the 2nd? Or that Rogers was robbed of a victory, by the homecooking and an intimated ref, who to his credit stood his ground and refused to call it a foul. Or did you gloss over it as you are doing here? It was at the very least a controversial result, worthie of being discussed, afterall this is a forum.
Maybe you should write that book, "The Complete Idiots Guide to Boxing" Written by Idiots for Idiots", cos you don't know what constitutes a deal, a contract, and business tactics, the Shelby deal, the Dempsey contract, Kearns stalling, and not knowing what you are seeing when looking at old clips.
I find that anybody can fish in those newspaper archives and have an enjoyable time just reading and making their own minds on what's what. If all the book has is old re-hashed newspaper articles jeez I can save my money and just search articles on one of those newspaper sites.
Don't be mad many alts, be happy you have two books in mind and helping others very commendable. :good

 

The way you are arguing and blurting out illogical rubbish about how you must be right about this because you have every single article (most of which say roughly the same thing anyway) because you are a historian, i dont even know what you are really disputing.

I think you are saying Greb won the fight even though no Decision was rendered and he needed extra time to recover after the first. I also think you are trying to say that the blow at the end of the 1st round was a foul even though the referee did not see it.

Before I consider it properly, Is that a proper summary of your argument?

 

from what i can see both of those things could be true.

 

It's posts like this that make me wonder : are you for real or just a very good parody of a pathologically insecure individual?

 

...... and I can't wait for klompton's throroughly subjective and unbiased history of the Dempsey-Wills affair to hit the stands.