Greb Knocked Out By Body Shot

:good
He hasn't actually DISPUTED anything regarding the delay incident in the 1st/2nd round.
He merely disputes our right to talk about it on this thread.

 

Make sure to get an editor who knows the difference between "your" and "you're" for those.

 

Do you mean to tell me they actually PAY people to read dozens of articles from decades ago then copy them all down in one place and call it a book?

What a waste of good drinking, gambling or playing golf time.

 

Why dont you do it for me officer grammar?

 

Who exactly would you be referring to? Because if youve read my book you would know that this description doesnt match it at all. However, several well respected authors who post here have done exactly that so do tell...

 

Let me get this straight: You have forgotten what you are arguing about or I havent made myself clear?

Let me draw your attention to your first post on this thread (#12) where you stated that you felt Greg was correct. Greg/Dempsey1234's post that you felt was correct was based entirely on one article which they (and you) felt supported the idea that Greb was knocked out and this somehow got lost to history. Your next several posts went on to describe this fight as being two fights. One a KO loss and one a no decision. You then went on to second guess the reports I later posted that chose Greb as the victor in this fight and did so by applying modern judging standards which didnt even exist in that era. Your knee jerk reaction based on doing actually no research at all but simply reading one article posted by a troll whose sum total of posts on this forum have either been to hug his hero Les Darcys nuts, or to try to tear down Greb's legacy in order to buildup Darcy's was that Greb had been legitimately knocked out and your opinion had been so colored by that one article that you refused to even accept or believe the majority of opinions that ran contrary to that one article. Hence my mention of doing more comprehensive research and looking at ALL of the sources. When you actually do that the story suddenly looks a lot less one sided than that one article that youve accepted blindly and to the point of refusing to accept anything in the others. Now, I dont expect much from idiots like you. We live in a world where articles on scientific and archaeological discoveries are constantly poo pooed by a minority of very vocal religious fundamentalist trolls who actually revel in their own ignorance and think somehow that because theyve read one book written 2000 years ago they have all of lifes answers. So believe me, its not terribly shocking to come onto a boxing forum and meet a few morons who dont really understand how to do research much less how to interpret it. It also doesnt shock me that when somebody who has actually done that research comes on here and does the heavy lifting for you and actually gives you both sides of the story and some greater context you would shoot the messenger. I realize that its hard for someone like that to follow the course of this discussion and stay on track with their own argument much less mine. I realize when that person gets boxed into a corner its a much safer tactic to redirect, or ignore, or pretend you are lost. Doesnt change the historical record though. Not you, not your pathetic aussie buddy, no way no how. When even the newspapers who voted against Greb in that fight list this bout as either a win for him, or at worst a ND6 based on the majority of opinions from that day, and when that majority judged Greb the winner based on the standards of judging of the day, then guess which one of us is not only vindicated in our opinion but also standing on the right side of history?


P.S. Get to work Saintpat and notify me of your revisions via PM.

 

I'll post the parts that address the post.



Originally Posted by klompton2
.

 

What's this have to do with the 1st and 2nd rd, oh I know it fits your agenda.

Pray tell many alts I am talking about the 1st and 2nd rd of the first Rogers fight, not about what happened in any other fight or after the 2nd rd in this fight. I hope that is clear enough

S

So quoting both mgrs. Is your smoking gun, jeez are you bad. FYI the mgrs. Are going to be more biased then even you.

Again to be clear I for one don’t care who won a ND fight. Again for the the umpteen time I am talking about what happened in the 1st & 2nd rd.

Why does it make it a moot point, that’s exactly the point. Nobody in an official capacity saw or called it a foul. No matter how you spin it, it always comes down to nobody called it or saw it that was in an official capacity

I don’t think that at all I believe the ref who was in an official capacity didn’t see it or call it. Thus what Grab and corner were in the wrong. Please show me where the the fighter can over rule a ref and take it upon himself to take a long rest. Let me ask you a simple question, was the police chief from Pitts? That in it of it self would suggest home cooking. From the reports you posted would also suggest intimidation by the crowd, something made both Rogers and the ref go along with the flow, I wonder what it was?

See that’s why you should read ‘The Idiot’s book on boxing, written by idiots for idiots, cos again you show a lack of ring knowledge, if the officials didn’t see it or call it made it a moot point, there was no foul according to them.

Now this is without a doubt one of your silliest comments:

Many alts you really need to read that book by idiots for idiots. A knee to the gonads, is a foul, no matter how you slice it. Kilbane should have been DQ’d

I gotta ask is this your words or words from the article? Please post the article so we can read it ourselves, not that we don’t believe you but you tend to spin and bend articles to fit your agenda

Jeez, saint Grab was fouled again, dang, since he was such a clean fighter himself that he would never even think of fouling anybody. Again the spinner spinning, apparently the foul was acknowledged whereas in the Rogers it wasn’t. Consult your idiots guide, there is a difference, but that wouldn’t fit your agenda

 

Sounds like Greb was fighting at home against a journeyman, Greb got hit with a liver shot at the end of the fist ... and he went right down and couldn't get up.

Everyone could see it wasn't a low blow, but they couldn't understand why Greb was so hurt by it. So they let Greb rest for five minutes, and then they resumed the fight.

Rogers tried to land there again, but couldn't. Greb was tender in that spot and overreacted when hit near that area.

Regardless of whether Greb won the rematch, or a third fight, sounds like Rogers got cheated out of clean stoppage win in the first because the referee was biased or out of position or the people around there simply didn't understand the impact a liver shot could have, even on a great fighter.

If it wasn't an illegal punch, and there was no ruling it was, sounds like Rogers got robbed of a KO win by Greb's hometown ref and hometown officials.

I've never heard of a fight where someone said: "I didn't see the knockdown punch, and the fallen fighter can't continue, but he was supposed to win and his hometown fans paid good money to see him fight, so let's give him a five minute break to recover."

That's just "Home Cookin'." No way around it.

 

many alts why don't you post all those articles that say Greb was hurt by a body shot, there are quite a few. And you still stick to Dempsey ducked Greb. If all those guys hurt Greb to the body then Dempsey would've broken Greb in half and with 6oz gloves gimme a break.

 

If we only judged fights based on the first two rounds you might have an argument. If we scored fouls as scoring blows you might have an argument.

Clear as mud. Who discusses the outcome of a fight based on only two rounds? The fight was a six rounder and continued. I realize that for you and your alter ego thats not acceptable but thats the reality of the situation.

Context little man, context. Your boyfriend, trying to build his case, quoted from only sources that favored Rogers side. Why not qoute from both sides. Thats what Ive been arguing all along. I know thats too much to ask or even for you to understand but the fact remains, as usual, one of us is building their case with only sources that support them, ignoring all of those in the majority who disagree. Weve been here before havent we? Me giving the entire picture and all sources (even those that disagree) so everyone can formulate an informed opinion, you rejecting anything that disagrees and only posting limited sources that agree with you. Who do you think has the better footing to stand on? Who do you think a rational reader would believe is presenting the entire picture? You or me?

So you finally agree that it was a no decision fight fought to its natural conclusion. So my argument has moved you away from the idea that Greb was knocked out. Case closed. I couldnt care less who you think won or lost a no decision fight. The point is and always was that simply because there was a difference of opinion doesnt make the one article Greg posted and you latched onto correct.

And they didnt see or call it a KO either. Rogers was given the option to not continue whatever that means, whether it means he could walk away from the spectacle it had become or whether it meant he could claim a KO, he was given that option which totally refutes the idea that he was somehow treated unfairly. It was suggested that since nobody saw whether the punch was fair or foul he continue allowing the fans to get their moneys worth. He chose to continue. At that point he forfeits any right to pretend he won on a KO, your point become moot, their is no monday morning quarterbacking because all we are left with is to judge the fight based on what actually happened as a whole. Not based on two arbitrary rounds you selected.

Talk about living in a fantasy. The sources state categorically that the ref didnt see it and that he didnt rule on it. Period. Even the most anti-Greb sources admit that the ref neither saw nor rendered a call on the punch. A fighter can claim anything he wants in the ring. Dont pretend that to this day we dont see controversies such as this happen. Your little fantasy that everyone involved had some inherent interest in the preserving a club fighters reputation at their own expense is laughable. You must see shadowy men behind every corner if you believe that nonsense. The superintendant of police, Noble Matthews was highly respected and helped author the laws that governed boxing in Pittsburgh. Eddie Kennedy was known as one of the best referees in Pittsburgh and was never afraid to rule against a local fighter if he felt it justified. A prime example of this was when Frank Moran fought Kid Cotton. For years and years this was listed as a DQ win for Moran. Yours truly corrected this record by uncovering the fact that Cotton knocked Moran out in the first round. Eddie Kennedy counted Moran out. Moran, the local fighter, tried to claim a foul but Kennedy wouldnt allow it. Moran, a heavyweight, became enraged and attacked the former lightweight Eddie Kennedy, who defended his ruling at the expense of the hometown fighter with his own fists. And thats my point. You ****ing assholes who dont know jack **** about any of these men you are referring to or the instance in which you suddenly imagine yourself an expert are trying to sully their reputations and Grebs in order to what? Prove a point? Satisfy some ****ing pinheaded jerkoff who thinks its somehow going to improve Les Darcy's reputation? What? Why go on and pontificate about a bunch things you clearly dont really know much about or even understand? I guess youre just bored. I dont get it.

Nor any ruling at all in fact.

Then you can change that result as well in your follow up book "The Revisionists Guide to Boxing History" By Jack MeHoff

Thats my description of the fight from having seen it.

Im sorry do you have evidence youd care to present that Greb was fouling Rogers in the 1st and that Rogers retaliated in kind? Is that why Delaney fouled him? No? Then whats your point? Its not a foul if the fouling fighter doesnt admit it? Nice try.

 

What you mean you havent already read them? Gee whiz I would have thought a great historian like you wouldnt have opened his mouth on a subject without covering his bases. LOL. Do your own homework junior. Ive already done mine. If you dont believe what Ive written then post them yourself and show me what I misquoted.

Then he should have done it for the fortune he was offered instead of running and hiding and spending a title reign fighting men Greb dominated easily. LOL. Big bad Dempsey. Scared of an itty bitty MW who couldnt even punch.

 

ah many alts, how's rocky valdez doing haven't heard from him in quite awhile. You know I forgot that you're a part time comedian. These last posts by you are hilarious. Spinning again, too funny. But since we are such good friends I will take the time to go over your posts and reply to them.
Here's a preview, we are talking about the 1st Rogers fight and the first 2 rds of that fight. I quoted all 7 of your posts that you yourself chose from the millions of article that you have in your possession. If you have a problem with them then you have problems with yourself cos you posted them.

 

This content is protected