Greb Knocked Out By Body Shot

my agenda is to discuss boxing and learn stuff. (and to say how great naz was, but everyone knows that already, so i'm good there.)

i think a lot of posters post without agendas tbh.

 

Well he could do that but I am betting he wont. if he had something he would have pulled it out by now.

 

...

 

Ive given you two very prominent examples which, surprise surprise you chose to ignore, as you have chosen to ignore anything that doesnt color your argument. My suspicion is that a dozen, two dozen, two hundred examples wouldnt matter to you. Youve made up your mind based on reading one single article and thats fine but dont say everyone else has an agenda while you are either too stupid, or too biased to entertain any alternatives.

 

Many alts what two prominent examples do you mean? I went through the whole thread and saw nothing to crow about, did you mean the two examples of fouls by kilbane and Delaney, or the article that was 2 yrs after which two? I already replied on both.
FYI I haven't read Greg's article I replied to all your posts. Anyway you bend it, spin it there was controversy cos of the two rds in question. So show me where I am wrong about the 1st two rds. I specifically replied to all your own posts.

 

Klompton,

I have dug out the controversial quote from me that seems to have got you so angry.

This thread demonstrates to me the different attitudes and approach to this forum andcould give a pretty enlightening post on the discourse of forum posting but to be honest i have no interest in this so i wont. instead, let me address your concerns.

Firstly, Clearly the initial posting was poking a bit of fun at you because of the mileage you made out of darcys problem with a low blow and crooked ref when greb was just found to have similar issues.

looking at my post, I am going to explain something to you, because you seem to be the internet version of a million dollar body with a 10 cent brain. You have enormous knowledge of many topics but no idea how to apply common sense to those facts or to accept or consider any interpretation outside your own.

The key word was the word 'might'. This means that I had not formed any opinion on anything, just that i thought it might be worth exploring and learning about. So, when you responded with your bizarre rant of how i went off with an agenda or made interpretatins without facts or whatever you were goping on about, you were in fact wrong! I will take either the apology or an admission that you were wrong.

That being said, when i posted use of the word technically was not the best. Certainly it shouldnt be taken to mean officially which you appear to have assigned to it (correct me if i am wrong)

Although saying that, YOU inadverdantly raise an interesting point when one of your articles confirms that the referee asked the fighters to come out to round two and Greb refused (this seems to be the consensus of what happened from YOUR reports). How can this decision not stand just because Greb or promoters wouldnt accept it. Do the rules allow for official results to be changed after the event. In fact, could a commission look at this fight and change the result officially. It has been done before - eg drug tests or protests. In other sports people have been stripped of the title they won years later (eg salary cap breach). if a commission or court held an enquiry for some reaon (eg if Greg were to leave his family fortune to you if greb won the fight or dempsey123 if rogers won it) then it is intersting to see whether or not the result would be officially overturned.

 

As Ive said ad nauseum if you have a problem with the official result take it up with the men involved or write your own record book. Otherwise you have nothing to argue. I realise your attempt and gregs attempt to wipe the egg off the face of your national hero but there is one small problem with your comparison: Darcys people tossed in the towel. A universal sign of capitulation in boxing, then and now. Greb and his people never did. When time was called they disputed the punch. This argument led to confusion and the referee trying to get to the bottom of it. This happens all of the time. You want to deny that a fighter can appeal to a referee and argue his case. We'll be here all night with examples of a fighter or corner arguing for this or that causing a delay in a fight. Rogers certainly didnt help his case by allowing the rest and coninuation. That right there prevents any dispute because it was his decision ultimately which was more than fair for a supposedly crooked group of local officials and police. You might as well face that fact. You can keep arguing, it really doesnt effect or bother me and it wont change the outcome. Apology? Please! We both know your intent. Just because you get your ass hammered into a corner doesnt mean im going to sit here suddenly accept that i misunderstood either your intent or your posts. Like i said, if you want to draw comparisons of bias then lets not leave out Darcy-Smith 2. Greb didnt need five months, a four fight interval, and the crooked intervention of his managers brother and his promoter to win his rematch with Rogers a mere three weeks later.

 

This is why I suggested your argument was circular. The official result was no decision. You are the one constantly spinning no decision into a win for Greb by virtue of a couple of newspaper reports that are not really conclusive anyway. You are the on with the problem with the official decision and wanting to change it because you wrote a book.

I am not sure why you think writing your own book changes what you are entitled to argue, but if i wnted to change anything witing a book would ot be the first thing i did. not hat it matters, i dont.

I havent argued the darcy angle on this one, that is you and Greg. Greg deserves a 10-9 round on this point. You havent countered at all, but i am not going to rule his point a knock down.

I am not even really that strong on the crooked argument even though i think that points are mounting against you on this one also.

At this stage (unlike you my opinions will change as i consider other viewpoints or evidence) I think that Rogers and Greb fought a fight which Rogers would have won if it the result were important but it wasnt and therefore no winner was declared. I think the result means little because Greb was a great fighter and proved he was the better fighter over the course of his career. But i do think this result shows that Rogers himself was a lot better than most people realise also. And of course Greb was an all time Great, not Superman. But we all know that dont we?

So it is agreed by you that Harry Greb did NOT win this fight?

I just dont understand why it is so hard for you to say this.

My intent on this thread was to learn a bit more about Rogers and also what happened in this fight. Try not to confuse me with others.

I would like to explore the point i made about news decisions on this fight ie who deserved it, given that the only way you can give the news decision to greb in this fight is to go against the official refs decision in that the blow was not a foul blow. I have not made a decision on this, simply raised it for discussion. Unforunately, instead of considering and rebutting (you may be able to), you have flown into a tirade and sadly no decent discussion could be had. maybe this will change later in the thread.

And secondly, i have posted a few google links for others to read on Rogers. I would love to see links to any articles you have on this guy which isnt on this thread. Are you able to at least contribute somehing constructive on this topic, or is it a waste of time looking for such information.

No one said he did, did they?