Harry Greb-Walker film 1978?

Originally Posted by mcvey
No I haven't, I have seen Langford v Lang. I made a mistake and publicly admitted it. You should try it sometime. God knows you get enough opportunities!

Q,

Langford looks like a stalking tiger once he has his man in a corner or near the ropes. I own this film, and if you're a Langford fan its a must have.

Langford's attacking skills once he's in range are excellent. And that hook. Yikes!

Sam's main weakness is no defense on the outside, and he's doesn't bob and weave / duck his way up close like Frazier or Marciano did. A taller Jabber could give Langford some trouble.

Yes--Langford's gloves look over stuffed on film.

PM me if you want to know where to buy the film. It does not cost much.

 

Exactly. Anyone except Kurt who first advertised this film for months as Greb-Tate sparring and then changed it to Greb-Gans fighting in an actual fight...


The burden of proof is on him and he has proven, as Ive clearly illustrated above, that he isnt the most reliable guy. None of the ridiculous criteria you posted for how they identified this film is proof at all. If Kurt had film of Greb it wouldnt bother me one way or another. What bothers me is his constantly trying to attract buyers of his footage by using a supposed Greb film as honey to draw the flies. Hes taking advantage of people.

 

Hello BeerGut,

Big Bill Tate was 6'6' tall and big ( 220 -240 pounds ). Gans was a skinny 5'10 Middle weight less than 160 pounds.

Furthermore Tate vs Greb was a sparring session. Greb vs Gans a real fight.

Who can't tell the difference between the two builds next to Harry Greb 5'9" man, and the difference between a sparring session a a real fight? ANYONE can.

 

He can speak for himself, but some collectors are not experts identifying the unseen / have not cataloged what they own which is why 9 out of 10 high level people were brought in. Are they all mistaken?

You're arguing with a huge field of distinguished people. You simply can not discount that. Maybe Kurt's first call was wrong, but the experts were not. Very plausible. They say its Greb. Who are you to say it is not?

A few questions:

1 ) How do you know ( Not think ) the Tate and Gans films are the same films? Please prove this to me?

2 ) When was the last time you saw Greb vs Gans, and who gave it to you?

Skipping the most elementary questions is not helping.

 

IBRO has become a club of mostly people who want to do nothing and just get the results of other people's research and read old fight reports, according to complaints of the compiler of their journal. An organization that has very little if any useful info on their site and some laughable rankings. If any of them were involved in identifying that film, well, it can't get much worse than it has been already.

 

Then who better to judge is the question.

The group has several people who vote for the hall of fame, excellent historians, hard core research people, authors of well know books, people who run websites ( Such as box rec and Cyber boxing zone ) and such. Collectively your not going to find better.

 

That was my initial point. Tate can be out of this conversation upon viewing. I'd see that in 10 seconds.

If Klompton saw the alleged Tate film, he would have been quick to point the size difference and strike it. Yet he has not. He only said it was fake and did not say who gave it to him to view. I have asked him some questions...we shall see if he can reply back. A duck tells you all you need to know.

 

Who are these accomplished people? What are their accomplishments?

Furthermore Mendoza, you keep acting like I didn't post screenshots from Kurts own site THAT HE POSTED of the same film first labeled as Greb-Tate sparring and the labeled as Greb-Gans fighting. YOU are making my argument for me. You are exactly right, it would take an idiot to first claim that a film was of Greb-Tate and then change his story and claim it was Greb-Gans. That's exactly what Kurt did. That's where your faith has been placed. Thanks for supporting my argument. Moron.

 

There are several people I have a lot of respect for, but also a lot of people who are not historians, who don't do any research. In any case, if I need to clarify something or find an answer to something, I'd look for not just any respected historian/researcher, but for person who can be considered expert about the fighter I want to know about or the era or the area where the event I'd like to know about took place. In case of boxing film - a person who not only knows boxing history, but who has much experience dealing with films, he might not have answer to my questions, but he might lead me to people (who's opinion may be trusted) who could answer them.
I don't want just any answer, believing in that person's expertise, but I want to be convinced that it is correct and all my doubts are answered/explained.

 

In this case, if you don't want to reveal the names of these people who's opinion you quoted, you can show them Steve's arguments and ask them to comment on them and see if they have counter-arguments that will convince you they are right and Steve is wrong.

 

Like I said above: One of these "Respected Authors" counter arguments was that he thought it was Greb because "that's what he imagined Greb to look like fighting." It doesn't get any weaker than that.

 

I offered to give you names via PM, you never replied. Now your taking my points and twisting them to stand upon.

1 ) When was the last time you saw Greb vs Gans, and who gave it to you? I asked many times. Can you not reply. If you never saw it, how the heck can you comment?

2 ) Why didn't you quickly point out it was not Tate. Come 'on that would be easy.

3 ) Do you agree that the still shot looks like Greb and Tate.

 

I will send you a PM and ask that you keep it private.

 

If that's his only argument, then yes, it is very silly. Some people when asked to comment on something, they speak carelessly, not intending their opinion to be used in any kind of argument, but when their credibility is on the line, they speak completely different. Anyway, my point was, to end this particular line of argument (some unnamed people's opinion vs your arguments), Mendoza can just do like I said, this way he doesn't hurt those people's reputation in the public if they were wrong, or will come up with better counter-arguments than what he's using right now. If it so happens that they take their word back, Mendoza has no obligations of admitting his mistake either, but at least this thread would stop here.

P.S. I don't need to know the names of those people, I'm not even participating in this argument as it is, just would like it to either stop or to see new arguments than has already been stated above, instead of the repeatition of the same things over and over.

 

Didn't think my post on General would have legs for this long...