Harry Greb-Walker film 1978?

We know you don't do humour, you proved that when McGrain made his facetious remark about Griffo being a middleweight and you jumped in to correct him.atsch

 

I don't think they have put their names together yet , at least I haven't seen any.
Every boxing fan would like there to be film out there of Greb , but all we have heard so far is smoke and mirrors.
Why do you keep repeating/stressing how you are not going to divulge secrets? No one has asked you to:huh Talk about bigging your part up.

 

This is all good and well, but seriously, among the many other points Klompton made, how in the world did he explain the night time/day time problem? If he is legitimate then surely this is the time to say, i made a legitimate mistake and this isnt the film i thought it was?

 

Thought he wanted a 100 grand for the film?

 

Klompton has an issue with the owner and has never seen the film. As stated he's the only one saying nay. The others who have seen it say yes, it is Greb. klompton's post the snap shot issue has been meet. Moving on one must consider this:

It's raining in the film, just like it was during the fight. Rain can make a film seem darker especially in an older film which could be at the root of the night and day issue. Wouldn't you agree?

 

Nevermind that the Greb-Gans fight was at night and this film was taken in the daytime, you and all of your supporters just cant seem to even address that fact.

That is the quote from Klompton. You argue that the rain might have made it seem darker than it was and be the problem. Perhaps this might be a possible explanation, except that this would mean according to what was posted above that the rain would make a night time fight seem even darker, not the other way around. So, honestly, no the rain couldnt explain it, could it?

It is a pretty massive problem. The only real explanation is that Klompton is wrong on the time of the fight. But i doubt that is possible, is it?

 

If ten experts claim the fight is real have they out their names to that claim. Let's see who they are?

 

That's what I'm waiting for.:good If they are confident it is the real thing why would they not be happy to do so?:huh

 

LOL good luck with that. Two peas in a pod. Like the blind leading the blind.

Ok, so here we go. If the film was labled as Greb-Tate, what exactly makes him think its Greb Gans. Again, I call bull****. And if it was indeed a clerical error why did it stay labled that way on his website for months (at least your dumbass isnt denying that fact anymore)? How many copies of Greb-Tate did he sell to idiots before he had to go back and notify everyone that oops it was Greb-Gans. And why didnt he catch that error until I called him out on it?? And what does it mean that someone labeled it Greb-Tate?? I can slap a label on a piece of **** and call it a diamond ring but that doesnt make it so. So Kurt gets this film and its labeled Greb-Tate. He posts it on his website for months this way. Then he gets called out on it and realizing its mislabeled decides its Greb-Gans? How does that work? At what point did he decide it was Greb against someone else and not Tate against someone else? At what point did he decide it was a real fight and not the sparring match he had listed? Sorry but this all smells like damage control for a guy who got caught in an obvious lie. Moreover, lets pretend that Kurt hadnt done this exact thing before (because keep in mind, he tried to pass of Dempsey-Malone as Dempsey-Greb and Dempsey-Kid Herman as Dempsey-Greb) lets pretend that Kurt isnt crooked, hes just gullible and someone con man, not Kurt, labled this supposed film (and submit he has no 16mm of this footage, again, where is the photo of the edge code??) as Greb-Tate. Again, none of this changes anything. My points still stand. All it serves is to deflect criticism away from Kurt as the con man and toward some dead guy, which brings me to my next point:

If I had a nickel for every fake antiquity scandal that started out "I purchased it from the collection of a deceased collector" I would be rich enough to afford Kurt's $100,000 asking price for this fake. Its convenient that the guy is deceased because we cant trace the story or ask the guy questions.

Clearly. We have gone a long way to establishing that here on this thread. And yet Kurt is SO sure and after all this is the guy who loves to talk about how he is THE EXPERT (those are his words not mine) and has been doing this 35 years. Yet has a history more noted for the mistakes hes made in identifying films than for actually identifying anything at all.

Ridiculous comparison. This is like someone claiming they found the original sketch of Mickey Mouse and then deciding it was actually an original lost DaVinci. His mistake was so far off base it was beyond reasonable. Nevermind that he hasnt proven ****.

Its his story that an expert looked at it. Who is this expert? Lets talk to him. If Kurt is serious about having this thing identified that shouldnt be an issue. One of my close boxing buddies works for the FBI at the local federal building, Ill even have him check the name and see if the guy was ever an employee. No? Didnt think so. Many things matched up with what? Nothing pertinent matched up with anything. He says its the same referee. Show me how he identified this. He says the same head shape, chest split, inocculation mark, height, etc etc. Bull****. Ive already explained just how unreliable these supposed measurements would be given the variables involved. He says its raining. Big deal. He says a guy lands a punch in round 6. How does he know its round 6? He admits the film is edited, doesnt include all of the rounds, and features shortened rounds, and it doesnt have any intertitles. He doesnt know if its round 6 or round 2. Nevermind that he refuses to even address the most obvious mistake and the one which proves he is lying about the depth of his research into this film. The fight was at night. This film was taken in the daytime. And frankly, what supposed expert would let himself be led around by the nose to match this film to Greb? Thats not how academics or scientists work. You dont start with a theory and then only look at the evidence that supports your theory. You start from scratch, build your case, and slowly eliminate possibilities. I would argue that starting with Greb would be a totally unscientific approach to identifying this film but lets pretend that alone doesnt cause concern. If you were to start with Greb wouldnt you look at the descriptions of the fight? Yes. Do you really think a one paragraph blurb found online is enough? No. Youd probably want to research that area. Local newspapers, maybe find a photo of the fight in the papers, maybe a picture of the ballpark, etc. If they had done that they would have quickly noted that nobody took photos. Thats a red flag. No local newspapers sent photographers but someone sent a film crew??? Doubtful. They would have also noticed the time the fight card started, how long it ran, and that it would have been dark well before this film supposedly starts. The standard lights at a local ballpark like that wouldnt have been bright enough to provide the light necessary to film under such conditions. You might say "well a forensic video expert couldnt be expected to know all of this, his specialty is video, not boxing or historical research..." youd be right, which makes his input limited and flawed, especially in light of the fact that if this supposed expert even exists (which I doubt given the childish criteria used for identification) then his effort was limited by tunnel vision because he was only looking at one possibility among thousands.

Have they even put their names on it? I know of only two people who have seen this and think its Greb. I dont see any reason to believe that either of them have any special insight into the film to allow them to identify it beyond the writer you mention (and Im not sure why he is to be considered so well placed to identify it anyway) who said he thought it was Greb because "thats how I imagined greb might look on film." Thats ****ing ridiculous. Id be embarrassed if those words came out of my mouth and comprised the sum total of my diagnosis.

Why? They are clearly screenshots. They shouldnt be any less clear than actual file he pulled them from. Thats another bull**** answer. Ive already posted screenshots above from films of that era. Those are actual screenshots, not high resolution scans, not stills developed from the film but just plain old screenshots. Period. Again, if he even has an actual film of this footage he can post a photo of that film showing the sprockets, and the frame, with the edge code so we can see a still of THAT FILM within the same frame as the edge code. He wont because he doesnt have a film and if he did the edge code wouldnt match June 1926.

Again, how does he know what round is what? The film has no intertitles, the rounds themselves arent complete, and if this is even of a 10 round fight not all of the rounds are present. So how exactly does he propose he can identify this?

For a guy who announces on his website repeatedly about how he keeps finding these Greb films he sure likes to keep everything private. There are never any details and he doesnt want to say to much because everything is kept private. If you dont want to tell us these experts names because you dont want to expose their work to public scrutiny then they really havent publicly endorsed this film have they??? Just saying "a bunch of nameless experts whose only expertise is that they paid membership dues into the experts club and call themselves experts have identified it" doesnt tell me much. The fact that one so called expert identified it using nothing but his imagination hurts the films case much more than it helps it.

Shouldnt this have been done before he claimed he knew what it was, after he already claimed he knew what it was?

How much footage of ALLENTOWN JOE GANS has Smith seen? Isnt that the same guy who wrote about how Panama Joe Gans sparred Greb at Dempsey's training camp and used Damon Runyon as his source? Only that sparring encounter never happened and Runyon wasnt at Dempsey's training camp for Miske when Greb was there. He was busy covering the leadup to the world series. :hi:

 

Exactly. My name is out there. Im not hiding behind anyone. Im well known to have been collecting film for over two decades, to have made numerous finds that have been well documented, to have identified many films, and to have one of the best collections of rare fight films of the planet. In addition to that I spent over a decade researching Greb and published a highly regarded biography of him comprising over 700 pages. I have the largest collection of Harry Greb photos in the world and in addition to that I was trained in historical research in college. I think Im fairly well placed to put my credentials up against ANYONE who has viewed this film and thinks its legit.

And again, why keep avoiding the elephant in the room? This guy has done this NUMEROUS times before. Ive illustrated this fact with his own website. This isnt the first time hes made a false claim and its not the first time hes gotten boxing fans who should have known better to believe him. This alone would be enough to cast doubt on anything this guy claims. But after doing this three times before and getting caught in the act three times before. Hes suddenly found a film of Greb in a "dead mans collection" well holy **** the sun does shine on a dogs ass at least once in his life doesnt it? Jesus, some people are too stupid for words but boy they pay their membership dues.

I wont even address Mendoza's moronic claim that the rain made the film darker so that somehow a fight that was held at night appears to be daytime in the film. Only in his world would that argument make sense.

 

My issue with the guy is that hes a lying con man who takes advantage of people. If he didnt pop up with a fake Greb film every couple of years I wouldnt give two ****s about him.

And how the hell do you know I havent seen this footage? If I havent how do I know it doesnt have intertitles?

 

Here is what one of Kurts experts said:

"I never met Noltimier and knew nothing about his reputation so I saw the film without any preconceived notions. The style of the fighter is similar to what I imagined Greb's style to be. But the right cross and the rain is strong evidence. My only hesitation is not being able to see the fighters close up.
I think it is Greb at the tail end of his storied career."

Im sorry but thats ridiculous. You dont base the identification of a film, especially not a boxing film, on one punch that lands in an unidentified round of heavily edited footage and whether or not it might be raining. You certainly dont base it on what you IMAGINE a fighters style to be.

 

The first bout on the card was scheduled to begin at 8:15 P.M., and there were 4 bouts preceding Greb-Gans (although, I'm not sure whether Bobby Wolgast-Jackie Britton bout was before or after Greb-Gans, not quite clear from next-day report). Main bout started an hour earlier than scheduled, due to rain, but it was night time nevertheless.

 

So, klompton, purely as a matter of interest and nothing else, does the fighter on the film in question look the way you imagined Greb to look?

 

If you have seen the footage you would have spoken up by now. Have you see it or not? And if you saw describe the action and tell me who showed it to you. Here's where you fold like a chair...

Also, what are you going to do it someone you trust says its for real. Cut off your nose to spite your face?

A mistaken ID from a fighter seldom or never seen on film can happen. Someone told me you aren't sure if you could identify Greb yourself an you think he's a bit like Calzaghe and Mayorga? Mayorga? I don't see that!