If Greb footage is found and it is mediocre how would it change your view of his opposition??

The Times wasnt even one of the leading boxing papers in New York. There were several newspapers in New York that had far better boxing coverage than the times. Never mind that James Dawson, who was the Times boxing writer, was garbage (but thats just a personal opinion).

 

You've called me a Trump supporter, an anti-vaxxer, and a boxrec warrior (none of which I am) and I'm the only one posting links to the top papers from that time.

I've searched newspaper archives and nobody lists it as a split decision. I've even found an editorial from a writer who scored the fight at ringside asking what Charles Miles was thinking voting for Tunney.

You aren't providing anything. Just insults.

Post the links. Or I'm calling bull ****.

 

Everything I have to say is printed in black and white for all to see, cited, and with my ACTUAL name on it. If you want it you are welcome to look it up. Im not here to educate morons. It was a ****ing split decision whether you like it or not and I couldnt give two shits whether youve chosen to believe it. If you dont want to be compared to delusional morons dont act like one.

 

Anyone actually interested in facts and not just conjuring their own bizarre narrative can see that the fight was a split decision by reading Jack Lawrence's article in the Feb 25, 1923 edition of the New York Tribune or Charles Mathison's article in the February 25, 1923 edition of the New York Herald.

 

I’m vaxxed and boosted x3 as if that has anything to do with anything. I also voted third-party in the last two presidential elections because my ballot didn’t have a None of the Above option.

imagine people whining about a decision in a fight they’ve never seen.

SMFH.

 

Yeah I know right. Imagine anybody having anything to say at all about any fight theyve never seen...

 

Discussing history is fine.

Being absolutely convinced that you know who won a fight on which some experts disagreed and deciding that the New York press and judges were crooked and must have conspired to determine that your guy didn’t win a fight that they actually saw and you haven’t … that’s delusional.

And if deciding that people who disagree with you (by basically not going along with the tin-foil-hat conspiracy) must also then be supporters of a politician you don’t like (and to do so wrongly with no basis) and call them names and drag COVID into it … that’s a cry for help.

I hope you reach out. Seriously dude, have a sober, clear moment and ask yourself why you’d drag politics and vaccines into this … you need help.

 

LOL. Yeah, like I just decided out of the clear blue sky that the Tunney fight stunk. As if a shitload of experts AT THE TIME didnt say the same thing. As if Im the one sitting here saying we should completely ignore all ND fights and should never question any judges ruling or discuss fights we havent seen.

 

You must have me confused with someone else.

I never said:

1) That we should completely ignore anything

2) That we should never question any judges’ rulings

3) That we should never discuss fights we haven’t seen

As for the first, I don’t think I’ve ever said anything about newspaper decisions.

As for the other two, what I said was it’s delusional of you to think you know who ‘really won’ a fight you’ve never seen and place your judgment over that of three judges who were right there and saw it with their own eyes.

Discuss it til the cows come home. Cite your experts and say they disagreed with the ruling (although be fair and say that other experts said Tunney won or it was a draw). Say you feel that counting up opinions of newspaper reporters — most of whom didn’t actually present their scores or round by round judgments for the fight but rather just a general opinion of who they thought won, which is a far cry from scoring a fight — is a valid way of determining who won (it’s not, but you’re free to believe anything you want).

But don’t say definitively that your man WON the fight when he did not. Or act like you know when you haven’t actually seen it yourself.

Please seek help for your delusions and projections on the political leanings or medical practices of people you don’t know based simply upon them not agreeing with you. The god complex thing is really disturbing.

 

Is there ever a Greb thread that doesn't turn into a warzone

 

Warzone, that is just how Edward Henry Greb liked it.

 

I can’t find any articles about the commission overturning the verdict … or really anything about an investigation actually taking place at all.

Can someone provide a link on the fight being overturned?

Also, why doesn’t Tunney get more credit for his humanitarian side for backing off in their final fight after Greb begged him not to knock him out? Seems like a great gesture of respect on a pitiable foe, yet we don’t see much acknowledgement of his sportsmanship … I guess people wanted him to be a savage rather than a gentleman and finish Harry off. But that’s not the kind of guy Gene was.

 

Jokic is athletic, but it is his IQ and strength not to mention fast hands that enable his superior performance.

 

Sacco and Venzetti’s first trial ended in a no contest. Newspaper decisions favored the prosecution.

Their murder tried ended in a unanimous decision for the prosecution. There were protests and such but over time most newsmen have tended to favor it as a just verdict although not necessarily a fair trial — the equivalent of saying, for example, that Leonard did deserve the decision over Hagler but maybe disagreeing on the round by round scoring.

 

I keep seeing people refer to a commission investigation into the Tunney decision over Greb. But nobody seems to point to anything on how that investigation turned out. Why is that?