Is there no film whatsoever of Harry Greb in an actual fight?

But it's not the only measure ... not even for you.

In the thread on who was Muhammad Ali's worst opponent, you said it was Sonny Liston in Maine.

Are you honestly telling me, out of everyone Ali faced, on paper Sonny Liston the worst opponent Ali ever fought?

On paper, Sonny Liston wasn't Ali's worst opponent. He was one of his best oppoenents.

You rated Liston Ali's worst opponent based PURELY ON AESTHETICS.

You saw Liston's performance that night. He was awful. He looked like he took a dive, his reaction after going down looked fake, everything about that performance on that night was a mess.

That's my point. We grade "EVERYONE" on who they fought, "WHEN" they fought them, on "HOW" that guy looked on that particular night.

If there was film of Greb, and we saw how he looked and how his opponents looked and how the referee responded, and we could score them ourselves, and see fouls for ourselves ... everything would change.

Because we'd grade him just like we grade everyone else. Right now, he isn't graded the same as everyone else.

 

Wrong. I rated Liston as his worst because of the effectiveness of Liston's performance. He didn't perform. He had no intention of performing. There was nothing aesthetically to base that on.

 

I'm sure he would've, too. His hands were "buzzsaws" after all. :good

 

Right. You based it on how he looked, not his record.

With Greb, you base his greatness on his record, not on how he or his opponent looked, because you never saw him.

 

..

 

How does your namesake look against Langford on film?

 

Good lord. How pathetic that a fighters accomplishments can be written off by anyone and reduced to nothing because of how he may, or may not, have looked in accomplishing.

I guess if someone runs the 100 in 5 seconds and decimates Usain Bolt BUT does so with a limp hes really not all that great or fast... Pathetic.

 

Klompton, I mentioned somewhere about a VHS documentary, pretty sure it was Pound for Pound narrated by Jim Rosenthal, in which there was a very brief clip of one of the Greb v Tunney fights supposedly, your thoughts on this?

 

..

 

I based it on how he performed. He offered no offense, went down on the first shot and didn't make much of an effort to get up… because I suspect he never planned to finish the fight. He performed poorly. He was not effective in any aspect of offense or defense.

He had nice glutes, tho… I must say. Thick and meaty.

 

Ive never seen a clip of Tunney-Greb, I would state with 99.9% accuracy that no clip of Tunney-Greb ever appeared in any documentary that has been screened in the last 60-70 years, and shocker of all Im not even convinced that Tunney-Greb was filmed despite some of the red herrings out there which have led people to believe such was the case.

 

I thought that might be the case, & they'd shown a brief clip of any old fight film that physically resembled both fighters.

 

1. One can see from the extent footage that some of the rounds you characterize as even clearly are not. Langford was winning that fight handily based on the footage (which I admit is incomplete).

2. In those days a knockdown was not given any extra credence as it is today on a five point must system. Hence, If Jeanette was indeed leading (which is only the opinion of the author you quote) then he could have only been leading by 1 round for the fight to have been even after the Langfords near annhilation of Jeanette in 13th.

3. However, the above may not be true even within the context of the times because at that time fights were often judges as an asthetic whole, not based on a tabulation of rounds. This is why you often see a fighter who is judged to have won more rounds but loses the fight because he took a bad beating in a round or two. It was essentially judged on the merits of "which fighter would you rather be at the end of the fight." In this context Jeanette got a hammering and hence Langford clearly won.

4. To pretend Langford wasnt out of shape when they fought in October 1913 is ridiculous and once again shows your bias. Langford weighed 199 1/2 lbs. This is a guy who probably naturally should have weighed a svelt 165. Langford was 14 pounds lighter when he fought Jeanette again in December (the filmed fight) and every newspaper that covered the fight described Langford being grossly out of shape. The match itself (the one in New York) was blasted by the press as little more than an exhibition in which Langford was too fat to be effective and Jeanette, by way of staying out of harm, simply employed a jab and grab style that left the patrons unsatisfied.

 

..

 

..