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

Certainly not for the £3000 the NSC offered him, he fought Jim Flynn for $30,000 instead, smart man!

ps In 1913 Johnson was in worse physical condition than Langford,when he fought Jim Johnson he had been out of the ring for a year and a half, there is also the little matter of him being on the run from the US authorities and in exile,its possible he may have been a trifle distracted in 1913

 

Since you brought up the Johnson-Johnson fight I may have just confirmed that it was filmed. I had never been able to find any evidence of it before but now I have.

 

the johnson v arthur cravan farce in spain in 1916....that was filmed....any copies of that film exist ?

 

Yes, everyone gives Trevor Berbick full credit for beating the great Muhammad Ali. It would be "pathetic" to write off that win. Berbick beat arguably the best heavyweight who ever lived.

Oh, wait, people don't give Berbick full credit, because Ali was old and not nearly his best and Berbick didn't look a whole lot better.

People judge boxers (past and current) based on how they actually performed in the ring all the time. Greb isn't judged on that, because we can't see him.

If we could see him, he would be. Because they are all judged that way.

Get over yourself.

 

But thats just it, you arent judging Berbick on how HE performed, you are judging him on how degraded Ali was at the time. Which is perfectly justifiable but has absolutely nothing to do with how Berbick looked (which wasnt exactly great). Conversely if Berbick fought a prime Ali and beat him but looked technically bad in doing so would it matter that his technique was poor? I doubt it, he would have still beaten arguably the best heavyweight ever. What about Galento, had he knocked Louis out would you quibble with the fact that his punches look like arm punches despite their power? Your argument about what a fighter looks like in light of one of the most impressive records ever compiled is beyond ridiculous.

 

How many Hall of Fame fighters did he beat?

 

I told you this a while back, and you were highly skeptical. I'd like to Johnson vs. Johnson as fight reports vary on who was the better.

In addition Langford vs Hauge can be seen today, and includes the KO. The KO is every bit as good Langford KO over Flynn which can also be seen today.

 

Doug,

Was this the fight in the Bull fighting arena?

 

That would be a find indeed!

 

We have gone over the fact that Jack Johnson had numerous offers to fight the best out there. He declined. You have a problem with every offer.

Johnson was in trouble for fleeing the USA on a bond (among other things), but he had no such legal problems in France, the UK, or Australia. He could have fought anyone in these areas of the world.

 

Did I compare Ottke with anybody, or called him an ATG or something? I don't think I did. Then what does HoF have to do with it?

 

We agree there. I am curios to see if the draw was a fair verdict. This was Jack Johnson's show, and if the NY Times description is correct he was in big time trouble near the end.

 

Of course it matters how both looked. That's what we talk about every freaking day.

One guy can look great, the other look nothing like we expected him to perform, so people always mention the win with a side note that one guy looked terrible.

Both can fight great, but the referee was terrible, and it costs one guy a win.

One guy fouls constantly, the ref does nothing, and the guy getting fouled finally succumbs.

A guy headbutts that opens several cuts on his opponent, the ref rules the cuts are caused by punches, and the fight is stopped.

Two guys can fight their hearts out, the decision should be razor-thin, either could win, but the judges have it by a wide margin for one guy.

You even mentioned in a previous post on this thread that in the early days one guy could lose a lot of rounds, but batter a guy in one or two rounds, and he was given the win.

If we saw Harry Greb lose 10 or 12 rounds, and then batter a guy for three, and be given the win, do you think that might cause some people to question the win? Do you think an explanation that "that's just the way they scored it back then" would suffice?

If we saw Greb losing a fight, then doing something dirty, causing the other guy to lose, would that be a little controversial? Would people question that win? Sure they would.

That's what I'm talking about.

Greb could've been great. I've said that repeatedly. For his time, he was. But things were different back then. That's why the top guys then aren't always listed at the top of all-time lists now.

Some people will always give everyone credit for wins they scored over names. I understand that. But SEEING IT for yourself - and not just going on blind faith that what people wrote nearly 100 years ago is exactly how it played out and everyone was in agreement back then - is important.

People are never in agreement about anything. Even when Julio Cesar Chavez was going on his run in the 80s and early 90s, and he was undefeated in all these fights ... upon closer inspection, upon viewing of the films, some were closer than others. Some felt he could've lost this one or that. One was originally a loss but ruled a no contest.

We can read that Greb's second loss to Tiger Flowers was so "controversial" that fans stormed the ring. Well, maybe it was or maybe it wasn't. Fans showered the ring with beer bottles when Hagler beat Minter. Was Hagler's win questionable, or did some of Minter's racist fans just go batsh*t crazy because a black guy beat their white champ in England. If the only account of the Hagler-Minter fight was written by a newspaperman who wagered on Minter, and he wrote that people were so angry at Hagler for cheating/headbutting they threw bottles at him, that would change our entire perspective on that fight. And it would be wrong.

It's important to see it. It always is.

 

yes...thats it.


http://www.jstor.org/stable/20542322?seq=2


.

 

The problem with your argument is you presuppose that not only Greb looks bad in beating all of these great fighters but apparently they look bad as well... That doesnt hold water.

I dont have any fear of seeing Greb lose 10 or 12 rounds and then batter a guy for a round because all of the reports are clear that he was a dominant, point grabbing fighter and few if any of the victories in his favor were controversial so that point is basically moot.

Your Hagler analogy is ridiculous because there is no correlation between hooliganism and outrage over a bad decision (and the Flowers decision was not nearly as controversial as you paint it).

The idea that the guys Greb beat arent considered all time greats anymore is ridiculous. Gene Tunney, Tommy Loughran, Jack Dillon, Mike Gibbons, Mickey Walker et al. Guys like that are towering figures in the sport to this day and anyone who doesnt realize that has been spending too much time watching sportscenter... Oh wait, Max Kellerman still talks these guys up. Well there goes that. Just because Lee Groves thinks Arthur Abraham is one of the ten greatest middleweights of all time doesnt mean that everyone is so stupid.

Basically everything you are saying flies in the face of accepted knowledge and scholarly research into Greb. Its a bunch of "what ifs" and thats just not a solid foundation for an argument for or against anything.

I stand behind the ascertion that regardless of how Greb "looks" on film he was easily one of the top two or three fighters in history. Weve seen lots of the guys he fought. Plenty enough to tell us that they were good and for him to beat them, and beat them the way he did when he did, in dominant fashion... well, thats impressive.