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

Form always follows function in sports, as long as you get the results. The way it's done doesn't matter.

Oscar Bonevena looked like a bar room brawler but he still gave one of the most aesthetically pleasing boxers of all time fits.

 

I can see both points of view. Greb's record is incredible and I've yet to see anyone dispute his greatness. He was probably in all likelihood, a phenom.

But I remember as a young fan reading all these glowing accounts of some old-time fighters and then years later being able to afford to buy videotape of some of these guys, and in many instances I was horribly let down by what I saw on film, which often was in direct contrast to what I had been reading for years.

NOT saying Greb would be a letdown or look bad if film were to ever surface, but for me the 'eye test' does mean a lot.

 

Yes, you called the greatest fighter who ever donned a jock.



I was merely illuminating the difference between someone with a sterling record against someone with a sterling record against the highest quality opposition. It was not an affront to your honesty or intelligence and I did not bring up your ex-wife.

 

What happened to Joe Jennette. Wasnt he supposed to come back with a bunch of first hand sources that prove he was right? He disappeared right after I came up with a first hand source that proved he was full of ****... mysterious.

 

For me, the eye test means nothing.

Results are the only measure of greatness.

 

Exactly, if you watched different fighters on tape you'd think they wouldn't stand a chance against certain fighters, history as shown it doesn't work like that.

 

This has been an entertaining thread. Klomp, I notice you didn't mention Greb vs Flowers as a possible fight that was filmed. Do you have doubts on that one as well? And I assume you don't believe then that Jacobs had three frames from the Greb vs Tunney fight?

 

Well here is another problem with the "eye test." Years ago I got a film of the Gans-Nelson 1 fight. I was really disappointed. The fight was shot from real far away, it jumped up and down in the frame, it skipped around within the fight, and it was badly damaged on top of everything else with scratches, dust, etc. I was really unimpressed with both guys. Then in 2006 I started a restoration project on them for the 100th anniversary of the fight. Re-editing it into chronological order, correcting the speed, zooming in on the fighters to more closely follow the action, stabilizing the frame jumps, etc. I cant stress enough how much of a difference this makes and the film is still not in great shape. I was surprised not only with some of the moves that Gans makes in there and with how clever he is but also with Nelson. This fight wasnt the one sided bout thats its portrayed now. It was a highly competetive marathon fight with both fighters doing their share of damage and both fighters showing a high level of skill within their style (boxer vs brawler). So the eye can be fooled by these old films and in my opinion isnt the end all be all that some on here think it is.

That being said I still maintain Corbett and Fitz look like **** in their fight.

 

I think the eye test counts in mythical matchups (Hah!) for one. I mean yes, results ultimately are what counts the most, but for me a lot of inferences can be drawn to the evolution (or in some cases, devolution) of the sport with solid, verifiable footage with which we can compare and contrast.

I do get what you're saying though...I consider John L. a great despite no footage of him existing. Again, Greb is great, that is not in dispute.

 

I dont think Greb Flowers was filmed, at least Ive never seen any proof of it.

No, I dont think Jacobs had the legendary three frames he spoke of occasionally. Or rather Im skeptical that he did. Jacobs was a major B.S. artist and believe it or not I think all of the rumors of a Greb-Tunney film having even been made began with him. I have a letter from Jacobs written in the late 1970s or early 1980s in which he states he actually had the Greb-Tunney film but its in too bad a shape to run through a projector. Ive spoken to people who worked for Jim and would have known if he had it and they said he didnt. This is before I ever heard him mention the three frames. So which is it? Did he have three frames or the entire film? The Library of Congress, where he supposedly got those frames, has no record of it. The AFI has it recorded as a lost film but their entry dates from the 1970s and has no citation for a source that this film ever existed (which Im told by their director is unusual). He looked through all of their resources on old films and couldnt find a single mention of it anywhere. Neither could I. No advertisements, nothing. I think the story started and began with Jacobs (who did things like this from time to time, he had an odd sense of humor... if you can call it that) and ends there as well.

 

As I've stated numerous times the NY Times did not have a reporter present, they relied on an AP report.

I wonder if Jim Johnson's draw with Joe Jeannette 7 months after his draw with Jack was a fair verdict? Of course Jeannette did not have a broken arm in that fight, nor in their subsequent draw 5 months later.

 

I am sure he is marshalling his forces.

 

Yes, obviously filmed footage is good for analyzing tendencies and effectiveness in various aspects of offense and defense.... it helps to explain "the why" of the results..

 

If I had to guess Id say hes brushing up on his photoshop skills so he can change the 185 pounds to 199 in the newspapers to support his argument then post them. Never let the facts get in the way of your love for Joe Jeanette...

 

He does have an avid love of his subject, but I understand the man is ill , so I for one will refrain from going for the jugular.