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

I missed this one. I can name one very important example of this right off the top of my head: Mike O'Dowd. Mike O'Dowd is depicted as a come forward slugger by most people even in that era. His face, which is a roadmap of scars, supports this contention. However when film of him fighting one of the greatests stylists ever, Mike Gibbons, surfaced. You can see O'Dowd holding his own at boxing with the master himself and doing all sorts of subtle things in there. My appreciation for O'Dowd jumped up dramatically after seeing him on film. There are other examples but this is the most dramatic for me. To a lesser extent Langford was the same way. I had always been impressed by Langford's record but the fight that did it for me was his bout with Lang. He stalks forward like an early Tyson, using his head to draw leads and then slipping it to the side just an inch or two to counter. The leverage he gets on his punches and the accuracy he has at times is fantastic to watch. Later he does the same thing with Jeanette. Hes not fazed by anything, very relaxed, just hunting and always dangling his head out there but its harder to hit than it looks. Great great fighter. Jimmy Clabby is another one. For years the only footage of Clabby was his lacklustre performance against Darcy. It was even called lackluster then. The footage I found of him a couple years ago is incredible, hes one of the more modern looking fighters Ive seen from that era and it totally supports Mike Gibbons' contention that he learned so much from his fights with Clabby.

 

Dubblechin "the Mona Lisa was painted by an Asian man with one hand there is no film of Da Vinci creating the work"

Dubblechin "Guttenburg didn't create the printing press it was created by a village of cannibals along the Amazon river, there is no film"

And if there was film we'd see these achievements don't look as good as they do today.

 

Sorry. Last post on this. When the hell did I ever say anyting like "if it isn't on film it didn't happen?"

I've said a hundred goddamn times that Harry Greb was one of the best of his era.

YOU claim that if video appears that "contradicts" WHAT YOU BELIEVE ... then the video shouldn't matter. And anyone who disagrees with you is "uneducated."

"Historians" and researchers are open to change as new information becomes available.

You disagree entirely with that notion.

You said: “I stand behind my assertion that regardless of how Greb 'looks' on film he was easily one of the top two or three fighters in history.”

If visual "proof" was available that contradicted your beliefs, you'd ignore it? Really?

My whole point is if visual proof came out that contradicted these stories about Greb, people would change their minds about him ... because they did about his peers when they saw them. I say that because I've seen it happen before.

Harry Greb isn't a religion. He was an athlete. A guy. A popular fighter. Very successful in his day.

You've built him up so much in your mind that you've admitted you'd ignore visual proof contradicting what you believe about him.

So how the hell did I end being the guy the agenda?

Go outside. It's sunny. Breathe in some air. Hang out with people who haven't been dead for 90 years. It'll do you some good.

Bye.

 

"Says he?"

Burning history to the ground. Yes. That's what I was doing.

Time to cook out. Beer and burgers are calling. :good

 

Now you are putting words in my mouth on top of every other goofy ascertion youve made. When did I say that if footage contradicts my beliefs I will ignore the footage? My point is that unless the footage shows Greb getting his ass beat and winning a gift decision, which simply isnt supported by anything but your imagination, then it doesnt matter what he looked like winning as long as he won.

Im open to change on what I believe Greb would like stylistically on film. If film comes out he looks totally different than he does in my imagination then my notion will change. What wont change is how impressive his record is. Thats why your argument holds no water. You believe if he looks archaic on film then we should discount his victories over guys who didnt. Ridiculous. You also want to suppose, as youve argued over and over, that somehow Greb's record is too impressive to be real (youve actually said that) and that its more likely that, apparently, he won a ton of gift decisions. Again, this isnt supported by anything but the imaginative ramblings of a biased individual: You.

Your problem is that you think how Greb "looks" is some kind of measuring stick for his greatness. Aesthetics dont win boxing matches. I say again: Vernon Forrest was a classically trained boxer, Mayorga was wild swinging slugger who looked less technically savvy than most of the guys we have film of that Greb fought. Who won between Forrest and Mayorga? So no, if Greb looks amateurish on film it wont change my opinion of him because a lot of people said he looked amateurish even in his day. They said he didnt know what he was going to do next. They called his style weird and freakish. But you know what? They didnt argue with the results. Those same people voted him home a winner time and time again. So if Greb looks aesthetically unpleasing on film kicking the holy hell out of Walker why should my opinion suddenly change of him. I know Walker was a great fighter. Ive seen every scrap of film on him known to exist and if a guy whips his ass he has to be a good fighter. Regardless of how he does it.

Most people consider Rocky Marciano a great fighter. His fights are still shown on TV today. There are books still being written about him. People still talk about him and still know his name. Rocky was not an aesthetically pleasing fighter. He was crude, clumsy, rough, and sometimes dirty. But you know what? How he looked doesnt detract from his legacy and he was damn effective within the style he chose to fight. I would say that is the crux of the argument if you said: "If a Greb film comes out and he doesnt have a pleasing style then his greatness will suffer." Instead you are saying categorically that Greb's greatness will suffer no matter how he looks on film, is that not biased? Im the one with agenda? For you there is no possibility of Greb looking as good on film as his record would indicate and no way possible his record can be taken at face value. Thats about as biased an opinion against the man as one can have going in. Essentially you are closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to believe ANY source that might support the idea that Greb was one of the greatest fighters ever and instead you are fabricating scenarios (that are so fanciful its beyond ridiculous) in order to explain away all of the multitude of opinions in his favor.

 

Can we have those "gift decisions" first? Or are you going to finally do the grown up thing and admit that there were none that you knew of in the first place?

 

Youre going to be waiting a long time before you get those gift decisions. This is the same joker that tried to insinuate that Moore-Valdez 2 was fixed by the mob and clumsily tried to draw the conclusion that the evidence of this was the fact that it was staged in Las Vegas and kept off of TV (apparently so people wouldnt see the fix...). Whatever. Another example of this guy having absolutely no understanding of the context of the time, or the major war that was going within boxing for air dates that were being gobbled up by the IBC. Whatever, hes not worth wasting your time on. But he is an expert who has been collecting fights since the 1980s, so theres that...

 

I'm off to read an encyclopedia in Latin while sipping cognac with my pinky up in the air. Says me.

 

Benny Lynch looks very good on film too.

 

Sure it was. But Jeannette did not pick the terms of the match as Jack Johnson did when he fought Battling Jim. Didn't Johnson pick the referee in his fight with Battling Jim?

 

There is a fight collector who advertises Dempsey sparring with Greb. He's full of it. I will not even mention his name as it's a clear bait and switch trick.

I did once purchase films from him...only because he had what I wanted at a fair price after some negotiations.

 

No actually he wanted Jack Welch.

It was a ten round fight what terms are you referring to ? Please enlighten us?

You are one sad person,do you know that?

 

Blind one, the question is easy. Did Jack Johnson have a say in the ref and the judges in the fight with Battling Jim? As Champion I would say yes. In addition Jeannette has a better record vs. Battling Jim Now go sulk away....this is a Greb thread. I intend to keep it as such.

 

What champion didnt have a say in the referee at the time? Hell Johnny Wilson, Mike McTigue, and Al McCoy traveled with their referees to the fight. Jack Dempsey almost always got the referee he wanted. Jimmy Duogherty was a personal friend of Dempsey's and refereed for him more than once as champion. The champion always gets to dictate the terms. Thats just the nature of the beast. Still happens today.