Figured you couldn’t answer even one of my very simple questions. Where did I ever challenge that your book has sources? And how or why would I challenge your sourcing if I wouldn’t buy a book from a writer who (a) is a complete tool every time he posts on this forum, (b) doesn’t understand punctuation or paragraphs, (c) has shown that despite extensive research doesn’t grasp that he has no ability analyze data that research to reach proper conclusions (just because you researched it doesn’t mean you are always right) and (d) couldn’t interest a real publisher in his book so had to pay out of pocket to get it published? My questions are there if you care to challenge any of my conclusions. I laid out simple facts like: 1) You saying he didn’t fight in NYC or the Northeast enough for the writers/experts in that area of country to have been exposed to him thus they didn’t know who he was so couldn’t realize his greatness (despite fighting at Madison Square Garden, Polo Grounds and Yankee Stadium numerous times as well as Philadelphia, New Jersey, Buffalo, etc. 2) You asserting that ONLY writers who delivered massive payoffs to the New York press ever got the stamp of greatness in their time. (Did your research turn up documentation of payoffs by all fighters considered to be greats at that time? Or that all East Coast writers demanded payoffs to write something favorable about athletes in those days? No, it didn’t … but somehow you came to that conclusion because it fits your narrative.) Etc, etc. See my previous post for the rest. I didn’t challenge Greb’s greatness, but you’ve done nothing to prove or even support that Greb’s reputation as an ATG has increased in the last decade or two over what it was when he was fighting. Your reasoning is ‘I don’t need facts, I wrote a book that I paid to publish and therefore I must be right’ lol.
The footage may be unflattering to Greb if ever released so is purposefully being kept locked up. Did anybody ever consider this theory? Why do we pretend this footage doesn't show somebody with the skill level of Paul McCluskey This content is protected
Your questions are answered in my book so why should I sit here and argue with a troll who continues to put words in my mouth. When did I ever say only fighters who paid MASSIVE payoffs received the stamp greatness? I gave specific reasons why the New York press, which did in fact become the de facto voice of boxing over the next 50 years, had a skewed impression of Greb. Its already been explained why a fighter who was already considered great saw his reputation grow as more information on the man became available. Had that information shown that he wasnt as good as his reputation then you would have seen his reputation diminish. Its you who chooses to believe there is some revisionist conspiracy. Greb had exactly three fights in New York City prior to going blind in one eye, which had a significant effect on his style of fighting. You say that he fought in places like New Jersey, Philly, Boston, etc and so those same New York writers would have seen him fight. Fine, show me where they covered his fights during the period before August 1921. Thats easy enough to track. I wait, I did that. They didnt. Nobody ever said ALL East Coast writers demanded payoffs to write favorable copy in those days. But its a well established fact that many NEW YORK writers did. There used to be a line outside of Tex Rickards office on a regular basis of sportswriters accepting their pay. Thats been documented. Ring Magazine was founded with money provided by Tex Rickard. Their offices were provided by Tex Rickard in Madison Square Garden. He wrote their first set of ratings. You want to pretend that guys like Daniels, Fleischer, Igoe, etc werent being influenced by the money? Please. Greb outed the New York press for trying to elicit bribes from him in return for favorable copy and it caused a fury among them. Yet, it went uncontested in Gene Tunney's lawsuit by Tim Mara that indeed this was a common practice and that Tunney, through Mara, had indeed paid writers on a regular basis for favorable writeups. We could go on and on about this but you will just deny what most diligent researchers know as fact. So no, not everyone paid the New York press for favorable copy. But when you have a guy who wasnt from New York at a time when New York was in lock stop in trying to take over the sport and consolidate the titles who was from out of town, unconnected, and not only refused to pay them off but outed the practice causing a huge backlash then yes, you have a segment of those members of the press in New York who were antagonistic towards him. You combine that with the fact that the majority of bouts they witnessed him in took place when he was already blind in one eye and past his prime and of course their view of him is going to be different than experts who saw him in his prime. This is made doubly so by the fact that the only access these men had to Greb's bouts outside of the area were short blurbs that came across the wire and were often unreliable. So yes, 60-70 years later when people started researching Greb's career and bringing together ALL of the sources a clearer picture emerged of how impressive he truly was. If you think this was revision then go find me someone else who fought 300 times against the level of competition Greb faced and was able to be as consistently dominant as he was. When you find guys like that they are often considered among the greatest fighters in the history of the sport.
Your right, as long as you Come as You Are and not so Dumb i could imagine drinking Pennyroyal Tea next to The Man who sold the World.
His fights in New York were some of his more prominent and against some of the best opponents. I’m not aware of Harry being considered washed at this point … he was beating some pretty good guys still and I can’t see how his reputation was tarnished with the NYC press by those bouts, even if some of them were toward the end. He was hardly led into the ring with a cane and tin cup for all of his fights in the Garden. I’m sure the writers who witnessed them didn’t know he was blind. Now you’re trying to say that the New York City press created the reputation for boxers near and far and based such only on their bouts in New York. And that no other estimations of the greatness of fighters in the era mattered because the NYC press suppressed any such impression of any fighter who didn’t fight frequently in New York. That’s hardly the case. Plenty of fighters who were neither from NYC nor fought frequently there in the era were regarded as greats. In those days word and reputation spread by word of mouth and reports from one end of the country (or even around the world’ that circulated. The point you seem to miss with the ‘paid-off press’ thing is that probably the vast majority of newspapermen weren’t on the payrolls of any fighter or promoter. So why would they go out of their way to write that Harry wasn’t any good if they weren’t on the take — because some competitor for another newspaper wasn’t getting a payoff? That makes no sense. And Harry was far from the only athlete of the day who didn’t go around handing out money to writers — again, did they all have their reputations sullied by those angry newsmen? Did Babe Ruth hand out hundred-dollar bills and that’s how he became known as a great baseball player? Again, you take a generalization — Tex Rickard paid off writers to get positive press for his promotions — and Harry saying refused to pay bribes for good coverage … and put the together to create a conspiracy that the NYC press colluded to keep the world from learning he was a great fighter, lol. Citing it as fact that Rickard handed out money is one thing … that doesn’t mean writers who didn’t get paid similarly by Greb had some vendetta to ruin his reputation. Those things have nothing to do with each other, unless you’re saying Rickard was paying writers to write bad things about Greb. (Really? For that you really need proof … is such proof in you book?) Speaking of putting words in one’s mouth, where did I ever say there was some kind of revisionism regarding Greb’s place in the pantheon of greatness? There was a thread here long ago (not created by me) where it was pointed out that there’s a certain point in history where Greb wasn’t regarded nearly as highly as he has been in the last few decades and asking why that was. I referred to it — and from that you conclude that I’m saying he wasn’t that great (I’ve said he was many times) but that there’s some sort of revisionism to make it seem like he was. Not the case at all. Plenty of fighters who were regarded as great in the 1910s and 20s are still regarded as being great today, but from the decades immediately following Greb’s career you don’t seem to see him atop a lot of ATG lists. It’s merely a curiosity.
