Than Greb? I would agree, probably. Greb is the ultimate tough guy boxer, perhaps. He is succesful in spite of rather than because of his technique whatever the era. So two things; condeming the era because you have no footage of a notorious tough guy fighting is doubly ridiculous - and even if you really believe what you are saying about technique, Greb STILL has a chance to succeed in our era because of guts, balls, durability, stamina, stregth, all the things you can't teach, in other words.
Or because small advantages have more time to add up over the course of a long fight - meaning you don't even have to be an expert feigner if you get it right tactically.
Of course. A very interesting fighter who adopted some old school techniques (shoulder roll etc) which had gone out of fashion. Interesting stuff, he brought that back in a way. But who are you talking about? Greb? Sure, he probably was of balance quite a lot. Langford? Not unless some big idiot smashed into him (he was often outweighted quite seriously after all).
Me too. Amsterdam vouched for Magnum, to Manassa, in private. I don't think he would do that for Hank?
maybe he would for some guy who agrees with him so much I mean Sanchez over Tunney, is he ******ed or what?
Re: the 1890's-- Corbett did manage to catch his opponents' arms (not hands) as they punched, and used it to manipulate them once the fight closed. This is clear on the film, so it does work--in more or less the way that it is shown. If you question the general combat effectiveness of the period, I have a recommendation on how to test it. There are a significant number of "reconstructionists" who are working to piece the 19th century art back together. Many routinely do hard sparring. I recommend you try to find somebody in your area who practices it, as they can explain far better than I--and you can spar with them to see whether modern technique alone makes you so much better than the old timers that you could beat Corbett/Sullivan/Fitzsimmons. I'm not saying this as a challenge, but as a legitimate suggestion. Here is the link to their online message board: http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/classicpugilism/ I'm sure one of them would be up for some hard sparring. Re: Greb I told you from the beginning that I'm not trying to argue Greb's stylistic effectiveness. I'm trying to illuminate why he did what he did, but I (like you) have incomplete information, since neither of us have the manuals of the time. I would not try to criticize Shotokan, or Hung Gar, or Muay Thai just by dint of my boxing knowledge, because they don't work in the same way as modern boxing. The same is true of Greb's style. On one hand, I have the testimony of thousands of fighters who tested "old school" boxing in tens of thousands of fights and sparring matches during 1918-1930 against one of the deepest talent pools in history. I have the testimony of Greb himself, a world champion with over 300 fights against the best fighters his period could offer. That's a massive chunk of experience for NOBODY to have figured out what they were doing "wrong". On the other hand, I have a gentleman on the internet who says anybody with a year's experience (including himself?) could beat Greb. For support, he shows a few things that Greb does that aren't "by the book". Now, you seem like a bright guy, so your observations may have some merit. But the fact remains that you haven't faced a single 1920's style boxer in your life or read a single 1920's manual, and you're claiming to be able to beat the best boxer of all time at that style. Again, I think there may be someone who practices 1910's/20's pugilism who could help you out in at least part of this: http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/classicpugilism/ For that matter, you can even put a modern spin on it. Find a martial arts "striking" champion--from a martial art that uses fists, but in a different way than boxing--and see if you can beat him under modern boxing rules. You will likely find that his defenses, while they may be technically incorrect from a boxing standpoint, work more than well enough to deal with you. Technical perfection is only one aspect of boxing. You will find that there is indeed more than one way to slip a punch, block a punch, or throw a punch against a modern boxer. Practice, physical attributes, and simply being the "better fighter" mean a lot more. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to insult you here...but I'd like a little more proof before agreeing with you. You're arguing against an entire era of professionals with far more fighting experience than either of us, so at least do it the question the honor of basic experimentation and a little learning. :good
This is the fatal flaw in your argument. Both of these guys are human believe it or not and you cannot surpass a prime Gatti in these areas. It's the only reason he actually stood a chance against decent guys because excluding these traits, he had little more than club fighter skills. For the record, I've never been an Arturo Gatti fan and that is exactly why I used him as an example. What could be more fair on my part than this?
Agreed, actually. Greb was tougher than Gatti, but there's a point at which you're "tough enough". Diminishing returns kicks in.