Serious thoughts on this Harry Greb shadow boxing video?

I use this argument in football. You have footballers crossing generations and you don't see any remarkable difference if at all. Maldini was around in Baresi's day as a young whippersnapper. There was no outrageous difference in quality, if any. 20 years later and Maldini was still one of the best defenders in the world. Then take a younger baresi and put him in Beckenbeur's era. And so on.

Players like Maradona would comfortably be the second best player in the world in today's game and that's only because the greatest player of all time is in this era, Messi.

 

Exactly, talent and greatness are not just relative to the era hence ATG....where an ATG was so great their talent surpasses eras....Wilt Chamberlain is still considered the greatest big man to play the game era irrelevant. To compare the.modern safety first era of fighters with modern training and thumbless safer gloves and rules to an era where 5oz gloves and a relatively ruthless era with looser rules and no modern medical knowledge or protections required tougher mentalities to tolerate, endure let alone rule as the best. The training today has advantages Greb could never imagine.....the quality of the fighter as an ATG has not changed he was seen as special then and according to those who saw him and fought him he was an ATG.

There are fighter who are great in their era within the rules given then there are those so good they surpass eras.

 

15 years is a very long time for someone to dominate in any sport (including probably 8-10 years as the very best in the league), which is a true testament to James' greatness. He's that good.

Implicitly, you seem to have some kind of exaggerated view of what it means for a sport like basketball to progress and evolve. Progress in the NBA can be subtle, and you probably see it more clearly in the hundreds of other players in the league than in the single top star at the pinnacle of the sport.

Just to be clear, do you actually doubt that the NBA has progressed? Do you think that the skill and talent level of the 50s or 60s players were on par with those of today's players?

 

Aw, are you telling me there aren't any stories that is was Greb's head that caused the injury and not a punch? I think you know better!

"That night Tunney suffered the only defeat of his extraordinary career, and what a defeat it was. The famed “Smoke City Wildcat,” one of the greatest boxers of all-time but also one of the roughest, set the tone in the opening round when

This content is protected

. Thereafter, the contest was a one-sided and gory affair, the only question whether or not Tunney could survive. Bleeding profusely from his nose and cuts over both eyes, he absorbed a terrible battering, but he won over the crowd by virtue of sheer courage, as he never stopped fighting back and survived to the final bell. At the conclusion of the massacre the crowd gave Tunney an ovation that was long and loud. "

[url]https://www.thefightcity.com/gene-tunney-jack-dempsey-harry-greb-boxing-history-fighting-marine/[/url]

Bert Sugar quote it, others do as well. We don't know because there is no film!

Prime means at his best, Tunney improved a lot over the course to time.

Tunney was game for a 6th fight, and why not, he made a mess of Greb. Tunney also offered Wills a fight too. Wills passed. And he also was game for the 3rd fight with Dempsey. Dempsey refused.

This content is protected

Hmmm, really getting good? As I said he improved a lot since their first meeting.

The Associated Press reported: "Tunney gave Greb as thorough a beating as he has ever received."

Sure, Greb wanted a 6th fight. LOL.

I'm probably more pro Greb than you realize. Just don't pretend you the only one with access to newspapers, or feel the need to shoot down what you view as fake news without video evidence. You love to play my newspaper is better than yours.

 

If this is your position, then I 100% agree with it … It seemed initially that you and Pat M were coming from that YES newer is always better

 

So a quote from a website nearly a century later by a clown who was wrong as often as you is supposed to be proof of what exactly??

Again, how much did Tunney improve and how much did Greb decline? Ships passing in the night. But god forbid you admit you are wrong on anything. You lie and speak from ignorance so often you make Trump look like George Washington.

Tunney was not game for a sixth fight. Greb actually signed:

[url]http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z335/klompton/greb-tunney%206_zpsi6gsoctm.jpg[/url]

Note headline, date, and newspaper. That is not some bull**** quote you pulled off the internet. Thats a cerifiable first hand source from the originating newspaper. You never saw the day you based any of bull**** on actual facts.

Youse seen that photo before another time you tried to spread the idea that Greb ran from a sixth fight with Tunney. Everytime you lie about it I will post that photo so you might as well quit spreading your bull****.

Anytime you want to go to the mat with me on Greb and compare sources and research say the word smartass, ill bury you.


And Im still waiting for you to post my “list” you lying ****ing idiot.

 

Actually, I think it's the opposite: That those lists often are made by people who know TOO much! Historians who have spent years reading about the old-timers in articles from 100+ years ago… until they have convinced themselves, that earlier eras were superior to today.

Take someone like historian Tracy Callis. He has devoted a lifetime to studying the old-timers, and after decades of reading about them, this is the all-time p4p top-10 he came up with in 2006:

1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
4. Sam Langford
5. Charley Mitchell
6. Henry Armstrong
7. Stanley Ketchel
8. Jack Dempsey
9. Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
10. Harry Greb

 

Well i would be happy to be criticised for my gym antics, if i could have the fight record of Greb.

 

Callis' list is a great one.I too wonder if Bob was not the best ever.

 

You'd be watching a sport roughly 20-30 years into it's infancy. A sport that has gone through a massive growth spurt and countless rule changes.

Drawing that parallel to a sport that has been around for thousands of years makes no sense.

 

The notion that only cigar smoking writers rated old timers better than new is absurd.
Many boxers and trainers feel the same way too.

 

In the interests of fairness, I have to point out that the modern boxing tradition has only been around for 300 years, since Figg. It has no continuity with ancient boxing.

The general thrust of your post is correct, though, since boxing had been a professional sport for about 200 years before Greb, gloved sparring had existed for at least a century, and Queensberry rules had been the standard for professional prizefighting for about 40.

 

You r always such a nasty little twit Comp. Never understood why. Inferiority complex must be the answer. I do know like Tom Sawyer you like to whitewash yr own person fences.

 

Sure, but I'm not confining it to just modern boxing tradition.
I'm talking about boxing in general.

It's an extremely accessible sport, as all you need are your two fists.
Not to say there haven't been important changes throughout history, but we're comparing it to football now. I have no doubt there is less to gleam from a modern point of view of how to play football correctly.

Football is a sport with yards, stoppages, 11v11 action, mandated positions, roles, complex rules, etc.
It's an extremely complex sport in comparison to boxing, and it just started 100 years ago. It was teething with growth and change for the first several decades, and even beyond.

 

Only an ignorant fool thinks its nasty to combat outright lies with facts.