Written reports + Lack of Footage = Overrated?

So what would the opinion be judging just by film of Carlos Monzon?

 

Great question, but my personal opinion is that it can just as easily work in both ways. We'll never know how many greats have been overlooked and how many we could discover if not for the lack of footage of them.

 

I think when I watch a fight today, and then I read articles or the other way around, I am often very surprised. Meaning you read an article which says this was a highway robbery, then you watch the fight and score it a draw or very close. So - very difficult because a journalist has his own perspective, he may know more about boxing or less about boxing than you. Or let's take Steve Compton's book: I read in the book that quite a few Newspaper reports about Greb fights were pretty controversial, meaning one newspaper said Greb won while the other newspaper said it was a draw or Greb lost that certain fight.

 

all i know is i have read a lot about greb, leonard and the likes...rating them in the same regard as sugar ray robinson....and even sugar ray as a welter i have read a lot.

but over the years reading, and posting on places like this...i have learned that judging any boxers on second hand written words alone is no fair way to judge a boxer......so i hang back from all those all time P4P debates...without proper footage i'm not qualified to debate, regardless of what is out there to be read.

thats all i got to say really

 

Don't be ridiculous!!!

IF fighters are TOP Draw, fought other TOP Fighters and are Reported on by the a SLEW of TOP Reporters then they are not overrated, they can accurately be assessed.

 

Maybe early on before he had really developed and later when he was past his prime but the remarkable thing about studying Greb is the consistency with which he won against even the best competition EVERY newspaper report from that town. But you have fights like his bout with Jeff Smith in New Orleans which was called a draw. The three newspapers disagreed, one calling it a win for Greb, one calling it a win for Smith, and one calling it a draw... Yes they disagreed but had those three newspapers been judges then the bout would have been ruled a draw, just as it was. There were instances late in his career where some newspapers disputed a decision or each other. HIs bout with Loughran in Boston comes to mind and his bout with Flowers in Fremont. But the majority of papers agreed with the officials decision in Boston. The only reason there is any question today about his fight with Flowers in Fremont is because Walk Miller, Flowers' manager, gathered up all of the papers that voted for Flowers and made the rounds with them to try to sell Flowers. Media outlets, and some syndicated writers (like Frank Menke who wasnt even there), picked this up and ran with it. It became accepted over time that Greb lost that fight. In reality he won the newspaper decisions by a margin of almost 3 to 1. The occasional dissenting vote is why I went out of my way to gather as many sources as possible. I'll give you an example: The story about Greb's bout with Al Grayber, for years and years, has always been that the two had a showdown to decide who would leave Red Mason's stable and who would win. It has always been accepted as fact that Greb won and Grayber left. This is true for the most part but when I was doing research the first two papers I found called the bout a win for Greb. Thats what you would expect. But the next paper or two i found called the bout a draw... That was pretty surprising and meant that without other sources I couldnt simply write that Grayber had lost to Greb. There were seven papers in Pittsburgh, what if two more had it a draw? That would mean in reality most sources voted it a draw. As it happened the majority of papers did indeed call it a win for Greb and Grayber did in fact eventually leave the stable (he was still managed by Mason for a while afterwards). But this gives an idea of why we cant just look at one paper and stop. Its not uncommon to see dissenting opinions then and now about fights. I watch fights today that I think are a clear decision for one fighter and I still read reports from someone saying the other guy should have won. Greb's career, for a fighter with 300 fights, was remarkably devoid of this. In the vast majority of cases he won ALL or the VAST MAJORITY of newspaper decisions. There were parts in my book where I struggled to make sure it was not monotonous because he would go twenty fights or more beating each guy easily without taking more than a dozen punches and winning every paper.

 

There is a huge difference between one mans opinion and the consensus of opinion. If you read the majority of opinions concerning Louis they all predominantly say how great he was. Same with Ali, same with Lewis, same with SRR, same with Duran. Etc In other words of all the fighters who skill is easily seen via film there is strong written evidence that backs it up. Are we to say that all of a sudden going back to times where film footage is poor or unavailable that the written record is all of a sudden wrong or the opposite of reality? Of course not. Rest assured that expert opinion is expert opinion.

 

I look at this question this way. Though we have never seen film of Harry Greb or Jack Britton or Maxie Rosenbloom to name a few ,we have seen films aplenty of some of the great fighters they have beaten...Greb for instance whipped many great LHs, in the HOF
time and again....Does it matter how he looked doing the job ? Hell no...Does it matter
if for instance no one on this thread understand's Einstein's equations , but we accept
the opinions of the great scientists who called him a genius comparable to Isaac Newton.
We must trust the valued opinions of experts and historians of Greb's times and how great his amazing record shows him to be...To use an analogy...If a tornado strikes a town killing all its dwellers, we can see the magnitude of it's destruction by it's results
though we were not there...Same with a Harry Greb...His great reputation lies in his
accomplishments beating everyone he ever fought, frequently outweighed, but NEVER
OUTFOUGHT...

 

I would describe him as a dominating force with a great jab, stiff right hand, great stamina and strength and an impeccable understanding of pace, space and timing.

If you can't see those things on film, you might need to follow another sport.

 

You misunderstand me. The point I was making regarding forming judgements on fighters' greatness, old time fighters like Greb seem to be a little disregarded by some because we can't form an opinion off film or newsreel,only the word of first hand witnesses.
Now Monzon may well be the greatest middleweight ever,probably a top 3,he had very subtle skills but aesthetically he isn't that pleasing,nontheless he's still a great fighter.
I think in some ways the written word of scribes who've consistently witnessed a fighter is a greater measurement of their abilities.

 

I think films, even old grainy ones, tell a lot more of the tale.

 

Writing style and perception changes over time. I'd be interested to see what contemporary writers and opinions had to say regarding fighters we do have film of, to see if it adds up. That goes further towards ascertaining the accuracy of their opinions in my thinking...