Salvador Sanchez KO2 Harry Greb [Archive]

mcvey

07-23-2007, 03:36 PM

What would you think of this assertion? Agree, disagree?

And yes, it's the Salvador Sanchez and the Harry Greb.
A silly question deserves a silly answer,Sanchez kos Greb just like he didnt do Cowdell,who lost a split decision to him,Sanchez stopped a green Nelson in the ladt round after having all sorts of probelms with him,Gomez was coming up in weight,Lopez a dynamite hitter was easy to hit himself,Ford and laporte were novices.Sanchez gets better every time he,s mentioned here,give it another year and he will be ranked above Willie Pep,Its entirely possible Sanchez would have become as great as some on here all ready rate him,its also very possible Nelson might have beat him had he been more seasoned ,he nearly decapitated Cowdell with one uppercut rd 1,Sanchez imo is alittle like Marilyn Monroe and James Dean ,a tragically untimely death meant that we never saw their decline so the legend stays intact,Sanchez was very good ,great if you like ,but maybe not as great as he is now perceived.You dont really want a prediction do you?No I thought not,young men should get out more,is it flooded where you are?

Manassa

07-23-2007, 03:39 PM

A silly question deserves a silly answer,Sanchez kos Greb just like he didnt do Cowdell,who lost a split decision to him,Sanchez stopped a green Nelson in the ladt round after having all sorts of probelms with him,Gomez was coming up in weight,Lopez a dynamite hitter was easy to hit himself,Ford and laporte were novices.Sanchez gets better every time he,s mentioned here,give it another year and he will be ranked above Willie Pep,Its entirely possible Sanchez would have become as great as some on here all ready rate him,its also very possible Nelson might have beat him had he been more seasoned ,he nearly decapitated Cowdell with one uppercut rd 1,Sanchez imo is alittle like Marilyn Monroe and James Dean ,a tragically untimely death meant that we never saw their decline so the legend stays intact,Sanchez was very good ,great if you like ,but maybe not as great as he is now perceived.You dont really want a prediction do you?No I thought not,young men should get out more,is it flooded where you are?

It is not a silly question. The assertion was a real one, not my own, but real nonetheless and some people do think this way.

Amsterdam

07-23-2007, 03:50 PM

Amsterdam being one of them.

Yes, I'm fully realistic to the fact of the abilities of an old time fossil like Harry Greb. How many times do I have to compare to you what would a wrestler from the 20's due to a champion Greco-Roman today?

Just because you are totally blinded by the legend, watching with tinted glasses in an unobjective form while eating up everything fans of that era say does not mean that I am off balance.

It's very well likely that with a year of boxing training, YOU could beat the shit out of Harry Greb, much less an ATG from a modern era like Salvador Sanchez. Then you will get everyone here whom actually believes differently, that the fighters from that era were just under a ruleset difference, but had workable skills for the new rulesets, that's the insanity, the ignorance and the ridiculousness.

Amsterdam

07-23-2007, 03:59 PM

They DID have different rules, styles, rounds, and gloves back then, leading to different looking matches than the ones we have today. Are you so ignorant that you can't get that? If someone from today jumped in a time machine today and went back to their time and faced them under their rules, they wouldn't have been nearly as successful either. Just liek if they got in a time machine and fought under our rules, it's likely they wouldn't be quite as successful.

Manassa can you set him straight?

:patsch :patsch :patsch :patsch

Manassa even agree's with me that boxing started to truly evolve in the 40's, then 60's hit a nice hit and then the 80's was the peak of the skill levels, with the 90's being great and the 00's sliding off from the 80's and 90's.

I debate this with Manassa all the time, you need him to set me straight?:yep

Here, look at your guy playing patty cake with his friend, with horrible footwork, positioning, punching technique, sloppy lunges, no defence and being open to every shot imaginable from a modern fighter, even when this is JUST a sparring demonstration. Yet you throw a modern guy in with his ruleset while he pulls that SHIT that he's doing in the video below and the modern guy doesn't win???

Modern guy KTFO 1 Greb, everytime.

Amatuers now a days look better than this, find anybody on you tube just having some light hearted sparring. Take the tint off your glasses and open your eyes:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

robert ungurean

07-23-2007, 04:13 PM

Look at Grebs record and who he beat. Nuff said.

Manassa

07-23-2007, 04:13 PM

:patsch :patsch :patsch :patsch

Manassa even agree's with me that boxing started to truly evolve in the 40's, then 60's hit a nice hit and then the 80's was the peak of the skill levels, with the 90's being great and the 00's sliding off from the 80's and 90's.

Not entirely. Gloved boxing started to evolve from the very first day it was invented; the peak came in the '40s and lasted until the '80s, then it hit a gradual, downward slope.

Amsterdam

07-23-2007, 04:13 PM

Yes, Tunney and Dempsey are well primitive. Floyd getting smacked around in sparring? Still showcases modern skill sets over that mess that Greb showed.

Even if Greb was messing around for fun, he showed nothing even resembling the best of boxing technique, it looks like two guys bitch slapping each other in the backyard while trying to attempt to emulate boxing, and if you didn't know that was "Harry Greb, the greatest", you'd be saying the same.

This is all just hysterical to me.... you wonder why the planet is ruled by imbeciles as well, if simple shit like this is not even noticed right away.:nut

Manassa

07-23-2007, 04:15 PM

Manassa can you set him straight?

Amsterdam and myself are always chit-chatting about this sort of thing on MSN.

robert ungurean

07-23-2007, 04:16 PM

janitor

07-23-2007, 04:16 PM

Yes, I'm fully realistic to the fact of the abilities of an old time fossil like Harry Greb. How many times do I have to compare to you what would a wrestler from the 20's due to a champion Greco-Roman today?

So how exactly do you see Salvador Sanchez faring against Gene Tunney?

Amsterdam

07-23-2007, 04:17 PM

Look at Grebs record and who he beat. Nuff said.

That's your only defence, which is laughable when I can find any video and pick the immense amount of flaws within the technique, no matter what ruleset you wish to compare too.

They were the top of their day, but for anyone to say that these guys BEAT a modern monster MW like Marvin Hagler, when in comparison they were a skilless tomato can regardless of any ruleset difference, is purely stupidity and a lack of real analysation skills.

He BEAT the other primitive fighters of his era, has the best record of that era, how does he beat Marvin Hagler? Hell, how does he even beat a much smaller man in Salvador Sanchez under his ruleset when he cannot even throw punches correctly?

:dead

Amsterdam

07-23-2007, 04:19 PM

So how exactly do you see Salvador Sanchez faring against Gene Tunney?

Better than some of your absurd notions of extremely old fossils defeating Ali just because he would have 10 extra rounds, like the old fossil even makes it out of the first!:lol: :lol: :lol:

janitor

07-23-2007, 04:19 PM

Modern guy KTFO 1 Greb, everytime.

Can you see any fighter today of under 175lbs beating Gene Tunney for that matter?

janitor

07-23-2007, 04:20 PM

Better than some of your absurd notions of extremely old fossils defeating Ali just because he would have 10 extra rounds, like the old fossil even makes it out of the first!:lol: :lol: :lol:

You seem to be evading the question.

How would Salvador Sanchez fare head to head against Gene Tunney who Greb whiped 2-3 times depending on whose card you prefer?

If the answer is that Gene Tunney would butcher him easily then it shows that you are talking out of the wrong orifice here.

Amsterdam

07-23-2007, 04:21 PM

You seem to be evading the question.

How would Salvador Sanchez fare head to head against Gene Tunney who Greb whiped 2-3 times depending on whose card you prefer?

Sanchez toys with him, yes.

janitor

07-23-2007, 04:23 PM

Sanchez toys with him, yes.

Oh please.

That is preposterous.

What exactly dose Sanchez have that could give Tunney any trouble?

Amsterdam

07-23-2007, 04:23 PM

Can you see any fighter today of under 175lbs beating Gene Tunney for that matter?

I'll put it this way, take a random poster here, get him fit and train him in boxing with some amatuer fights, he smokes Gene Tunney.

Amsterdam

07-23-2007, 04:25 PM

Oh please.

That is preposterous.

What exactly dose Sanchez have that could give Tunney any trouble?

An infinite difference in skill level. Are you telling me that punches thrown are punches thrown and you can't tell the difference either way?

Manassa

07-23-2007, 04:25 PM

Do you actually agree than Greb, Tunney, Dempsey, Leonard, Robinson, etc were all primitive compared to today's fighters?

No.

Some in the '10s and '20s were ahead of their time.

Amsterdam

07-23-2007, 04:29 PM

Randy Couture throws a jab and straight in better form than Harry Greb does, even in light hearted sparring, also shows a better guard too.:lol:

Amsterdam

07-23-2007, 04:31 PM

Boxing had been evolving for around 30 years or more by Tunney's time. In basketball, I assume you think Kareem or Wilt are primitive for our era as well? Because that goes about hand in hand with what you're saying here. Boxing had gone into it's own by the time Tunney was around, and Tunney was one of the best of the time. What makes you think some random guy today can train for a year and beat him? It makes no sense. You're obviously gonna bring up that modern techniques are better so it's worthless.

Why would they punch like that back then? Why would they use those techniques if they were worthless? They studied their own sport for a long time and came to the conclusion that under those circumstances that was the best way to fight. It's not like we're comparing them to someone who fought in the 1890's, when the sport was clearly primitive and young. When boxing went thorugh rules and regulations changes, the style started to differ because under different rules and regulations certain styles aren't as effective, which is why it changed.

The whole point is that these CLOWNS on here will say that these guys from these old era's, noting the different rulesets, times and what not would DEFEAT a modern fighter of similiar calibre in THEIR RULESET.

So what I am saying is that in Greb's ruleset, a modern calibre fighter blows him the fuck out, just like the modern fighters blows him the fuck out in the modern rules, because the skill Greb needs is simply NOT THERE.

janitor

07-23-2007, 04:33 PM

An infinite difference in skill level. Are you telling me that punches thrown are punches thrown and you can't tell the difference either way?

You are talking here but you are not actualy saying verry much.

What advances in boxing technique have there been since Tunney's time that would alow a random poster from this site with a little training to beat him?

What skills exactly dose Sanchez display that Tunney and his peers do not?

You will understand that you are asking us to acept a lot here and will have to give some serious justification.

dmt

07-23-2007, 04:45 PM

don't take Amstredam seriously. Tunney would beat the shit out of any fighter today from flyweight up to cruiserweight. And even at heavy maybe only Wald could beat him. Calling Tunney primitive is a joke, the guy was a near perfect boxer.

janitor

07-23-2007, 04:47 PM

So what I am saying is that in Greb's ruleset, a modern calibre fighter blows him the fuck out, just like the modern fighters blows him the fuck out in the modern rules,

Greb's only stopage loss in over 300 profesional fight was due to a broken arm yet any decent modern fighter knocks him out early?

Nemesis

07-23-2007, 04:50 PM

This thread is hilarious :patsch

Stonehands89

07-23-2007, 05:03 PM

Too much is being made here about Greb's alleged lack of skill. He didn't apply skill, he applied wanton aggression.

I have argued many times about the relative primitive skill of boxers before 1920. I would argue that the evolution boxing began to accelerate towards the more efficient, active, and effective style in the 1930s. It was heralded by exceptional pioneers and early technicians like Gans, Blackburn, and Leonard. It peaked in the late 40s through the early sixties. Incidentally, I think that demographics and structural-cultural shifts had an effect -boxing was huge in the 50s -it rivalled baseball here in the States. Here in Boston, there were over a dozen gyms. Now there is about 1 or 2. More kids went to more gyms and the WWII values of hard work and toughness were more apparant in the culture then. But I digress...

I see skill in Dempsey. Tunney beat him because he had more skill. Greb beat Tunney because of sheer output and this has always been an effective way to neutralize superior skill -overload it and short it out. Anyone who believes that Greb was devoid of skill must be wrong. It's like saying Jones is devoid of skill. They cannot be termed "technicians" and anyone who argues that they were are eternally wrong, but they didn't rely on it because other things worked better for them. They relied on speed and power. In Greb's case, it was pure aggression. Keep in mind, he lost to Tunney ever after. Skill tamed him.

Greb would absolutely overwhelm Sanchez, regardless of the latter's technical superiority. Imagine what Pryor would have done to Arguello had he been naturally 35 pounds heavier and an inch taller. It would have been a homicide. That's a hint as to what would happen here.

Amsterdam

07-23-2007, 05:09 PM

Also, Amsterdam, what do you think of Foreman? If he had fought back in the 30's the way he did you would've said he was primitive and would've been whooped by any decent fighter. How do you explain his success?

Wrong, Foreman had a great variety of skill for his style.

Excellent jab, adequate timing, good footwork, good sense of distance, one of the best ever in cutting off the ring in the HW divisions history, good pacing(save for the rumble) and even though his defence was very leaky for the time, it was more well rounded than any of the guys that I am slamming. Foreman also was a freak in terms of power and chin.

And all of this was shown very tight, against a very good crop of more highly evolved fighters than the primitive era's that I am talking about.

Had he fought the way he did in the 70's in the 30's, he'd have never been defeated, KO1's filling up his record.

But you can't note these things right?:huh

Amsterdam

07-23-2007, 05:14 PM

You are talking here but you are not actualy saying verry much.

What advances in boxing technique have there been since Tunney's time that would alow a random poster from this site with a little training to beat him?

What skills exactly dose Sanchez display that Tunney and his peers do not?

You will understand that you are asking us to acept a lot here and will have to give some serious justification.

Much more evolved footwork, timing, punch variety, defencive skill, sense of distance, punch sharpness*, positioning*, throwing within proper range, guard technique, combinations that relate to modern punching technique etc. etc. etc.

All of the guys I am talking about are wide open to be hit at every moment, just note the differences in punch sharpness and little defencive manuvers.

Can you do that though?

Montrose

07-23-2007, 05:32 PM

It is not a silly question. The assertion was a real one, not my own, but real nonetheless and some people do think this way.

Anyone who thinks this way is a mental retard. Greb beat lightheavyweights and heavyweights and was never really knocke dout in 300 fights. How the hell is Marvin Hagler going to stop a guy who beat Gene Tunney little own a Featherweight beat him. Ridiculous.

janitor

07-23-2007, 05:43 PM

[quote=Amsterdam]Much more evolved footwork, timing, punch variety, defencive skill, sense of distance, punch sharpness*, positioning*, throwing within proper range, guard technique, combinations that relate to modern punching technique etc. etc. etc.

Again you say that all these things have developed since Tunneys time but fail to come up with any specifics.

What advances have there been in footwork exactly?

What can Salvador Sanchez do with his feet that Jack Dempsey couldnt?

What new punches have been developed or how have existing ones been better deployed?

What new defensive techniques have been developed since Tunneys time?

How have punching sharpness and positioning improved?

Give me some analysis here.

All of the guys I am talking about are wide open to be hit at every moment,

Give me an example please.

Again you are making these extroardinary statments but not backing them up with examples.

just note the differences in punch sharpness and little defencive manuvers.

I think that this is one aspect of the game that has been somewhat eroded since Greb's time.

janitor

07-23-2007, 05:50 PM

Wrong, Foreman had a great variety of skill for his style.

Excellent jab, adequate timing, good footwork, good sense of distance, one of the best ever in cutting off the ring in the HW divisions history, good pacing(save for the rumble) and even though his defence was very leaky for the time, it was more well rounded than any of the guys that I am slamming.

OK

Do you think that George Foremans technique was better than that of say Gene Tunney.

Yes or No?

robert ungurean

07-23-2007, 05:50 PM

That's your only defence, which is laughable when I can find any video and pick the immense amount of flaws within the technique, no matter what ruleset you wish to compare too.

They were the top of their day, but for anyone to say that these guys BEAT a modern monster MW like Marvin Hagler, when in comparison they were a skilless tomato can regardless of any ruleset difference, is purely stupidity and a lack of real analysation skills.

He BEAT the other primitive fighters of his era, has the best record of that era, how does he beat Marvin Hagler? Hell, how does he even beat a much smaller man in Salvador Sanchez under his ruleset when he cannot even throw punches correctly?

:dead
Who the hell cares about video's LOOK AT WHO HE BEAT!

McGrain

07-23-2007, 05:52 PM

You can't turn your back for a moment in this place.

I'm not going to get to involved here (I hope) because this is insane, but I would like to say two things.

Saying an average male could beat Greb with decent training, even allowing for everything else Amsterdam says as being true is still ridiculous as it does not allow for eternals like heart and balls, never mind natural stamina, strength etc. Combine these attributes in and around the top 1% like they were with Greb and they probably overcome superior technique that Amsterdam alleges could be taught in a year.

Secondly, Tunney's footwork (and i haven't seen a lot of it) is amongst the most incredible i've ever seen.

cross_trainer

07-23-2007, 06:05 PM

The whole point is that these CLOWNS on here will say that these guys from these old era's, noting the different rulesets, times and what not would DEFEAT a modern fighter of similiar calibre in THEIR RULESET.
You refer to me, I assume...

You mentioned a while ago that you practiced martial arts in addition to boxing. What are they, and how old are each of them? When were they invented, and under what conditions?

Also, are there any martial arts other than boxing that you would consider to be near its level in terms of punching ability?

So what I am saying is that in Greb's ruleset, a modern calibre fighter blows him the fuck out, just like the modern fighters blows him the fuck out in the modern rules, because the skill Greb needs is simply NOT THERE.
I assume you're overstating your point in this thread (as Zakman does when he wants to make a point). Nevertheless...are you aware of how many fighters there are with genuinely poor technique? Boxing is often less skill-based (in the conventional sense) than many would assume...it's practice based and talent based as much (if not moreso) than skill. Guys like Mayorga, Hamed, Foreman (his technique WAS terrible most of the time), and Baer are successful because they're tough guys with loads of athletic ability and lots of practice fighting. Other combat sports are similar--guys like Tank Abbott and Bob Sapp annihilated fighters with a far better theoretical grasp of the technical niceties of their sport because they had the physical talent and the practice.

Saying that a year of training will prepare an average guy for Greb and Tunney is absurd. Boxing may have advanced, but it did not advance THAT much. A punch is still a punch, a block is still a block, and there have been no magical methods that have been invented in the meantime that would save an average joe from the speed, power, athleticism, workrate, and 300+ fight experience of a fighter like Greb.

mcvey

07-23-2007, 07:19 PM

It is not a silly question. The assertion was a real one, not my own, but real nonetheless and some people do think this way.
Some people think the moon is made of cheese,in the words of Rod Mckuen "godamn Amsterdam"

Jack

07-23-2007, 08:23 PM

He's gonna make the argument that the guys he beat were good for his time, but compared to today's fighters they are primitive, including Tunney and Walker and Gibbons and even guys like Dempsey who I mentioned.
I think Dempsey would look primitive if he was boxing today. Not even close to as much as say, Fitzsimmons, but he would be out of place and as a result of that, wouldn't break to the top 10 in either the cruiser or heavyweight divisions.

I'd expect Greb to be slaughtered if he was boxing today. If we use the argument that he has time to train to modern boxing and whatnot it's different, but the Greb we "know" would get smashed to pieces tommorow.

McGrain

07-23-2007, 08:30 PM

I'd expect Greb to be slaughtered if he was boxing today.

He throws a shitload of punches, has an iron chin, heart, stamina and durability.

What is it about that combo that makes you think he would be slaughtered at 160?

Jack

07-23-2007, 08:43 PM

He throws a shitload of punches, has an iron chin, heart, stamina and durability.

What is it about that combo that makes you think he would be slaughtered at 160?
Physical attributes will only get you so far. I've seen countless boxers who have so much desire to be the best, to the point that they will do anything to win. They, like Greb would, throw as many punches as their bodies will allow, never even think about giving in and are more dedicated than the average elite fighter, however, they lack skill.

A boxer could have good power, speed and chin, but if he lacks the talent to hit and not get hit, he isn't going to beat anyone.

Considering Greb would not be used to a modern jab and lateral movement, I certainly see him getting hit by a lot of straight punches. His defence would not be suitable to prevent such attacks, and when it comes to offence, all his nifty little, short shots would not be anywhere near as effective due to the gloves and evolution of defence.

Greb was a quality boxer for his time, but I don't see why people say he could make waves today. He would simply be out of his depth. Despite being strong physically, he would lack the style to use his raw abilties to the full effect.

Jack

07-23-2007, 08:50 PM

You would probably assume Mayorga gets creamed in today's game, as does Foreman, etc. Technique is not what it's all about.But there is still a big difference in style between Foreman and Mayorga, and Greb. Whilst the first two aren't nessecarily skilled at doing it, they are used to fighting against it.

It ridiculous to assume that Greb, whose entire career was against men who fought the same way he did, is the same as Mayorga and Foreman, who always went up against "modern" boxers.

I'm sure Mayoprga and Foreman would be considered to have a more modernised style than Greb anyway.

joe33

07-23-2007, 08:51 PM

Physical attributes will only get you so far. I've seen countless boxers who have so much desire to be the best, to the point that they will do anything to win. They, like Greb would, throw as many punches as their bodies will allow, never even think about giving in and are more dedicated than the average elite fighter, however, they lack skill.

A boxer could have good power, speed and chin, but if he lacks the talent to hit and not get hit, he isn't going to beat anyone.

Considering Greb would not be used to a modern jab and lateral movement, I certainly see him getting hit by a lot of straight punches. His defence would not be suitable to prevent such attacks, and when it comes to offence, all his nifty little, short shots would not be anywhere near as effective due to the gloves and evolution of defence.

Greb was a quality boxer for his time, but I don't see why people say he could make waves today. He would simply be out of his depth. Despite being strong physically, he would lack the style to use his raw abilties to the full effect.

Load of rubbish mate, a legend like greb,in any era would adapt,he would be great in any time in boxing history.Cant beleive people think a guy like greb and others would be out of there depth in todays era,theres so many shitty boxers today who are champs,i fail to see it myself,guys like greb were cast iron warriors,who would kill some of todays soft as shit spoilt figters.:happy

McGrain

07-23-2007, 08:53 PM

Physical attributes will only get you so far.

But by the bucketload they would get you some distance surely? I see Greb as kind of the dark side of the Roy Jones coin, limited technique but stuff to make up for it in spades. BTW, I don't accept that there was this gulf in technique, and I think that the Langford footage Bad Intentions posted recently proved, but that is not actually my point.

A boxer could have good power, speed and chin, but if he lacks the talent to hit and not get hit, he isn't going to beat anyone.

Well, that's not a bad description of the great Joe Frazier.

His defence was all about offence.

Considering Greb would not be used to a modern jab and lateral movement, I certainly see him getting hit by a lot of straight punches.

I agree, he would get hit a lot, but he'd also be doing a LOT of hitting. I think, apart from making him a millionare many times over, this would also make him a succesful fighter in the modern era via points wins and TKO's. IF he is as busy as has been said, and IF he was as durable and granite-chined as his resume suggested.

His defence would not be suitable to prevent such attacks, and when it comes to offence, all his nifty little, short shots would not be anywhere near as effective due to the gloves and evolution of defence.

What evolution of defence? Why would his "little shots" be less effective for scoring points and winning rounds? Becuase he would score less? Why would he score less with bigger gloves?

Greb was a quality boxer for his time, but I don't see why people say he could make waves today. He would simply be out of his depth. Despite being strong physically, he would lack the style to use his raw abilties to the full effect.

Similair things could be said about Dick Tiger, George Foreman, I was hearing something similair about Hatton before he took out Kosta (in fact, I remember saying myself he may not be technical enough to step up).

I think that Greb's stamina would allow him to stay busy - very very busy - throughout a 12 round fight. I think his chin and durability make it likely that he will not be stopped. I think his punch rate would be so high that he would have a tendancy to win fights via TKO as well as via points in fights.

He might struggle with slicksters with good jabs, as you've pointed out, but everyone has their stylistic weakness.

Bummy Davis

07-23-2007, 09:19 PM

Sanchez was a very good fighter but I have seen him struggle with guys he should not have, his best win was over Gomez and Azuma Nelson(green) and ofcourse Danny lil red Lopez but to think that he could survive Grebs windmill is a joke...Greb Slaughters him

cross_trainer

07-23-2007, 09:24 PM

But there is still a big difference in style between Foreman and Mayorga, and Greb. Whilst the first two aren't nessecarily skilled at doing it, they are used to fighting against it.

It ridiculous to assume that Greb, whose entire career was against men who fought the same way he did, is the same as Mayorga and Foreman, who always went up against "modern" boxers.

I'm sure Mayoprga and Foreman would be considered to have a more modernised style than Greb anyway.

To a degree, I agree with your points. Greb's style, and his opponents' styles, WERE primitive by today's standards. They would face problems in ad******g because of the stylistic disadvantages.

But despite that, they were still basically doing the same sort of thing. They were throwing and avoiding punches, and their technique may have been sub-optimal by today's standards, but it's not like that suddenly makes them terrible fighters. Modern technique (or old-time technique under early rules for that matter, to turn the argument the other way) is not a magic bullet. They may get hit more with the dodging techniques they used in their own time, but by and large they should still work well enough.

At root, Greb is an extremely tough, athletic man using the techniques that he practiced against 300+ other tough, athletic fist-fighters from a very large talent pool. His technique may not be modern boxing per se, but it's close enough. After all, it's hardly like the human race has grown a third arm since 1920.

Jack

07-23-2007, 09:26 PM

But by the bucketload they would get you some distance surely? I see Greb as kind of the dark side of the Roy Jones coin, limited technique but stuff to make up for it in spades. BTW, I don't accept that there was this gulf in technique, and I think that the Langford footage Bad Intentions posted recently proved, but that is not actually my point.Oh absolutely. Physical attributes will get you to the level of a journeyman or whatever, but above that, you get fighters that are skilled who also have the immense pysical attributes too. It works the same way, but opposite too. If you have fantastic skills, but lack a chin or any stamina, you won't beat any decent fighters.
Well, that's not a bad description of the great Joe Frazier.

His defence was all about offence.I always thought Frazier had good defence, personally. I think a lot of great fighters would struggle on land on prime Frazier.
What evolution of defence? Why would his "little shots" be less effective for scoring points and winning rounds? Becuase he would score less? Why would he score less with bigger gloves?More relaince of actually blocking shots with gloves. Not the kind of pushing punches away that Johnson did, but literally leaving your arms to be hit full force. The Winky Wright shell defence, but on a smaller scale. Because of the small gloves, that didn't happe in Greb's day.

I think the small shots would be less effective as they rely on craftiness. Given the large gloves today, these types of punches would struggle to get throw the modern defence. You watch the only videos of Greb and he is constantly throwing quick, short punches. With tiny gloves they are going to get through easily, but wouldn't now.

It's simple. The gloves are bigger, meaning a tighter defence and with him obviously having big gloves too, the chance of getting through would be minimized. The exact same punch is not going to have the same effective, if the gloves are three times as big.
I think that Greb's stamina would allow him to stay busy - very very busy - throughout a 12 round fight. I think his chin and durability make it likely that he will not be stopped. I think his punch rate would be so high that he would have a tendancy to win fights via TKO as well as via points in fights.

He might struggle with slicksters with good jabs, as you've pointed out, but everyone has their stylistic weakness.I can see why that prediction would work. Just out of interest, how would the reluctance of referees to allow clinches effect him? If he was coming forward all night, I could see someone like Hopkins grabbing him, waiting for the referee to pull them apart and then get back to work on the ouside.

I do think he could do alright against boxers who would try to oufight him. However, I don't see many people doing that.

McGrain

07-23-2007, 09:29 PM

To a degree, I agree with your points. Greb's style, and his opponents' styles, WERE primitive by today's standards. They would face problems in ad******g because of the stylistic disadvantages.

Why? I'm not an old-school nut-hugger or anything, but I really don't understand this point of view. Why does a durable fighter with an iron chin have to change his style from busy aggression? What are the potential consequences that did not exsist in his own era? Getting punched?

They were throwing and avoiding punches, and their technique may have been sub-optimal by today's standards, but it's not like that suddenly makes them terrible fighters. Modern technique (or old-time technique under early rules for that matter, to turn the argument the other way) is not a magic bullet. They may get hit more with the dodging techniques they used in their own time, but by and large they should still work well enough.

You make some good points here; but there are aspects of a technically gifted fighter, such as Langford or Tunney that look every bit as good as their modern counterparts. Footwork especially where these two are concerned, judging from the limited footage i've seen.

cross_trainer

07-23-2007, 09:41 PM

Why? I'm not an old-school nut-hugger or anything, but I really don't understand this point of view. Why does a durable fighter with an iron chin have to change his style from busy aggression? What are the potential consequences that did not exsist in his own era? Getting punched?

You make some good points here; but there are aspects of a technically gifted fighter, such as Langford or Tunney that look every bit as good as their modern counterparts. Footwork especially where these two are concerned, judging from the limited footage i've seen.

Indeed, the footwork is excellent. I will note, though, that the hands are still a bit too low. Greb's style may have to adjust slightly to allow for the larger gloves--they're a bit harder to slip, much easier to block, the short punches that Jack mentioned may be less effective, and bodywork in general will not pay quite as many dividends. The basic idea of his forward-moving pressure would remain unchanged, though. And even as-is, I don't see him losing to anybody near his weightclass today, though he'd have quite a bit of trouble with a few.

McGrain

07-23-2007, 09:43 PM

Oh absolutely. Physical attributes will get you to the level of a journeyman or whatever, but above that, you get fighters that are skilled who also have the immense pysical attributes too. It works the same way, but opposite too. If you have fantastic skills, but lack a chin or any stamina, you won't beat any decent fighters.

I think when you're talking about the absolute extremes of physical attributes then you can get further than journeyman status with those attributes alone. As an example i'd hold up the difference in Jones between having 100% of his speed and 75% of his speed.

I always thought Frazier had good defence, personally. I think a lot of great fighters would struggle on land on prime Frazier.

He was busy; he shucked on the way in, and it was certainly something he worked on very hard. But at route, he used rythym rather than random action to slip and duck and that always makes you hittable v a top fighter. I disagree with you that great fighters would struggle to land on him because of his defence, although what defence he had combined with his offence would make him hard for anyone to hit.

But do you really feel that Frazier's strategy very different going in from "take one to give one, hit and be hit" rather than "hit without being hit?"

More relaince of actually blocking shots with gloves. Not the kind of pushing punches away that Johnson did, but literally leaving your arms to be hit full force. The Winky Wright shell defence, but on a smaller scale. Because of the small gloves, that didn't happe in Greb's day.

Yes, things might look a little different, but it would take a very special counter puncher to actually make that work face to face with Greb. Aggression is still very much in style, especially in the states. "If you can't win, look like you're winning" would serve him against a fighter like Winky. Think Marciano, busier, without the power - but not devoid of power - that should be mentioned.

I think the small shots would be less effective as they rely on craftiness

Hopkins is arguably no.3 pound for pound now, at 42, and "craftiness" must be amongst his best attributes. It would still serve Greb I feel.

Given the large gloves today, these types of punches would struggle to get throw the modern defence. You watch the only videos of Greb and he is constantly throwing quick, short punches. With tiny gloves they are going to get through easily, but wouldn't now.

...i think you are onto something here, but I will stick with my initial feeling, aggression is still scored and enough shots will get through to make that scoring valid. Meahnwhile, how to stop him, or even get him of you?

It's simple. The gloves are bigger, meaning a tighter defence and with him obviously having big gloves too, the chance of getting through would be minimized. The exact same punch is not going to have the same effective, if the gloves are three times as big.

I can see how you got here, but I think this actually would hurt Greb less than many of his contemparies - he is not a power puncher but a busy puncher, he will be putting many in so some will get through. In the meantime he is vulnerable to getting hit but can he be KO'd/counterpunced out of a decision? I would guess that the answer would be no.

I can see why that prediction would work. Just out of interest, how would the reluctance of referees to allow clinches effect him? If he was coming forward all night, I could see someone like Hopkins grabbing him, waiting for the referee to pull them apart and then get back to work on the ouside.

Not terribly, actually. A busy referee might impeed him somewhat, but he can still punch in a clinch until it IS broken and someone rellying on this strategy may still get outpunched and will probably get very tired. However, I do think Hopkins might be the guy to do it without lateral movement. Maybe. But I honestly feel we're looking at that kind of fighter, whatever the era.

I'm glad I can touch type bro.

McGrain

07-23-2007, 09:47 PM

Indeed, the footwork is excellent. I will note, though, that the hands are still a bit too low.

I have always felt that in the area of extraordinary fighters, these "deficiencies" may work for a fighter. In Langford's case, he wants you to try to hit him because he can probably punch harder/faster than you. It's a risky business, but speaking personally, if i was handling Lanford I would not have him lift his gloves until he hit 190+. I think it would be worth the risk.

I haven't answered the rest of your post because I got to most of that stuff in Jack's post, i'm not ducking from your ideas or anything.

cross_trainer

07-23-2007, 09:52 PM

Incidentally, a "busy" referee finds himself mysteriously on the canvas.

McGrain

07-23-2007, 09:54 PM

Incidentally, a "busy" referee finds himself mysteriously on the canvas.

:lol:

Possible. That is a valid point actually. If Greb steps out of a time machine he loses DQ 1.

dmt

07-24-2007, 05:05 AM

Dempsey would be the best in today's crappy division at both heavy and cruiser and any real boxing fan would know that.

Holmes' Jab

07-24-2007, 05:32 AM

The initial assertion is a nonsense and the Anti-Greb ("He's like sooo 'primitive' " :roll: ) arguments are laughable. Sanchez is a great fighter, but I see Greb taking a decision in this matchup. :good

Sonny's jab

07-24-2007, 05:36 AM

I like the one about any average young guy with a bit of training and a few amateur fights today could beat Harry Greb !

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That's priceless. :rofl

magnum

07-24-2007, 06:53 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Good day :good

Stewbear

07-24-2007, 07:16 AM

Have to say this whole argument about foreman and mayorga is interesting as they probably wouldnt have looked out of place in the pre glove era:lol:

JohnThomas1

07-24-2007, 08:59 AM

I like the one about any average young guy with a bit of training and a few amateur fights today could beat Harry Greb !

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That's priceless. :rofl

Tunney, probably worse lol

Manassa

07-24-2007, 11:01 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Good day :good

Amsterdam... This is Magnum?

My dog could put forth a better argument.

janitor

07-24-2007, 11:29 AM

Indeed, the footwork is excellent. I will note, though, that the hands are still a bit too low.

I have never quite understood those who argue that the low guard of this era is primitive.

They seem to think that for many decades boxers just got hit on the chin constantly and they didn't like it but there was not much that they could do about it.
Then one day a boxer had an idea and held his hands a bit higher and didn't get hit as much and soon everybody was doing it.

It simply dose not work like that.

Boxing manuals from the turn of the century emphasize that the guard hand should be held low so that it can protect against a blow to the head or body with equal rapidity. In the days of 4oz gloves a shot to the solar plexus could be more debilitating than a flush shot tho the chin so this was logical.

You will notice that when these fighters go into a crouch they often raised their guard higher because the crouch protected the body.

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 12:07 PM

I have never quite understood those who argue that the low guard of this era is primitive.

They seem to think that for many decades boxers just got hit on the chin constantly and they didn't like it but there was not much that they could do about it.
Then one day a boxer had an idea and held his hands a bit higher and didn't get hit as much and soon everybody was doing it.

It simply dose not work like that.

Boxing manuals from the turn of the century emphasize that the guard hand should be held low so that it can protect against a blow to the head or body with equal rapidity. In the days of 4oz gloves a shot to the solar plexus could be more debilitating than a flush shot tho the chin so this was logical.

You will notice that when these fighters go into a crouch they often raised their guard higher because the crouch protected the body.

But we are debating whether Greb would do as well under modern conditions, not under his own rules. Under modern conditions, the body shots that lead to the lower guard are much less of an issue.

janitor

07-24-2007, 12:13 PM

But we are debating whether Greb would do as well under modern conditions, not under his own rules. Under modern conditions, the body shots that lead to the lower guard are much less of an issue.

As far as the opening post implies the fight might just as easily be under rules from Greb's era.

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 12:15 PM

As far as the opening post implies the fight might just as easily be under rules from Greb's era.

Hmmm...true. This is a crazy thread. :think

janitor

07-24-2007, 12:22 PM

Hmmm...true. This is a crazy thread. :think

To be honest I am not sure quite where it is going.

Either you think that every boxer pre 1940 was a glorified bar brawler or you would expect Greb to eat his cornflakes out of the skull of any featherweight.

mcvey

07-24-2007, 12:34 PM

To be honest I am not sure quite where it is going.

Either you think that every boxer pre 1940 was a glorified bar brawler or you would expect Greb to eat his cornflakes out of the skull of any featherweight.
Nonsensical thread thread ,I bailed out a couple of pages ago.

McGrain

07-24-2007, 01:18 PM

Either you think that every boxer pre 1940 was a glorified bar brawler or you would expect Greb to eat his cornflakes out of the skull of any featherweight.

That really made me laugh, I don't know why.

I've enjoyed this thread. I learned a lot. But I got into it with Jack, who you can talk to where this subject is concerned.

I like Amsterdam, but he's went a bit mad here.

Street Lethal

07-24-2007, 01:23 PM

Amsterdam has to be joking, right? Sanchez was a great featherweight, but he doesn't beat Gene Tunney or Harry Greb. I would agree that Marvin Hagler beats Greb, but not Sanchez.

Boxing evolves. No shit. But it isn't so primitive in Greb's day that a 126 pounder beats an elite 160 pounder. There is no footage of Greb fighting, but we have video of Tunney and he looks great!

Montrose

07-24-2007, 05:41 PM

Manassa

07-24-2007, 05:43 PM

This thread is a good reason I rarely post on boxing message boards anymore. It's a waste of time debating with someone in kindergarten in their understanding of boxing.

Anyone who thinks a fighter is better just because its now is a retard. Anyone who thinks a featherweight can beat Harry Greb is really unworthy of a response.

Obviously these children have never studied films of Gene Tunney, Tommy Loughran, Mickey Walker and other great fighters that Greb beat.

-Monte Cox

I never did like you anyway. Adios :good

janitor

07-24-2007, 05:52 PM

I never did like you anyway. Adios :good

I get the idea that the forum is geting the worst side of the exchange in trades like these.

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 05:54 PM

janitor

07-24-2007, 05:56 PM

Instead of becoming offended about it, would it not make more sense to explain exactly why such a thought is ridiculous--in other words, to educate those who you see as wrong? I imagine that it will create a more enlightening discussion than mere dismissal.

Yeah.

Why dose it have to fall to poor anoraks like us to maintain a modicum of common sense around here.

magnum

07-24-2007, 06:03 PM

Amsterdam... This is Magnum?

My dog could put forth a better argument.

Why waste time trying to offer up a complex argument of the science when any fair minded person could see the difference in ability right off? Since you guys can't then maybe I'll have to put a little effort into this. As of now, I have no clue why AMsterdam signed me up for this because I've told him the people who hold old school fighters can't be convinced otherwise because they have deep delusions and will blatently lie to themselves.

I want to make two points and if anyone can respond with anything resembling an intelligent opinion then I might take the time to continue this discussion:

1. Everyone seems to use the argument the guys in the olden days had more heart, grit, stamina and toughness. How do you guys see Greb matching up with an evolved fighter of this nature in Roberto Duran?

2. here is a video of Greb shadow boxing that has been posted on this forum. The man would jump in the air when he punches. :rofl Explain to me how this allows you to land a decent shot, be in a position while punching not to be countered and to end up in good position?

Manassa

07-24-2007, 06:17 PM

magnum

07-24-2007, 06:23 PM

That's right, Magnum - ignore such points as these:

- Greb was known not to take training very seriously

- He was past his prime in the footage

- Differences in rules/equipment meant differences in method

- Footage is grainy and missing frames

- Jumping in the air while is written off the slate because he didn't take his training seriously..fascinating Have you ever seen Ricardo Mayorga use such bad technique in training? When fighters of today are half-assing it, they just look like themselves with less snap and speed.

-Oh..my mistake :rofl You know, Roy Jones is past his prime, I've never seen him jump around flaling his arms because he was just goofing off

-I hear this a lot. PLEASE explain how this make that big of a difference. Bear in mine, I own a pair of gloves from the 1940's and know exactly how they compare to Grant, Reyes and Winning.

-Footage was perfectly clear for as long as it needed to be for me to see him jumping in the air, flalling his arms and never maintaining positioning.

So, How does he match up with Duran?

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 06:25 PM

-I hear this a lot. PLEASE explain how this make that big of a difference. Bear in mine, I own a pair of gloves from the 1940's and know exactly how they compare to Grant, Reyes and Winning.

1920's gloves were slightly smaller, I believe.

Go back to earlier and you see 2-4 oz. gloves, some with open fingers like modern MMA gloves.

magnum

07-24-2007, 06:26 PM

It's on.

1. I see Greb taking Duran due to size, strength, and being even more tenacious, dirty and mean than Duran. Duran get's out-macho'd.

2. I have seen the vid. He was popping around on his toes, he didn't jump when he threw punches, he popped around as to not remain stationary(as was said when he would spar Dempsey), like any light-footed fighter today would to show good movement and footwork. It's not like he would do that or that was his style at all when fighting. He was a swarmer and an aggressive attacker. He was shadow-boxing just for the camera.

It's on?? You didn't answer question number 1 yet.

I'm going to a birthday party, looks like I'll be back on tonight.

Oh and let me make something clear, I'm not doing this to disrespect old school fighters. They paved the way and fought in a different era. One thing I can say, you put the greats of yesteryear into this era, they would evolve and be able to compete with anyone today.

magnum

07-24-2007, 06:28 PM

1920's gloves were slightly smaller, I believe.

Go back to earlier and you see 2-4 oz. gloves, some with open fingers like modern MMA gloves.

And??? What difference does that make? I'm assuming you mean it made it harder to defend. Watch a modern fighter. Show me one who doesnt block punches with his hands open inside of his gloves. If you dont like this angle, on top of it I can say the incredibly more hardened guys of yesteryear should have been able to take a punch to the hand and keep coming, surely?

magnum

07-24-2007, 06:39 PM

Fair enough. But while I'm not neccessarily arguing that if they jumped in a time machine they would be as good under our rules as they were under theirs, I will say that a modern fighter would not do as good under their rules against those fighters either. Different rules, regulations, gloves, rounds, variables, styles made to adjust, etc. It goes both ways. I do feel that someone like a Greb,. with his strength, swarming style, dirty tactics, and relentless pressure, would do good in any era.

The bottom line is these guys did whatever it took to be the best. That's what it will always take to reach the peak. Even with the dumber fighters, you give them a great trainer and they could eventually make it there.

Also, I did answer your first question. I pick Greb over Duran. I explained it. He is bigger, stronger, and Duran would not be able to deal with a bigger, stronger, dirtier fighter than himself, especially one that applied that kind of pressure. Also, Greb was known to have been amazingly fast as well, and had un-ending stamina. Duran sure was technically better, but so was Tunney, Walker, Gibbons, etc, and we have film of them in action, and he spanked all of them.

Sorry, you did. I actually meant question number 2, which you danced around like Mayweather from Baldomir. Yes, but Duran is MUCH better technically. By miles, not feet.

So these rule changes..which rule made it a good idea to try and block punches to the body with your hands in the old days. Let's say an old time great does this against Oscar De La Hoya and Oscar is stepping in close trying to beat them with a shorter shot like he did Mayorga. Oscar jabs to the body, the old time great brings his right hand down to block it from a bad angle while out of position, how does the odl time great get in position and block Oscar's next punch without being knocked down or out like iron chinned Mayorga was?

Manassa

07-24-2007, 06:39 PM

- Jumping in the air while is written off the slate because he didn't take his training seriously..fascinating

How do you know Greb's routine wasn't just a cardio activity? You don't so I'll suggest you give yourself an uppercut.

-Oh..my mistake :rofl You know, Roy Jones is past his prime, I've never seen him jump around flaling his arms because he was just goofing off

Read above.

Pointing to Greb being past his prime was not an excuse; I was merely letting you know, so that if you thought he looked slow or unagile, that could be accounted for.

-I hear this a lot. PLEASE explain how this make that big of a difference. Bear in mine, I own a pair of gloves from the 1940's and know exactly how they compare to Grant, Reyes and Winning.

Think about it; if you've got smaller gloves, it's not as easy to block punches in the modern way, so you won't be as eager to go forward. Hence the reason some old-time fighters would punch while leaving their head still jerked backwards.

That is but one example.

-Footage was perfectly clear for as long as it needed to be for me to see him jumping in the air, flalling his arms and never maintaining positioning.

Ah, but it wasn't. You just think; those missing frames make fighters from that era look jerky. Black n' white, grainy footage doesn't let us observe subtle details as easily. Non-existant audio doesn't allow us to hear sounds (like landed punches or breathing exhalations) that may amplify the aesthetical effect of a punch.

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 06:49 PM

And??? What difference does that make? I'm assuming you mean it made it harder to defend. Watch a modern fighter. Show me one who doesnt block punches with his hands open inside of his gloves. If you dont like this angle, on top of it I can say the incredibly more hardened guys of yesteryear should have been able to take a punch to the hand and keep coming, surely?

* It makes it far more dangerous to move in (as, in fact, you can see in modern MMA competitions, among other things), and therefore encourages greater feinting and counterpunching skills at the expense of combinations.

* Gloves that are smaller are also harder to block with the open glove, and blocking with one's hand (whether open or closed) is apt to hurt the blocker in the extreme 2-4 oz. glove situations.

* Smaller gloves are easier to slip, leading to a greater emphasis on head movement and more subtle head movement (larger gloves require more movement to avoid).

* Smaller gloves make body shots pay higher dividends, which dictate your strategy.

magnum

07-24-2007, 06:56 PM

How do you know Greb's routine wasn't just a cardio activity? You don't so I'll suggest you give yourself an uppercut.

How do you know it was? :yep Keep in mind, I've seen him fight too.

Pointing to Greb being past his prime was not an excuse; I was merely letting you know, so that if you thought he looked slow or unagile, that could be accounted for. Yes, that just doesn't make any sense. I wasnt commenting on his speed. I was tearing apart his Abysmal technical form.

Think about it;if you've got smaller gloves, it's not as easy to block punches in the modern way, so you won't be as eager to go forward. Hence the reason some old-time fighters would punch while leaving their head still jerked backwards.

What is this suppose to prove? MY POINT?

Ah, but it wasn't. You just think; those missing frames make fighters from that era look jerky. Black n' white, grainy footage doesn't let us observe subtle details as easily. Non-existant audio doesn't allow us to hear sounds (like landed punches or breathing exhalations) that may amplify the aesthetical effect of a punch.

What you're doing here is stockpiling arguments to try and convince yourself that you're correct. The film doesnt change the fact that I saw his technique. You already argued above that he wasn't jumping, he was past his prime, so obviously we both can see the video and what is going on. :tired

Just curious, would you happen to be a viscious boxer fan as well?

magnum

07-24-2007, 06:59 PM

Alexis Arguello was much better technically than Aaron Pryor, who I would assume Greb fought like a bigger version of. Why was Pryor so successful? Not much technique, just a lot of balls, heart, and pressure, great stamina, strength, and was never taken off his game.

Arguello was a textbook fighter. Pryor was very technical at being a volume pressure fighter. Thus, the EVOLVED style, my entire argument proven. It's possible and we have several more of them today.

They have two hands ya know. They held one hand lower than the other to block body shots, and while the other was still lower than today, it was high enough to react to a punch to the face. That is also why, as Manassa said, they often held their head back when throwing a punch, and why they extended their arms out further.

Yes, and this is one of my pointsd as to why they cannot possibly compete at today's level. It's technically assanine to try and block the majority of all body punches with your hands. The only use that is left of this method is to parry a reaching body shot. So in the last part of this, these guys are super human I guess? Haven't you learned that this technical flaw, which they repeatedly commit is VERY dangerous and is often a sign of a major flaw in defense?

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 07:00 PM

janitor

07-24-2007, 07:02 PM

The most woefull part of this whole issue is that the film dose not even show Greb fighting.

It could be a cardio workout. It could be an informal sesion. He could just be trying to develop one aspect of his game like reflexes.

Yet some people still seek to unwrite his entire record on the basis of this trivial footage.

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 07:03 PM

Arguello was a textbook fighter. Pryor was very technical at being a volume pressure fighter. Thus, the EVOLVED style, my entire argument proven. It's possible and we have several more of them today.

Yes, and this is one of my pointsd as to why they cannot possibly compete at today's level. It's technically assanine to try and block the majority of all body punches with your hands. The only use that is left of this method is to parry a reaching body shot. So in the last part of this, these guys are super human I guess? Haven't you learned that this technical flaw, which they repeatedly commit is VERY dangerous and is often a sign of a major flaw in defense?

Didn't block body shots with the hands. They blocked with the arms--or at least, this is what they did during the 1860-1899 timeline that I deal with most of the time.

Manassa

07-24-2007, 07:05 PM

How do you know it was? :yep Keep in mind, I've seen him fight too.

Yes, that just doesn't make any sense. I wasnt commenting on his speed. I was tearing apart his Abysmal technical form.

What is this suppose to prove? MY POINT?

What you're doing here is stockpiling arguments to try and convince yourself that you're correct. The film doesnt change the fact that I saw his technique. You already argued above that he wasn't jumping, he was past his prime, so obviously we both can see the video and what is going on. :tired

Just curious, would you happen to be a viscious boxer fan as well?

How do you know it was? :yep Keep in mind, I've seen him fight too.

This is not the issue. I'm not asserting anything, you are. Oh, and you haven't seen Greb fight; you've seen him in a light spar.

Yes, that just doesn't make any sense. I wasnt commenting on his speed. I was tearing apart his Abysmal technical form.

My postings should not be confined to your personal expectations; I pointed something out because I wanted to, regardless if it meant anything to you or not.

What is this suppose to prove? MY POINT?

No. Actually, what is your point? Do you think you have one over on me or something? I haven't even made a statement, merely picked you up on a few things.

What you're doing here is stockpiling arguments to try and convince yourself that you're correct. The film doesnt change the fact that I saw his technique. You already argued above that he wasn't jumping, he was past his prime, so obviously we both can see the video and what is going on. :tired

I'm not trying to convince myself I'm correct - there's nothing to be correct about. I'm viewing things from a neutral perspective; what I'm picking you up on is your one-dimensional views, i.e., not taking everything into account. I am just as much against posters of the opposite side who think Greb would tear Hagler a new arsehole.

Just curious, would you happen to be a viscious boxer fan as well?

I do not know what you're talking about.

magnum

07-24-2007, 07:08 PM

* It makes it far more dangerous to move in (as, in fact, you can see in modern MMA competitions, among other things), and therefore encourages greater feinting and counterpunching skills at the expense of combinations.

MMA fighters are avoiding takedowns and have only been taught mediocre boxing skills. Open up this argument will lead to mass confusion. Feints are used for what? They are used to setup punches by creating openings due to your opponeent reacting. They only amount to so much and the that's the primary reason they aren't used much in a scientifically evolved sport.

* Gloves that are smaller are also harder to block with the open glove, and blocking with one's hand (whether open or closed) is apt to hurt the blocker in the extreme 2-4 oz. glove situations.[quote]

The very point of blocking with an open glove is to have your hand open, creating more surface area to take the punch. The other reason you want a punch to hit your hand is because the glove itself cannot obviously provide enough resistance.

[quote] Smaller gloves are easier to slip, leading to a greater emphasis on head movement and more subtle head movement (larger gloves require more movement to avoid).

If you're an accurate puncher, then you punch with your hand and not the glove. :good So slipping a smaller glove only comes into play at rare occurences. Oh and BTW, some of the gloves Greb used were distrubuted differently than gloves of today. There was a much small wrist on the gloves of the old days and the padding was packed making the portion of the glovr that covers the fist a half-oval. :yep

* Smaller gloves make body shots pay higher dividends, which dictate your strategy.

Leverage makes them count even more, which guys of today have a much greater concept of. :p

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 07:20 PM

MMA fighters are avoiding takedowns and have only been taught mediocre boxing skills. Open up this argument will lead to mass confusion. Feints are used for what? They are used to setup punches by creating openings due to your opponeent reacting. They only amount to so much and the that's the primary reason they aren't used much in a scientifically evolved sport.

In olden times (which is what I was referring to--1860-1899, remember), fighters did have to deal with wrestling on the inside. That aside, however, feints were used to set up punches precisely because the risk of entering punching range was greater. Even a jab could nail you quite hard, your defence wasn't able to absorb smaller gloved punches (see below) as well, and as a result you needed to prepare your attack with more feints. As a result (like all other skills), fighters were much better at creating more convincing feints and discerning feints from the real thing.

I fail to see your point when you say that feints create openings. Isn't that the point--to open the opponent up to your punches? :huh

The very point of blocking with an open glove is to have your hand open, creating more surface area to take the punch. The other reason you want a punch to hit your hand is because the glove itself cannot obviously provide enough resistance.

Blocking a 2-4 oz. glove with an open hand will hurt quite a bit. Blocking a bare-knuckled strike with an open hand (also bare) will hurt even more. Also, it is harder to block a comparatively smaller glove than a comparatively larger glove, especially when your own blocking gloves are smaller.

In earlier times, fighters blocked with upraised arms to allow the punch to skid off. Greb had advanced somewhat beyond this, but he used a horizontal sweeping technique rather than a conventional "catch" because catches could still probably hurt:

IO2dTnFl2Z0

If you're an accurate puncher, then you punch with your hand and not the glove. :good So slipping a smaller glove only comes into play at rare occurences. Oh and BTW, some of the gloves Greb used were distrubuted differently than gloves of today. There was a much small wrist on the gloves of the old days and the padding was packed making the portion of the glovr that covers the fist a half-oval. :yep

While I agree that fighters do not punch with the glove, the fact remains that a larger and wider glove will require more head movement to slip. Would you not agree?

Leverage makes them count even more, which guys of today have a much greater concept of. :p

Leverage isn't an impossibly difficult concept, really. Fighters in everything from Hung Gar gongfu to early 20th century karate understand how to move the body and throw a punch with leverage. And all of these are what you would call "primitive" fisticuffs compared to boxing.

magnum

07-24-2007, 09:39 PM

Let's look at his sparring rather than his shadowboxing. It would make more sense since we're talking about IN RING performance, would it not?

HMA6Pd6tT3Q

And yes, I'm sure you can still pick out many flaws. But at least with this, you'll be doing it with the way he actually fought.

Yes it would. Now to prove your point, explain to me how this tough, full of heart, iron-chinned fighter beats a newer, more evolved version of the same nature in Roberto Duran. I don't want some BS argument about how he is bigger, stronger or tougher. He clearly isn't bigger or stonger. The boxers of today cut weight and have much less body fat. I want you to tell me how he would attack and defend against Duran to earn a victory.

Thanks :good

magnum

07-24-2007, 09:40 PM

magnum

07-24-2007, 09:44 PM

Didn't block body shots with the hands. They blocked with the arms--or at least, this is what they did during the 1860-1899 timeline that I deal with most of the time.

Did you watch the video you linked me too? They brought their arms out to their opponents to try and stop the punches in their path. That is one of the first things you learn not to do when you box. It's because it leaves you wide open to be countered. :good

magnum

07-24-2007, 09:53 PM

This is not the issue. I'm not asserting anything, you are. Oh, and you haven't seen Greb fight; you've seen him in a light spar.

Where did you see him fight? Light sparring is enough to tell he has low level technique compared to today's elites. This is precisely what we are debating about. :yep

My postings should not be confined to your personal expectations; I pointed something out because I wanted to, regardless if it meant anything to you or not. hahaha..your comment was pertaining to what I said, hypocrit. :lol:

No. Actually, what is your point? Do you think you have one over on me or something? I haven't even made a statement, merely picked you up on a few things.

Why do you care? I was essentially called an idiot who doesn't know boxing by you when I didn't even put myself in this thread. I posted a link simply to suit amsterdam so I dodn't have to debate this nonsense. Then I decided it would be fun. Again with the hypocrisy, you've picked me up on a few things have you? :rofl I individually quote each line I'm replying to so that it is clear what I was trying to say. I just returned from birthday party and don't have a clue what you're referring to. If you want me to answer your question, then dig up all the necessary quotes. :good

I'm not trying to convince myself I'm correct - there's nothing to be correct about. I'm viewing things from a neutral perspective; what I'm picking you up on is your one-dimensional views, i.e., not taking everything into account. I am just as much against posters of the opposite side who think Greb would tear Hagler a new arsehole. What haven't I taken into account? PLEASE enlighten me. :rofl Do you even pay attention to what you say?

I do not know what you're talking about.

I said just curious. :rasta

magnum

07-24-2007, 10:00 PM

For one, I don't think that was any more the way he actually fought than the shadow-boxing. He was sparring an old Philly Jack O'Brien, and not using his reknowned pressure swarming style, but rather opting to box and move with him. That is a perfect example of "light-sparring".

I'm not a moron. I know what light sparring is. PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT I AM ACTUALLY DEBATING INSTEAD OF SPINNING WHAT I SAY. I will offer to you the same question as I did for Cross_Trainer. Analytically breakdown how Harry Greb would defeat Roberto Duran. I want to know how he attacks him and how he defends against him. :D

Amsterdam

07-24-2007, 10:04 PM

Amazing! The incredible magnum of which Amsterdam spoke. Wow that really proved a lot. Than you for that amazing insight.

:lol:

The funny thing is that the simple link with the smartass comment was all he needed to win if you were open minded.

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 10:04 PM

Yes it would. Now to prove your point, explain to me how this tough, full of heart, iron-chinned fighter beats a newer, more evolved version of the same nature in Roberto Duran. I don't want some BS argument about how he is bigger, stronger or tougher. He clearly isn't bigger or stonger. The boxers of today cut weight and have much less body fat. I want you to tell me how he would attack and defend against Duran to earn a victory.

Thanks :good

Greb clearly is bigger. Duran did not use "modern weight cutting" or modern training--he (like most fighters from the 70's and early 80's) used the same training techniques as guys from Greb's era did. Greb is a natural middle/lightheavy and Duran is a natural light/welterweight

Amsterdam

07-24-2007, 10:06 PM

I'm not a moron. I know what light sparring is. PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT I AM ACTUALLY DEBATING INSTEAD OF SPINNING WHAT I SAY. I will offer to you the same question as I did for Cross_Trainer. Analytically breakdown how Harry Greb would defeat Roberto Duran. I want to know how he attacks him and how he defends against him. :D

All they do in this scenerio is spin things around with no defined answer on the core of the subject, technical skill.

As if Pryor was just a come forward guy with balls and no skill, he was one of the most skilled swarmers of the 80's whom had a phenominal understanding of boxing....:-(

magnum

07-24-2007, 10:07 PM

[quote=Sweet Pea]Why was Pryor effective at being a volume pressure fighter? He wasn't technical at all. He came forward throwing at will, same as Greb. Greb was thought to be better at in-fighting though, and using dirty tactics. Pryor wasn't technical at all, he used a swarming, come forward, all out style that Greb used. Nothing to me seemed "evolved" about Pryor, therefore your point hasn't been proven.[quote]

Here is the definition of technical so you can see where you made your error. :good
Technical: belonging or pertaining to an art, science, or the like: technical skill.

In the video of Greb sparring above, how many times did you see him slip a punch by 2 inches, get into position and then unload a flush shot on someone?

How does Harry Greb attack and defend his way to a victory against Roberto Duran? :bbb

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 10:07 PM

Did you watch the video you linked me too? They brought their arms out to their opponents to try and stop the punches in their path. That is one of the first things you learn not to do when you box. It's because it leaves you wide open to be countered. :good

Can't speak for Greb's time, but they had a reason for doing something like this way back when. You left the arms more extended to intercept the punches at a greater distance to your body--and grab your opponent's arms, as Corbett does in this clip from his fight with Courtney:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]@field(NUMBER+@band(edmp+4022))

magnum

07-24-2007, 10:14 PM

In olden times (which is what I was referring to--1860-1899, remember), fighters did have to deal with wrestling on the inside. That aside, however, feints were used to set up punches precisely because the risk of entering punching range was greater. Even a jab could nail you quite hard, your defence wasn't able to absorb smaller gloved punches (see below) as well, and as a result you needed to prepare your attack with more feints. As a result (like all other skills), fighters were much better at creating more convincing feints and discerning feints from the real thing.[quote]

Exactly. They had to use feints way more than they should have. As I stated above, feints are an extremely limited tactic. The fact that they had to feint so much should let you know the opponent didn't have a great jab to time his feints (as you see today) and the feinter needed a little something before he would go in very often because he knew if he didnt put the other man at a disadvantage, he couldnt properly defend against him.

[quote]Blocking a 2-4 oz. glove with an open hand will hurt quite a bit. Blocking a bare-knuckled strike with an open hand (also bare) will hurt even more. Also, it is harder to block a comparatively smaller glove than a comparatively larger glove, especially when your own blocking gloves are smaller. This caused them to flail out their arms to cut punches off at the pass because???

In earlier times, fighters blocked with upraised arms to allow the punch to skid off. Greb had advanced somewhat beyond this, but he used a horizontal sweeping technique rather than a conventional "catch" because catches could still probably hurt:

Did you give up on your argument that fighters from Greb's era were so much tougher?

IO2dTnFl2Z0

While I agree that fighters do not punch with the glove, the fact remains that a larger and wider glove will require more head movement to slip. Would you not agree?[quote]

Yes, but against a fighter from an era of these gloves, a modern day fighter would have zero difficulty slipping one of their telegraphed, slow and straight from the hip punches. :tired

[quote]Leverage isn't an impossibly difficult concept, really.
So why didn't these guys fully understand it?

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 10:14 PM

All they do in this scenerio is spin things around with no defined answer on the core of the subject, technical skill.

As if Pryor was just a come forward guy with balls and no skill, he was one of the most skilled swarmers of the 80's whom had a phenominal understanding of boxing....:-(
Not spinning, just trying to frame the debate more reasonably.

I'd be perfectly glad to elaborate on how a guy from the bareknuckle era would deal with modern fighters, since I have a much greater volume of information on that style. Heck, I could give you a breakdown of Corbett vs. Louis. But I can't do the same for Greb, because:

a) I don't have enough Greb footage to even begin to judge

b) I'm not a Greb expert anyway, nor do I have the same experience with the 1920's technique that I do with the 1890's.

But I can still give a bit of common sense here and there. To a great degree, a punch is still a punch--especially when it's practiced full-contact against a resisting opponent. Greb practiced it against 300 other skilled athletes, and only started losing because he went blind. When you get to that point, it stops mattering that your punching technique wasn't "modern". It was clearly good enough.

Amsterdam, it's just silly to think there has been so much evolution that any bum with a year of training could beat Greb or Tunney. You have practiced martial arts systems that date from before Greb, unless I'm mistaken...yet they still work. Martial arts systems don't evolve THAT much, barring any revolutionary changes in human evolution.

Shake

07-24-2007, 10:15 PM

A George Foreman is not made, he is born. These kinds of physical near-superhuman are not exclusive to modern-times. I've read a lot about genetic pre-disposition to sports, and some people, no matter how hard they train, will never run as fast, long, punch as hard or accurate as others.

Cyclist Hinaul had a heartrate of 27 beats per minute while resting. It was huge, and enabled him to an ATG in his field. Some people, like the young twins I read about, have blood that can carry a huge amount of oxygen.

You can't tell me these people were not born in the old times, but are now. Roy Jones was born. Ali was born. Sugar Ray was born.

And Harry Greb was born.

magnum

07-24-2007, 10:17 PM

Can't speak for Greb's time, but they had a reason for doing something like this way back when. You left the arms more extended to intercept the punches at a greater distance to your body--and grab your opponent's arms, as Corbett does in this clip from his fight with Courtney:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]@field(NUMBER+@band(edmp+4022))

Link doesn't work. From your description, the technique is entirely pointless. Why not let the punch fall short and subsequently knock him stupid as he falls in without any defense?

Manassa

07-24-2007, 10:20 PM

Where did you see him fight? Light sparring is enough to tell he has low level technique compared to today's elites. This is precisely what we are debating about. :yep

hahaha..your comment was pertaining to what I said, hypocrit. :lol:

Why do you care? I was essentially called an idiot who doesn't know boxing by you when I didn't even put myself in this thread. I posted a link simply to suit amsterdam so I dodn't have to debate this nonsense. Then I decided it would be fun. Again with the hypocrisy, you've picked me up on a few things have you? :rofl I individually quote each line I'm replying to so that it is clear what I was trying to say. I just returned from birthday party and don't have a clue what you're referring to. If you want me to answer your question, then dig up all the necessary quotes. :good

What haven't I taken into account? PLEASE enlighten me. :rofl Do you even pay attention to what you say?

I said just curious. :rasta

It's you who is confused, not I. I don't wish to debate further with a person who feels they have to post continuous emoticons to express their feelings - you are getting far too carried away.

I've said what I have to say. I suggest you revise your opinions.

magnum

07-24-2007, 10:24 PM

For one, he is bigger. If we are talking at MW, he is much faster and at stronger. AT MW, Duran was not what he was at LW. We'll start with that.

[quote]As for the matchup. I think Duran at this weight was not as well able to deal with a fighter of this strength and speed as Greb as he was at lighter weights. How did Duran manage to deal with Marvin Hagler? Where is Greb's speed? Did I miss something? He has half the speed of Arturo Gatti.

Greb would come forward throwing punches all fight long, out-muscling Duran and wearing him down(not that hard a task against the MW Duran). Pryor is a similar type of fighter. I think at 140 Duran beats Pryor due to Duran's skills at the weight and the shaoe he was in. At 160 he would not be as good or as fast, and would be facing a bigger version of Pryor, who was even faster and dirtier.

How does Greb not get backed up and beaten down by the much technically superior Duran? Did Mayorga, the stronger, bigger, possibly harder punching wildman back De La Hoya up?

We are not taking into account what we saw in the vid because he was lightly sparring and that wasn't the way he fought in real life. In real life he is thought to have fought similar to a bigger, faster version of Henry Armstrong. His fight game wasn't based on technique, ONCE AGAIN, his game was based on aggression, strength, dirty tactics, and relentless pressure and punch output, and wearing your opponent down. I don't see much at MW Duran could hurt him with. Duran get's out-macho'd.[quote]

Then what are you going on? A book? His technique sounds uncannily similar to Roberto Durans, except for the fact that Duran had very good technique while doing so. :good

[quote]If you're comparing the technique of fighters of that era in general and saying they wouldn't work in the modern era, I have said I agree, but I also believe modern fighters don't work as well in theirs. But once again, Greb was not a fighter based on solid boxing technique(just as Ali, Jones Jr., Pryor, etc. weren't) he was a fighter based on a particular style.

You agree? So you must not understand how big of a difference technique makes then? Why wouldn't Andre Berto(just throw in any name here) of the Amatuers beat Andre Berto of the pros?

What modern technique doesn't matchup with this eras?

Ali, Jones Jr. and Pryor all were much more fundamentally sound. This is amazing to me that you believe otherwise.

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 10:24 PM

Exactly. They had to use feints way more than they should have. As I stated above, feints are an extremely limited tactic. The fact that they had to feint so much should let you know the opponent didn't have a great jab to time his feints (as you see today) and the feinter needed a little something before he would go in very often because he knew if he didnt put the other man at a disadvantage, he couldnt properly defend against him.
On the contrary, feinting was done because there was a greater risk coming in. They needed "a little something extra" (which ALL combat sports people need--or at least want) because they didn't want to take chances and get knocked out. Middle range doesn't exist clearly with tiny gloves--defense is much more problematic, margin for error far lower, and with the lenient clinching rules of the time it was very likely to devolve into a slow grinding battle. As a result, fighters preferred to stay on the outside, and thus placed a greater premium on feints.

Jabbing your way in was not a good strategy because of the risk of catching a fight-ending cross-counter or getting grabbed. They also may have believed that it's difficult to get out quickly enough.

This caused them to flail out their arms to cut punches off at the pass because???
Cutting off punches at the pass was, in part, an aspect of the grappling element. But it's difficult to argue 1890's and Greb simultaneously, since changes occurred between the two periods.

Did you give up on your argument that fighters from Greb's era were so much tougher?
:huh

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I said they were tough athletes, and they were. Guys who get hit for a living generally are.

So why didn't these guys fully understand it?
They did. They also clearly had a different approach to punching than we use today, which I could not fully explain because I don't have the manuals from that time period or the experience in practicing it.

Therefore, I recommend that we start by taking a look at the manuals from that period, and the rationalle that they put forward for their techniques. I'm sure Google Books has a few things to start with.

magnum

07-24-2007, 10:26 PM

It's you who is confused, not I.
Thank you for doing my job for me. You asked me a question, then tell me you weren't confused. Priceless.

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 10:27 PM

Link doesn't work. From your description, the technique is entirely pointless. Why not let the punch fall short and subsequently knock him stupid as he falls in without any defense?

This one will probably work:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The reason is that grabbing an arm will give you much more control under that situation, which you could always turn into a cross-buttock throw if you got close.

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 10:29 PM

Thank you for doing my job for me. You asked me a question, then tell me you weren't confused. Priceless.

I suspect we are all getting excessively heated over this. Greb's relative historical standing is not going to change our lives in any discernable way, after all. :lol:

Manassa

07-24-2007, 10:32 PM

Thank you for doing my job for me. You asked me a question, then tell me you weren't confused. Priceless.

I'm not confused - I was merely challenging your viewpoints. You didn't really come up with anything that looked like a respectable return argument.

magnum

07-24-2007, 10:34 PM

On the contrary, feinting was done because there was a greater risk coming in. They needed "a little something extra" (which ALL combat sports people need--or at least want) because they didn't want to take chances and get knocked out. This is what I said. They feinted because they didnt have the defense to defend against the equally lowsy offense of that time.

Middle range doesn't exist clearly with tiny gloves--defense is much more problematic, margin for error far lower, and with the lenient clinching rules of the time it was very likely to devolve into a slow grinding battle. As a result, fighters preferred to stay on the outside, and thus placed a greater premium on feints. Once again, the gloves make very little difference since your hand does the blcking. If you somehow managed to hold up a glove in position to blovk a punch and then took your hand out before you were hit, then the glove wouldn't provide much protection. Did these 2-4 oz gloves have padding on the top of the hand?

Jabbing your way in was not a good strategy because of the risk of catching a fight-ending cross-counter or getting grabbed. They also may have believed that it's difficult to get out quickly enough.[quote] Thank you for conceding even more of my argument. They had embarassingly bad head movement and lowsy defense. If someone is able to grab you after you jab from range, you probably shouldn't box.

[quote]Cutting off punches at the pass was, in part, an aspect of the grappling element. But it's difficult to argue 1890's and Greb simultaneously, since changes occurred between the two periods.[quote]

An inferior way of doing so, bottom line as you admitted above.

[quote[I think you're confusing me with someone else. I said they were tough athletes, and they were. Guys who get hit for a living generally are.
Maybe I am. Did you say athletes of the past would win mainly due to their superior toughness and determination?

They did. They also clearly had a different approach to punching than we use today, which I could not fully explain because I don't have the manuals from that time period or the experience in practicing it.

Do you think the punching technique of the era in discussion is superior or inferior to today?

Therefore, I recommend that we start by taking a look at the manuals from that period, and the rationalle that they put forward for their techniques. I'm sure Google Books has a few things to start with.

I don't need to read a book to understand something this obvious and simple. :tired They punched like scared fighters because they had to try and get in the best position they could to deal with the counter since their feet weren't aligned with their opponent properly in the first place.

magnum

07-24-2007, 10:36 PM

I'm not confused - I was merely challenging your viewpoints. You didn't really come up with anything that looked like a respectable return argument.

Piss off you pantywaist. Be a man and live up to your word or actually answer my questions.

One in particular that is good is you breaking down how Greb would defeat Roberto Duran or any great modern fighter who competed at middleweight on an elite level. If this isn't a good question to determine wheter or not you know what you're talking about, then just piss off, pantywaist.

magnum

07-24-2007, 10:37 PM

I suspect we are all getting excessively heated over this. Greb's relative historical standing is not going to change our lives in any discernable way, after all. :lol:

hahahahaha :patsch

I'm having a great time, I don't know about you.

Amsterdam

07-24-2007, 10:39 PM

Not spinning, just trying to frame the debate more reasonably.

I'd be perfectly glad to elaborate on how a guy from the bareknuckle era would deal with modern fighters, since I have a much greater volume of information on that style. Heck, I could give you a breakdown of Corbett vs. Louis. But I can't do the same for Greb, because:

a) I don't have enough Greb footage to even begin to judge

b) I'm not a Greb expert anyway, nor do I have the same experience with the 1920's technique that I do with the 1890's.

But I can still give a bit of common sense here and there. To a great degree, a punch is still a punch--especially when it's practiced full-contact against a resisting opponent. Greb practiced it against 300 other skilled athletes, and only started losing because he went blind. When you get to that point, it stops mattering that your punching technique wasn't "modern". It was clearly good enough.

Amsterdam, it's just silly to think there has been so much evolution that any bum with a year of training could beat Greb or Tunney. You have practiced martial arts systems that date from before Greb, unless I'm mistaken...yet they still work. Martial arts systems don't evolve THAT much, barring any revolutionary changes in human evolution.

It's not silly, I meant a reasonably athletic guy with a solid year of good modern boxing fundamentals, they'd absolutely win.

magnum

07-24-2007, 10:41 PM

This one will probably work:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The reason is that grabbing an arm will give you much more control under that situation, which you could always turn into a cross-buttock throw if you got close.

This one works. You seem to study MMA, why not just hit the man when he reaches to grab you? Which do you think will happen first: A guy reaching out leaving himself wide open being hit by as hard of a punch as his opponent can muster, or the game who is falling in trying to grab somehow catching the other man's arm?

This is why guys like this don't stand a chance. They have low level technique, most of which isn't even taught anymore because it's so ineffective.

Manassa

07-24-2007, 10:45 PM

Piss off you pantywaist. Be a man and live up to your word or actually answer my questions.

One in particular that is good is you breaking down how Greb would defeat Roberto Duran or any great modern fighter who competed at middleweight on an elite level. If this isn't a good question to determine wheter or not you know what you're talking about, then just piss off, pantywaist.

Be a man and live up to my word? What word?

Listen; I'm not one to refuse answering questions, but in this particular debate, seeing as you have other posters debating with you, I wish to remain neutral. I challenged some of your views, you tried to argue back. I've taken on board what you have to say and frankly, I'm not impressed.

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 10:51 PM

This is what I said. They feinted because they didnt have the defense to defend against the equally lowsy offense of that time.

Actually, the "correct" defense, though it is better than modern defense for the circumstances, is still not good enough to make the risk factor low enough to move in without feints. Different conditions.

Put 2-4 oz. gloves on modern fighters and you would see a similar situation developing, with each fighter too tentative because of the other's power. Feinting would come back in a big way.

Once again, the gloves make very little difference since your hand does the blcking. If you somehow managed to hold up a glove in position to blovk a punch and then took your hand out before you were hit, then the glove wouldn't provide much protection. Did these 2-4 oz gloves have padding on the top of the hand?

They varied. Some were more or less normal leather gloves with only the tiniest bit of padding, something like this:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

...and others were more like normal modern gloves, only a few ounces. Think bag gloves.

But, as I said before: fighting with nearly non-padded gloves and using palm blocking is not a good idea. Fighting bareknuckled and using palm blocking is also not a good idea. Moreover, smaller gloves are harder to block like that, which is why you had more arm-on-arm blocking.

Thank you for conceding even more of my argument. They had embarassingly bad head movement and lowsy defense. If someone is able to grab you after you jab from range, you probably shouldn't box.[quote]

I'm not conceding this point, however. Their head movement was better for the circumstances, and they relied upon it more. And getting grabbed doesn't exactly prove anything--a good wrestler will easily grab and throw a boxer with no training in grappling.

[quote=magnum]Cutting off punches at the pass was, in part, an aspect of the grappling element. But it's difficult to argue 1890's and Greb simultaneously, since changes occurred between the two periods.[quote]

An inferior way of doing so, bottom line as you admitted above.

[quote=magnum]
Maybe I am. Did you say athletes of the past would win mainly due to their superior toughness and determination?[quote]

No.

[quote=magnum]
Do you think the punching technique of the era in discussion is superior or inferior to today?

1920's--slightly worse than today, not massively. Probably equal to today's under its own rules.

1890's--worse than today under modern rules, better than today under older rules.

I don't need to read a book to understand something this obvious and simple. :tired They punched like scared fighters because they had to try and get in the best position they could to deal with the counter since their feet weren't aligned with their opponent properly in the first place.

Ah, but you DO need to read a book to understand it. It is not "modern boxing"--it works differently, for different circumstances. You could look at any combative sport with a modern boxing mindset and see "flaws", but that would ignore the fact that they were built for different circumstances and work using different principles.

Now, you admit you don't know about the ideas underlying Greb's techniques. You haven't seen more than a minute's footage of him, you haven't read any boxing books from this period, and you haven't tried any of the techniques of this period against a resisting opponent. You haven't encountered a boxer that fights using these techniques, or even seen one "live". Given these circumstances, how are you able to give your opinion on Greb as definitive?

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 10:52 PM

hahahahaha :patsch

I'm having a great time, I don't know about you.

You and Manassa seemed to be going at it to me.

But then, that might be a function of the difficulty in distinguishing "tone" over the internet.

magnum

07-24-2007, 10:55 PM

Be a man and live up to my word? What word?
You said you were finished debating. I understand using smilies can be annoying to some, I've chosen to do it here because I can't stand people who delude themselves into believe this nonsense. Calling you a pantywaist was a joke, don't take it personal. Afterall, your friend cross_trainer said this is just a debate and isn't going to change anyones life and he's absolutely right.

Listen; I'm not one to refuse answering questions, but in this particular debate, seeing as you have other posters debating with you, I wish to remain neutral. I challenged some of your views, you tried to argue back. I've taken on board what you have to say and frankly, I'm not impressed.

What are you getting so heated and making this personal for? You're not impressed. Who said you were suppose to be? From the looks of it Amsterdam made me sound like I was going to come in here, change everyone's mind and everyone would worship me. I knew I wouldn't change anyones mind in here because guys like you aren't neutral. I told Amsterdam this when he started telling me over MSN what you guys believe on this subject. I proved my point by linking you to footage of both men, where clearly wheter or not Greb was serious he has vastly inferior technique that Tommy Hearns. You are a radical worshipper of these old fighters. Look at your first sentence here. It isn't true, yet you believe it. You haven't answered my question yet when it is a PERFECT example to show who is correct. What you want to do is continue to bitch about who is confused and tell yourself you didn't take this personal.

Anything you say from here on out will be an answer to my question or I will not reply to you so you don't get upset over this watercooler argument.

Manassa

07-24-2007, 10:56 PM

You and Manassa seemed to be going at it to me.

But then, that might be a function of the difficulty in distinguishing "tone" over the internet.

I'm certainly not getting riled. Actually, I'm in shock more than anything - this 'Magnum' character was supposed to know everything according to Amsterdam. I said 'I doubt that', but he said 'no, he actually knows everything' - what a disappoint.

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 10:57 PM

This one works. You seem to study MMA, why not just hit the man when he reaches to grab you? Which do you think will happen first: A guy reaching out leaving himself wide open being hit by as hard of a punch as his opponent can muster, or the game who is falling in trying to grab somehow catching the other man's arm?

Here's a good way to think about it: Are you familiar with the grip-fighting in Judo and playing for position with the arms in wrestling? The arms are somewhat extended, and they fence with the hands for position to try to get a good hold on their opponent. Old-time boxing was a mix of pugilism and Greco-Roman wrestling (but with trips added). What they're doing is a combination of normal boxing and grip-fighting. They have the arms extended to be able to play for position ready to grab the guy or intercept his punch.

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 11:01 PM

You said you were finished debating. I understand using smilies can be annoying to some, I've chosen to do it here because I can't stand people who delude themselves into believe this nonsense. Calling you a pantywaist was a joke, don't take it personal. Afterall, your friend cross_trainer said this is just a debate and isn't going to change anyones life and he's absolutely right.

What are you getting so heated and making this personal for? You're not impressed. Who said you were suppose to be? From the looks of it Amsterdam made me sound like I was going to come in here, change everyone's mind and everyone would worship me. I knew I wouldn't change anyones mind in here because guys like you aren't neutral. I told Amsterdam this when he started telling me over MSN what you guys believe on this subject. I proved my point by linking you to footage of both men, where clearly wheter or not Greb was serious he has vastly inferior technique that Tommy Hearns. You are a radical worshipper of these old fighters. Look at your first sentence here. It isn't true, yet you believe it. You haven't answered my question yet when it is a PERFECT example to show who is correct. What you want to do is continue to bitch about who is confused and tell yourself you didn't take this personal.

Anything you say from here on out will be an answer to my question or I will not reply to you so you don't get upset over this watercooler argument.

I am willing to listen, as I said before. I'm sorry that the Amsterdam-predicted flurry of worshippers did not materialize, but I am certainly willing to change my views on Greb.

Now, you have put forth several flaws you see in his style, but that is only the first step. If you want to condemn an entire era as primitive, you'll have to have some experience with the technique, as I previously mentioned. You need to show that it wasn't workable and was simply a function of imperfect understanding of boxing--and to do that, you need to research and understand it first.

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 11:03 PM

Magnum: re the really old technique, there are several articles on it in the "Bareknuckle Boxing Resources" thread that I posted quite a bit ago.

Manassa

07-24-2007, 11:05 PM

You said you were finished debating. I understand using smilies can be annoying to some, I've chosen to do it here because I can't stand people who delude themselves into believe this nonsense. Calling you a pantywaist was a joke, don't take it personal. Afterall, your friend cross_trainer said this is just a debate and isn't going to change anyones life and he's absolutely right.

What are you getting so heated and making this personal for? You're not impressed. Who said you were suppose to be? From the looks of it Amsterdam made me sound like I was going to come in here, change everyone's mind and everyone would worship me. I knew I wouldn't change anyones mind in here because guys like you aren't neutral. I told Amsterdam this when he started telling me over MSN what you guys believe on this subject. I proved my point by linking you to footage of both men, where clearly wheter or not Greb was serious he has vastly inferior technique that Tommy Hearns. You are a radical worshipper of these old fighters. Look at your first sentence here. It isn't true, yet you believe it. You haven't answered my question yet when it is a PERFECT example to show who is correct. What you want to do is continue to bitch about who is confused and tell yourself you didn't take this personal.

Anything you say from here on out will be an answer to my question or I will not reply to you so you don't get upset over this watercooler argument.

Well, what a waste of words that was. I'm a 'radical worshipper of these old fighters?' Last time I checked, I picked Hagler, Monzon, Hopkins, Robinson and Tiger to beat Greb.

What are you getting so heated and making this personal for?

I couldn't be more relaxed if I tried.

because guys like you aren't neutral.

... And, uh, what assertion made you believe that? I've remained totally neutral on this topic. In other threads, I challenge the opposite end of the spectrum by posing questions against Greb's favour.

You think I'm disagreeing with you and being fanatically biased, but I'm not at all.

I will not reply to you so you don't get upset over this watercooler argument.

Trying to make it sound like I'm the one getting riled up, eh? Nice try.

magnum

07-24-2007, 11:12 PM

Actually, the "correct" defense, though it is better than modern defense for the circumstances, is still not good enough to make the risk factor low enough to move in without feints. Different conditions.

I'm assuming this goes back to the glove issue. Do you think ti would be possible to slip the bad punches thrown by older fighters? Think about James Toney for example, he has a head like a bucket and is often overweight, yet he manages to repeatedly slip much sharper, faster and powerful punches by 2". Blocking with your hands to protect your head is essential in today's game, but why wouldn't Toney be able to slip punch after punch froma guy who falls off balance after every shot and never correctly repositions himself?

But, as I said before: fighting with nearly non-padded gloves and using palm blocking is not a good idea. I realize this. I might have mistaken you for one of the guys who says fighters fromt he 1930's would win against modern day fighters due to their superior toughness and determination. Why would this guys be so bothered by getting hit in the hand while blcokign a punch if they could walk through a fighter with laser, pinpoint punches using all of the leverage humanly possible when delivering a punch while constantly maintaining positioning and seeing everything coming from the 1930's fighter? Forgive me if you didn't use this as a reason as to why older fighters would win.

I'm not conceding this point, however. Their head movement was better for the circumstances, and they relied upon it more. And getting grabbed doesn't exactly prove anything--a good wrestler will easily grab and throw a boxer with no training in grappling.[quote]

First and foremost, to have good head movement you need to start off in the right position. They didn't. Therefore their head movement couldn't possibly come close to measuring up.

[quote]No. Then why would they? I'll leave what i said above so that the others I'm deabting with can read my opinion on the matter.

Ah, but you DO need to read a book to understand it. It is not "modern boxing"--it works differently, for different circumstances. You could look at any combative sport with a modern boxing mindset and see "flaws", but that would ignore the fact that they were built for different circumstances and work using different principles.

I just explained it as simply as it could possibly be done. I never read a book. What are the rules you speak of that made the game so different? Is it only the glove argument that I've shut down several times already?

Now, you admit you don't know about the ideas underlying Greb's techniques. You haven't seen more than a minute's footage of him, you haven't read any boxing books from this period, and you haven't tried any of the techniques of this period against a resisting opponent. You haven't encountered a boxer that fights using these techniques, or even seen one "live". Given these circumstances, how are you able to give your opinion on Greb as definitive? Why should it take any longer if you know what you're watching? He is sloppy, has no effective offense or defense for today and doesn't possess essential techniques of today. You and Manassa both use the argument the fact that I haven't seen one 30's great fight live, (of course you haven't either) and youre basing your argument off of books you have read which, in case you didn't notice, don't have video. Why is it because these videos aren't in great quality that obvious technical flaws in which you yourself stated that I could point out, can't be identified? Is it because the video is in black and white or what? I saw several sequences of sparring in which many mistakes were made that no one can get away with in today's game What is so hard to understand about this?

magnum

07-24-2007, 11:14 PM

Here's a good way to think about it: Are you familiar with the grip-fighting in Judo and playing for position with the arms in wrestling? The arms are somewhat extended, and they fence with the hands for position to try to get a good hold on their opponent. Old-time boxing was a mix of pugilism and Greco-Roman wrestling (but with trips added). What they're doing is a combination of normal boxing and grip-fighting. They have the arms extended to be able to play for position ready to grab the guy or intercept his punch.

Do you by any chance watch much modern boxing? Have you read books on the techniques used today?

You're trying to tell me that a boxer like Greb could grab a modern day fighters arm while he was falling straight in and the modern fighter in the process of punching at him? Have you ever read any books on physics?

magnum

07-24-2007, 11:17 PM

I am willing to listen, as I said before. I'm sorry that the Amsterdam-predicted flurry of worshippers did not materialize, but I am certainly willing to change my views on Greb.

Now, you have put forth several flaws you see in his style, but that is only the first step. If you want to condemn an entire era as primitive, you'll have to have some experience with the technique, as I previously mentioned. You need to show that it wasn't workable and was simply a function of imperfect understanding of boxing--and to do that, you need to research and understand it first.

It's not hard to understand, I asked you to explain so I could tear into your argument. I completely understand why they used the techniques they did. It's this simple: They didn't know any better way to do it.

I've explained why each technique you presented wouldn't work in this era. There's nothing else to tell you.

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 11:33 PM

I'm assuming this goes back to the glove issue. Do you think ti would be possible to slip the bad punches thrown by older fighters? Think about James Toney for example, he has a head like a bucket and is often overweight, yet he manages to repeatedly slip much sharper, faster and powerful punches by 2". Blocking with your hands to protect your head is essential in today's game, but why wouldn't Toney be able to slip punch after punch froma guy who falls off balance after every shot and never correctly repositions himself?

It wouldn't be impossible for Toney to slip the punches thrown by older fighters, just as it wouldn't be impossible for older fighters to slip Toney's punches. Both would be doing it sub-optimally for their conditions, though.

You seem to think that technique is the ultimate magic bullet--if you have it, you can run your opponents over if they aren't as savvy. That is no more true for an 1890's fighter fighting today than a modern fighter fighting in the 1890's.

I realize this. I might have mistaken you for one of the guys who says fighters fromt he 1930's would win against modern day fighters due to their superior toughness and determination. Why would this guys be so bothered by getting hit in the hand while blcokign a punch if they could walk through a fighter with laser, pinpoint punches using all of the leverage humanly possible when delivering a punch while constantly maintaining positioning and seeing everything coming from the 1930's fighter? Forgive me if you didn't use this as a reason as to why older fighters would win.

I'd imagine because being tough and being stupid are two different things. Opening your hands up for punishment needlessly is stupid.

First and foremost, to have good head movement you need to start off in the right position. They didn't. Therefore their head movement couldn't possibly come close to measuring up.

There is not one and only one way to slip punches. There is not one and only one way to throw punches, or block, or move. "He doesn't fight like OUR fighters, so he must be wrong" is no different than some Victorian boxing commentator levelling the same charge against our fighters.

I just explained it as simply as it could possibly be done. I never read a book. What are the rules you speak of that made the game so different? Is it only the glove argument that I've shut down several times already?

You didn't shut the glove argument down. You said a mythic, invincibly tough old timer shouldn't worry about injuring his hands, which didn't matter since we're not discussing old-timers as mythic superheroes.

Yeah, Toney could slip older punches with small gloves. That doesn't mean that he'd be doing it optimally. Moreover, it doesn't mean that guys like Winky Wright would be successful, since he relies on the "pillow wall" defense.

Why should it take any longer if you know what you're watching? He is sloppy, has no effective offense or defense for today and doesn't possess essential techniques of today. You and Manassa both use the argument that since i haven't seen one live, (of course you haven't either) and youre basing your argument off of books you have read which, in case you didn't notice, don't have video. Why is it because these videos aren't in great quality that obvious technical flaws in which you yourself stated that I could point out, can't be identified? Is it because the video is in black and white or what? I saw several sequences of sparring in which many mistakes were made that no one can get away with in today's game What is so hard to understand about this?

I've seen all existing film from pre-Jeffries fighters. That comprises around a half hour of film--enough to make some basic judgments about the style. Added to the manuals, that's more than enough. I understand it far better than if I looked at a modern boxing manual and saw 30 seconds of Corbett sparring. And as a result, I realize the advantages and disadvantages of fighting that way much better.

You're in a similar situation with the 1920's, but you're starting with the assumption that anything that differs from modern boxing must be wrong and useless. And you're right--neither I, Manassa, or you have ever seen it live. But Manassa and I aren't making any assertions about its ineffectiveness. It is up to you to prove your assertions, and to do that you DO need to understand how it was supposed to work back then. We have the testimony of thousands of fights that 1920's boxing was tested in--you need to come up with more than a few assertions about a minute of film to prove to us that an entire era didn't know how to box.

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 11:35 PM

Do you by any chance watch much modern boxing? Have you read books on the techniques used today?

Yep. I do my research on both sides of the coin.

You're trying to tell me that a boxer like Greb could grab a modern day fighters arm while he was falling straight in and the modern fighter in the process of punching at him? Have you ever read any books on physics?

Not like Greb. I made it quite clear that I was talking about a guy more like Corbett, who came two decades before.

cross_trainer

07-24-2007, 11:40 PM

It's not hard to understand, I asked you to explain so I could tear into your argument.

Obviously. And I told you from the beginning that I did not specialize in this era. If you actually want to learn about why they fought the way they did, then you need to actually research it. If you just want to point out everything they did differently, and assume it didn't work because it was different...well, where's the challenge in that?

I completely understand why they used the techniques they did. It's this simple: They didn't know any better way to do it.

I've explained why each technique you presented wouldn't work in this era. There's nothing else to tell you.

So after countless thousands of fights took place over three decades of gloved boxing, the collective intelligence of thousands of fighters could not figure out an effective way of hitting and not getting hit?

This beggars belief.

So this is your final word on the subject?

magnum

07-24-2007, 11:46 PM

It wouldn't be impossible for Toney to slip the punches thrown by older fighters, just as it wouldn't be impossible for older fighters to slip Toney's punches. Both would be doing it sub-optimally for their conditions, though.

How would they slip his fast, hard and accurate punches when they don't even use an advanced stance which is the base for slipping punches?

You seem to think that technique is the ultimate magic bullet--if you have it, you can run your opponents over if they aren't as savvy. That is no more true for an 1890's fighter fighting today than a modern fighter fighting in the 1890's.
When were talking of fighters from this era and the earlier eras it makes all of the difference.

I'd imagine because being tough and being stupid are two different things. Opening your hands up for punishment needlessly is stupid.
Yes it is, and these guys didn't manager to constantly do this whether on purpose or not? These guys from the linked videos don't look hittable to you?

There is not one and only one way to slip punches. There is not one and only one way to throw punches, or block, or move. "He doesn't fight like OUR fighters, so he must be wrong" is no different than some Victorian boxing commentator levelling the same charge against our fighters. No there isn't and I never said there was. What I did say is there is only one effective way to slip punches against a modern day fighter. For that you have to be in position and you have to posses very good reflexes. We keep using the same arguments over and over, your viewpoint will never change unlesss you can grasp that boxing has evolved and the rules aren't the primary reason that fights look different today.

You didn't shut the glove argument down. I was referring to where I said a fighter like James Toney could slip every single punch thrown at his head by a fighter ofthe early eras.

Yeah, Toney could slip older punches with small gloves. That doesn't mean that he'd be doing it optimally. Moreover, it doesn't mean that guys like Winky Wright would be successful, since he relies on the "pillow wall" defense. Are the gloves big or small from this era? Have you ever seen a young WInky Wright before he changed his style. He used to employ a substantial amount of head movement.

I've seen all existing film from pre-Jeffries fighters. That comprises around a half hour of film--enough to make some basic judgments about the style. Added to the manuals, that's more than enough. I understand it far better than if I looked at a modern boxing manual and saw 30 seconds of Corbett sparring. And as a result, I realize the advantages and disadvantages of fighting that way much better.[quote] It looks like we wont agree that Conclusive judgments can be made about skills that no longer are effective. I've simplified already why they fought like they did. They didn't know any better and they threw "get off me" punches to try and get into a position to avoid the counter punch. Fighters can do that in this era without throwing get off me punches because they always maintain good position.

[quote]You're in a similar situation with the 1920's, but you're starting with the assumption that anything that differs from modern boxing must be wrong and useless. And you're right--neither I, Manassa, or you have ever seen it live. But Manassa and I aren't making any assertions about its ineffectiveness. It is up to you to prove your assertions, and to do that you DO need to understand how it was supposed to work back then. We have the testimony of thousands of fights that 1920's boxing was tested in--you need to come up with more than a few assertions about a minute of film to prove to us that an entire era didn't know how to box.

I can't understand how my assertions of it's ineffectiveness havent been proven. I've given scenarios (no film exists that I know of where a fighter in the style of Greb fought a modern great) to shut down anything arguments you had about the effectiveness of some tactics they employed. Such as the one where you told me they would stand straight inf ront of a modern great and manage to grab his fist as he punches at them. Common sense tells you if they somehow managed to do this it would take two hands, leaving the modern fighters other hand free to knock the defensless grappler senseless.

magnum

07-24-2007, 11:48 PM

Obviously. And I told you from the beginning that I did not specialize in this era. If you actually want to learn about why they fought the way they did, then you need to actually research it. If you just want to point out everything they did differently, and assume it didn't work because it was different...well, where's the challenge in that?

[quote]So after countless thousands of fights took place over three decades of gloved boxing, the collective intelligence of thousands of fighters could not figure out an effective way of hitting and not getting hit?

This beggars belief.

So this is your final word on the subject?

Don't take my word for it, watch the link you supplied of Greb sparring and then watch James Toney to see how defense works in this, evolved era.

magnum

07-24-2007, 11:49 PM

My question to you cross trainer is as follows:

How does a prime Arturo Gatti stack up technically with fighters like Greb? Im assuming you believe Gatti's heart, determination, will and toughness measures up to Greb's.

janitor

07-25-2007, 05:34 AM

Im assuming you believe Gatti's heart, determination, will and toughness measures up to Greb's.

Of course they don't.

Gatti has been wraped in silk sheets his entitre career compared to Greb.

janitor

07-25-2007, 05:43 AM

Don't take my word for it, watch the link you supplied of Greb sparring and then watch James Toney to see how defense works in this, evolved era.

Yes but there is one fatal flaw in your entire argument.

None of these clips actualy show Greb fighting however much you might like to think they do. Frankly you don't know what he is really doing in any of them.

Yet on the basis of this you think that you can dismiss his entire record?

I would also suggest that even if the footage did show Greb fighting, you greatly over rate the value of your own observation. If I thought Muhamad Ali looked crap on film it would say more about my own judgment than his abilities. And if I tried to argue it purely on the basis of his fight against that kick boxer you would say that I was being totaly preposterous.

There is film of many of Greb's best oponents who he soundly defeated fighting and they clearly do stack up against the best fighters from the post war era. That is actual film of them fighting not conjecture based on them shadow boxing or sparring with a 50 year old man.

McGrain

07-25-2007, 05:47 AM

1. Everyone seems to use the argument the guys in the olden days had more heart, grit, stamina and toughness. How do you guys see Greb matching up with an evolved fighter of this nature in Roberto Duran?

Hi! I'm late for the parade, but this looks like fun so i will have a stab if you don't mind. Certainly Greb is known for heart, grit, stamina and toughness but I don't subscribe to this view. I think that the toughest guys got to prove this because of how often they had to fight etc., but really I see no difference between old school tough (as it exsists within a person) and new-age tough.

Duran v Greb is an interesting one - but Greb is to big for Duran IMO.

here is a video of Greb shadow boxing that has been posted on this forum. The man would jump in the air when he punches. :rofl Explain to me how this allows you to land a decent shot, be in a position while punching not to be countered and to end up in good position?

I'm not particularly interested in this footage of Greb - it doesn't mean much to me because the guy is sparring. There is some decent footage of Langford actually fighting floating about. He exhibits much technical excellence.

McGrain

07-25-2007, 05:50 AM

Oh and let me make something clear, I'm not doing this to disrespect old school fighters. They paved the way and fought in a different era. One thing I can say, you put the greats of yesteryear into this era, they would evolve and be able to compete with anyone today.

Nice to hear you have an open mind and will supply credit where you feel it's due. I like that.

My position is different. I don't see a lot o difference between eras where the top 1 and 2% of fighters are concerned. That is, at the sport of boxing, someone like Johnson or Langfrod or Greb could step out of a time machine and box top men succesfully over 12 rounds.

Similairly, Hopkins or Mayweather could go back and do the same.

McGrain

07-25-2007, 05:59 AM

[quote] but Duran is MUCH better technically. By miles, not feet.

If this is about Duran v Greb i would say - do you always expect the fighter with better technique to win (if only!)? We both know that is not true. What is the consequence of this decrepency in technique between the two? How does it manifest itself in the fight?

So these rule changes..which rule made it a good idea to try and block punches to the body with your hands in the old days.

Well, the much lighter gloves as i'll bet has been pointed out to you already. A proper punch to the body could be more likely to stop the fight than one to the head (this is why it may actually be the case that old timers had better chins - it just wasn't possible to get that far without one, like it is now).

Let's say an old time great does this against Oscar De La Hoya and Oscar is stepping in close trying to beat them with a shorter shot like he did Mayorga. Oscar jabs to the body, the old time great brings his right hand down to block it from a bad angle while out of position, how does the odl time great get in position and block Oscar's next punch without being knocked down or out like iron chinned Mayorga was?

First - which old time great?! You can't generalise to that degree v a specific fighter like De La Hoya. Anyway, an old time fighter would know his man. You quite often hear about old time fighters feeling each other out early (especially true if they were going to be going 20/40 rounds), meausring power would be the main thing. If blocking the jab is worth it (possibly not in this case) then something like you describe may - may - take place. However, if it's Greb, he will punch Oscar in the face when he throws his jab, ignoring the shot. If it is Langford he will either beat De La Hoya to the punch - or he will be in perfect position to block the next shot. Langford had great - great - footwork from what i've seen. I would compare his footwork and positioning (on offence) to any modern fighter i've seen, and favourably.

McGrain

07-25-2007, 06:04 AM

How do you know it was? What you're doing here is stockpiling arguments to try and convince yourself that you're correct. The film doesnt change the fact that I saw his technique. You already argued above that he wasn't jumping, he was past his prime, so obviously we both can see the video and what is going on.

I think i would do you good to accept that Greb would probably look different when fighting.

I also think you should accept that it is possible - possible - that Greb is "showing". These guys made money sparring, showing and it was much more theatrical than their natural style. Here, Greb may be showing for the camera - a flattering audience i'm sure.

Regardless, though, I honestly think you are onto a loser trying to dismantle an entire era via some sparring footage. That is not sensible in my view.

McGrain

07-25-2007, 06:12 AM

. It's technically assanine to try and block the majority of all body punches with your hands.

I agree with you.

You know the term "walk through his punches"? That term is one that is rarely adopted by a trainer. It is a fighter that will make the decision to do this. It is based on the power that the fighter feels in the ring. Old timers are experts in feeling their man out, first round. Why do you think that old time fighters would continue to block relativley harmless punches to the body all night because you've seen them do it on footage? They can block head shots too you know, it's just not the same priority. In the literal argument you are presenting this makes for an interesting first round where the old school fighter tries to feel out his opponents power (limited to the body in relative terms) and the new age fighter may try to counter of blocked body shots to the head. Interesting.

But why is in conclusive?! You think a ring genius like Langford will spend all night blocking to the body once he knows the score?! If he can spar one round in preperation for the fight, he will not even do so for the first round.

On the flip side, any fighter who expects to win a fight with the assistnace of body shots can probably forget about it; the old-school fighter will be an expert at blocking body shots. Technically excellent at it, in fact.

The only use that is left of this method is to parry a reaching body shot. So in the last part of this, these guys are super human I guess? Haven't you learned that this technical flaw, which they repeatedly commit is VERY dangerous and is often a sign of a major flaw in defense?

I think i've shown that it is a technical flaw which would exsist for the very early stages of the fight - and only in a case where a really stupid fighter can't tell that he is waring what he would consider "sparring gloves", much less hurtful to the body.

It is a "technical flaw" which is era-dependant, exsists for a reason. You can argue that old-school fighters may be less experienced at blocking head shots and I think that would be reasonable.

It seems to be the least interesting factor in any old-school v new school fighter to me.

McGrain

07-25-2007, 06:20 AM

Feints are used for what? They are used to setup punches by creating openings due to your opponeent reacting.

I disagree. I think they also made for a very intersting psychological edge from the point of view of a proper bluff, which is to say, an opponent will always have a feeling over whether a move is a feint or a punch and will react accoringly. It also puts more empahsis on reactions and recovery.

They only amount to so much and the that's the primary reason they aren't used much in a scientifically evolved sport.

They are still used today, Hopkins is quite good at it. I think it's handy for a achieving an advantage in footwork, so getting your leg outside your opponents leg - I think that, more than any other thing, is the reason Hopkins is so succesful v southpaws. If I am right, this shows how crucial feinting can be.

If you're an accurate puncher, then you punch with your hand and not the glove.

Aggresion is scored heavily. "Clipping" is certainly easier with modern gloves, so I would dispute this statement as far as modern fighters are concerned (though not as far as technical excellence is concerned).

So slipping a smaller glove only comes into play at rare occurences.

You sure? When I watch Dempsey box, I don't feel that way.

Leverage makes them count even more, which guys of today have a much greater concept of. :p

Interesting. I'd hear more about why you think this if you are up for it.

I got into boxing via violence. I threw a punch that was descibed as near pefect without having any formal training at all, leverage was the tool I used - I would certainly argue that it's instictive (for some) But still - I'm not dismissing what you've said, i'd like to hear about it.

McGrain

07-25-2007, 06:22 AM

McGrain

07-25-2007, 06:26 AM

Yes it would. Now to prove your point, explain to me how this tough, full of heart, iron-chinned fighter beats a newer, more evolved version of the same nature in Roberto Duran. I don't want some BS argument about how he is bigger, stronger or tougher. He clearly isn't bigger or stonger. The boxers of today cut weight and have much less body fat. I want you to tell me how he would attack and defend against Duran to earn a victory.

If you think Greb was a fat Middlweight, i have no help for you.

If you think a big lightweight is not smaller and weaker than even a fat middleweight, I have no help for you.

McGrain

07-25-2007, 06:31 AM

All they do in this scenerio is spin things around with no defined answer on the core of the subject, technical skill.

Well, I feel in the last wee while i've dealt with many specific points pertaining to technical skill. What shocks me friend, is how extreme you are in your views of technical excellence. It is one of the most important factors. But if you really think that a years training is enough to see a fighter of Greb's natural attributes defeated by an average male, your position is weak when trying to assert that someone elses views are absurd.

McGrain

07-25-2007, 06:33 AM

[quote=Sweet Pea]How does Harry Greb attack and defend his way to a victory against Roberto Duran? :bbb

Mostly by way of attack (think Frazier but smaller), a comination of taking one to give one against a much smaller man. I see Duran winning many of the early rounds, actually, before Greb's natural size and strength advantages become to great a strain on the smaller man.

Under modern rules I guess the ref would pull Duran late.

But why did you pick Duran? Hagler would be a much better and more interesting choice, and he too has heart and balls to spare.

McGrain

07-25-2007, 06:36 AM

[quote=cross_trainer]Yes, but against a fighter from an era of these gloves, a modern day fighter would have zero difficulty slipping one of their telegraphed, slow and straight from the hip punches.

Well Greb, according to the legend, did not throw punches like this (I am no expert on Greb). He was interested primarily in busy volume so shortened them up considerabley. Langford looks like greased lightning to me.

It's easier to score with punches throw from a lower guard, it just leaves you very vulnerable. I think you may be trying to have things both ways here my friend.

dmt

07-25-2007, 06:37 AM

can't u realize this new guy is Homocidal Hank? Why bother debating with him

McGrain

07-25-2007, 06:39 AM

But I can still give a bit of common sense here and there. To a great degree, a punch is still a punch--especially when it's practiced full-contact against a resisting opponent. .

I think this is the core of the thing.

McGrain

07-25-2007, 06:43 AM

Ali, Jones Jr. and Pryor all were much more fundamentally sound. This is amazing to me that you believe otherwise.

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.

McGrain

07-25-2007, 06:46 AM

This is what I said. They feinted because they didnt have the defense to defend against the equally lowsy offense of that time.

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.

McGrain

07-25-2007, 06:51 AM

I'm assuming this goes back to the glove issue. Do you think ti would be possible to slip the bad punches thrown by older fighters?

Of course.

Think about James Toney for example, he has a head like a bucket and is often overweight, yet he manages to repeatedly slip much sharper, faster and powerful punches by 2".

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.

Blocking with your hands to protect your head is essential in today's game, but why wouldn't Toney be able to slip punch after punch froma guy who falls off balance after every shot and never correctly repositions himself?

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).

McGrain

07-25-2007, 06:56 AM

can't u realize this new guy is Homocidal Hank? Why bother debating with him

:lol:

Nah...

dmt

07-25-2007, 07:01 AM

:lol:

Nah...i'm serious. I can't see any other way

McGrain

07-25-2007, 07:04 AM

i'm serious. I can't see any other way

:lol:

I sympathise...but he's been a member for years and Amsterdam vouced for him to Manassa.

McGrain

07-25-2007, 07:06 AM

Im assuming you believe Gatti's heart, determination, will and toughness measures up to Greb's.

My guess would be yes; however, it should be said that Greb proved his to a greater opportunity.

dmt

07-25-2007, 07:06 AM

no i am talking about Magnum guy

McGrain

07-25-2007, 07:08 AM

no i am talking about Magnum guy

Me too. Amsterdam vouched for Magnum, to Manassa, in private. I don't think he would do that for Hank?

dmt

07-25-2007, 07:10 AM

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 retarded or what?

McGrain

07-25-2007, 07:11 AM

I mean Sanchez over Tunney, is he retarded or what?

Amsterdam is a good guy...that is a VERY strange pick.

cross_trainer

07-25-2007, 08:48 AM

It looks like we wont agree that Conclusive judgments can be made about skills that no longer are effective. I've simplified already why they fought like they did. They didn't know any better and they threw "get off me" punches to try and get into a position to avoid the counter punch. Fighters can do that in this era without throwing get off me punches because they always maintain good position.

I can't understand how my assertions of it's ineffectiveness havent been proven. I've given scenarios (no film exists that I know of where a fighter in the style of Greb fought a modern great) to shut down anything arguments you had about the effectiveness of some tactics they employed. Such as the one where you told me they would stand straight inf ront of a modern great and manage to grab his fist as he punches at them. Common sense tells you if they somehow managed to do this it would take two hands, leaving the modern fighters other hand free to knock the defensless grappler senseless.
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:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

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:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

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

magnum

07-25-2007, 09:53 AM

Of course they don't.

Gatti has been wraped in silk sheets his entitre career compared to Greb.

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?

cross_trainer

07-25-2007, 09:55 AM

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.

magnum

07-25-2007, 09:56 AM

Yes but there is one fatal flaw in your entire argument.
No, this is the fatal flaw in your argument. I'm arguing he wouldn't last in today's era due to his lack of range, poor defense, bad punching technique and constantly incorrectly positioning himself. All of this can be seen from his sparring footage, even though he clearly wasn't going 100%. Go to youtube and watch a great from this era and tell me how many you can find with similar flaws while sparring.

magnum

07-25-2007, 09:58 AM

Hi! I'm late for the parade, but this looks like fun so i will have a stab if you don't mind. Certainly Greb is known for heart, grit, stamina and toughness but I don't subscribe to this view. I think that the toughest guys got to prove this because of how often they had to fight etc., but really I see no difference between old school tough (as it exsists within a person) and new-age tough.

Duran v Greb is an interesting one - but Greb is to big for Duran IMO.

[quote]I'm not particularly interested in this footage of Greb - it doesn't mean much to me because the guy is sparring. There is some decent footage of Langford actually fighting floating about. He exhibits much technical excellence.

So where does your expertise on Greb originate from?

I just want to say, every single one of you uses the same argument that doesn't make any sense. :thumbsup

magnum

07-25-2007, 10:01 AM

I agree with you.

You know the term "walk through his punches"? That term is one that is rarely adopted by a trainer. It is a fighter that will make the decision to do this. It is based on the power that the fighter feels in the ring. Old timers are experts in feeling their man out, first round. Why do you think that old time fighters would continue to block relativley harmless punches to the body all night because you've seen them do it on footage? They can block head shots too you know, it's just not the same priority. In the literal argument you are presenting this makes for an interesting first round where the old school fighter tries to feel out his opponents power (limited to the body in relative terms) and the new age fighter may try to counter of blocked body shots to the head. Interesting.

But why is in conclusive?! You think a ring genius like Langford will spend all night blocking to the body once he knows the score?! If he can spar one round in preperation for the fight, he will not even do so for the first round.

On the flip side, any fighter who expects to win a fight with the assistnace of body shots can probably forget about it; the old-school fighter will be an expert at blocking body shots. Technically excellent at it, in fact.

I think i've shown that it is a technical flaw which would exsist for the very early stages of the fight - and only in a case where a really stupid fighter can't tell that he is waring what he would consider "sparring gloves", much less hurtful to the body.

It is a "technical flaw" which is era-dependant, exsists for a reason. You can argue that old-school fighters may be less experienced at blocking head shots and I think that would be reasonable.

It seems to be the least interesting factor in any old-school v new school fighter to me.

See, this is what I mean. You guys pretend what you know because you've imagined it hundreds of times. You;ve became delusional because you constantly make up excuses when you haven't even seen the guys fight. Yet I can't critique sparring footage and say guys from an older era wouldn't last today. All sports evolve, I can't think of any sports that were evolved to the point of today in the early 1900's.

Oh and to respond to what you said about Langford only feeling out his opponent, fighter do that today as well and I never see them try and block all of the punches coming out them by cutting them off at the pass with their hands.

magnum

07-25-2007, 10:04 AM

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.

I've read all of your post picking about what I said about feints, go back and read what I said again. All of your ideas have been brought up by other guys already.

cross_trainer

07-25-2007, 10:05 AM

See, this is what I mean. You guys pretend what you know because you've imagined it hundreds of times. You;ve became delusional because you constantly make up excuses when you haven't even seen the guys fight. Yet I can't critique sparring footage and say guys from an older era wouldn't last today. All sports evolve, I can't think of any sports that were evolved to the point of today in the early 1900's.

I've tested it a bit myself, though hardly exhaustively. But there are guys who have, and they also believe it works. Not to mention the fighters who were actually in that era who used it successfully.

So I say again: test it for yourself. Square up against guys who DO practice that style today. They're available.

magnum

07-25-2007, 10:07 AM

Agreed, actually. Greb was tougher than Gatti, but there's a point at which you're "tough enough". Diminishing returns kicks in.

Ok Cross_Trainer, I'll let you pick the fighter of this era who meausres up to Greb in those areas. Don't say that no one does because many fighters have reached the peak in those areas in every single era. If you simply base picking Greb on the fact that he was tougher and would do what it would take to win, then take the time to look back at everyone who supported Arturo Gatti, (who BTW, is much better technically than Harry Greb) in his chances against Mayweather.

magnum

07-25-2007, 10:09 AM

I've tested it a bit myself, though hardly exhaustively. But there are guys who have, and they also believe it works. Not to mention the fighters who were actually in that era who used it successfully.

So I say again: test it for yourself. Square up against guys who DO practice that style today. They're available.

No need. Have you tested what I told you would make these techniques ineffective in today's game?

Of these guys, why haven't any of them made it to the elite level?

magnum

07-25-2007, 10:11 AM

Agreed, actually. Greb was tougher than Gatti, but there's a point at which you're "tough enough". Diminishing returns kicks in.

:rofl You just don't have any shame. You're arguing that Greb is so tough he could make up for his massive technical flaws when other guys of Greb's ilk don't last a round. Was Greb superhuman and none of you even told me? Fuck I must look like a fool in front of everyone.

cross_trainer

07-25-2007, 10:11 AM

Ok Cross_Trainer, I'll let you pick the fighter of this era who meausres up to Greb in those areas. Don't say that no one does because many fighters have reached the peak in those areas in every single era. If you simply base picking Greb on the fact that he was tougher and would do what it would take to win, then take the time to look back at everyone who supported Arturo Gatti, (who BTW, is much better technically than Harry Greb) in his chances against Mayweather.

The closest equivalents would probably be in Thai boxing rather than modern boxing--they have inferior medical care, inferior equipment, very little money or food, and hundreds of fights; the same conditions Greb faced.

But I don't think you're listening to what I'm saying: It doesn't matter how much tougher Greb is than Gatti...because Gatti is tough enough to take just about anything thrown at him and fight back.

magnum

07-25-2007, 10:13 AM

The closest equivalents would probably be in Thai boxing rather than modern boxing--they have inferior medical care, inferior equipment, very little money or food, and hundreds of fights; the same conditions Greb faced.

But I don't think you're listening to what I'm saying: It doesn't matter how much tougher Greb is than Gatti...because Gatti is tough enough to take just about anything thrown at him and fight back.

Fantastic! I'm delighted that you agree.

So why didn't a prime Gatti come close to beating the elites of his modern era?

cross_trainer

07-25-2007, 10:13 AM

:rofl You just don't have any shame. You're arguing that Greb is so tough he could make up for hi smassive technical flaws when other guys of Greb's ilk don't last a round. Was Greb superhuman and none of you even told me? Fuck I must look like a fool in front of everyone.

:roll:

Again, no. I didn't argue that Greb would win because he's tougher. I said he was tougher than Gatti, but that it's irrelevant because Gatti's more than tough enough. In other words, the opposite of what you accuse me of saying.

magnum

07-25-2007, 10:16 AM

:roll:

Again, no. I didn't argue that Greb would win because he's tougher. I said he was tougher than Gatti, but that it's irrelevant because Gatti's more than tough enough. In other words, the opposite of what you accuse me of saying.

You're right. I read what you wrote incorrectly.

So my post is directed at other posters who do argue that logic.

magnum

07-25-2007, 10:17 AM

You're right. I read what you wrote incorrectly.

So my post is directed at other posters who do argue that logic.

edited by Strike???

I wrote what was said in that post.

cross_trainer

07-25-2007, 10:17 AM

No need. Have you tested what I told you would make these techniques ineffective in today's game?

Of these guys, why haven't any of them made it to the elite level?

:patsch

Of course there's a need. You're trying to theorize your way out of testing it, and that doesn't work. If you want to prove to us that older techniques are hopelessly useless, you prove it through sparring.

They don't compete at an elite level because they have a tiny talent pool and have just started a few years ago. Same reason that most MODERN boxing gyms don't compete at an elite level. But if you can't beat these guys easily, there's no way you'd beat Greb.

cross_trainer

07-25-2007, 10:18 AM

edited by Strike???

I wrote what was said in that post.

Weird glitch in the system. We're not sure why it does that.

magnum

07-25-2007, 10:19 AM

:patsch

Of course there's a need. You're trying to theorize your way out of testing it, and that doesn't work. If you want to prove to us that older techniques are hopelessly useless, you prove it through sparring.

They don't compete at an elite level because they have a tiny talent pool and have just started a few years ago. Same reason that most MODERN boxing gyms don't compete at an elite level. But if you can't beat these guys easily, there's no way you'd beat Greb.

Alright just let me go down to my local library and I'll read some books to make sure I know what I'm doing before I try it. Just like I'm sure Roy Jones, Floyd Mayweather, James Toney and other modern greats did.

cross_trainer

07-25-2007, 10:21 AM

So why didn't a prime Gatti come close to beating the elites of his modern era?

No need to "lead" me to the correct answer. I see what you're saying.

But technical reasons are not the main determinants here. Gatti simply wasn't that talented a fighter, and no amount of technical work would fix that. Greb, on the other hand, was amazingly talented.

To use an extreme example, when fighters get old their technique remains pretty much the same as in their prime, but they start losing because their physical and mental abilities are in decline. Like I said, technique is only one variable here.

cross_trainer

07-25-2007, 10:23 AM

Alright just let me go down to my local library and I'll read some books to make sure I know what I'm doing before I try it. Just like I'm sure Roy Jones, Floyd Mayweather, James Toney and other modern greats did.

Fair enough. And if you end up clobbering them all with ease (1890's with limited grappling rules, 1920's with essentially modern rules), I will be glad to concede your point. :good

magnum

07-25-2007, 10:24 AM

But technical reasons are not the main determinants here. Gatti simply wasn't that talented a fighter, and no amount of technical work would fix that. Greb, on the other hand, was amazingly talented.

Amazing. :patsch

No amount of my technical anaylsis will fix your opinion. Have a nice day!

cross_trainer

07-25-2007, 10:25 AM

Amazing. :patsch

No amount of my technical anaylsis will fix your opinion. Have a nice day!

You too. I suppose my opinion will remain broken, then. :good

magnum

07-25-2007, 10:28 AM

You too. I suppose my opinion will remain broken, then. :good

Add me to MSN though(I think I read that you speak to AMsterdam on there). I wouldn't mind discussing other boxing subjects with you. I sent you my address in an e-mail.

janitor

07-25-2007, 10:46 AM

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.

Shall we wait untill he wins 45 fights in a year before we say that he cannot be surpased in these regards?

Even the most brutal fights today are relatively tame afairs compared to those in Greb's era.

janitor

07-25-2007, 10:50 AM

[quote=magnum]No, this is the fatal flaw in your argument. I'm arguing he wouldn't last in today's era due to his lack of range, poor defense, bad punching technique and constantly incorrectly positioning himself.

Yet you have never seen him actualy fight so you honestly don't know if these things are the case.

All of this can be seen from his sparring footage, even though he clearly wasn't going 100%. Go to youtube and watch a great from this era and tell me how many you can find with similar flaws while sparring.

OK

Say that I think that Muhamad Ali looked crap against that kickboxer when he got his knees busted in. Therfore he would not last in todays division and by logical extension neither would the other fighters of his era because he beat them.

I don't even need to watch his fights against Foreman and Frazier because I know from that exhibition that he was crap.

That esentialy is how strong your argument is. In fact it is the same argument.

janitor

07-25-2007, 10:54 AM

Amazing. :patsch

No amount of my technical anaylsis will fix your opinion. Have a nice day!

You seem to have picked the wrong battle ground here mate.

Why don't you go to the thread on Dempsey and Tunney where their critics such as your self have been directly challenged to provide specifics on how their style was primitive.

Then we will see how strong your case really is.

McGrain

07-25-2007, 05:51 PM

So where does your expertise on Greb originate from?

As i've said already, i'm not an expert on Greb.

Are you?

I just want to say, every single one of you uses the same argument that doesn't make any sense. :thumbsup

Nice of you to be so specific.

McGrain

07-25-2007, 05:58 PM

See, this is what I mean. You guys pretend what you know because you've imagined it hundreds of times.

Imagined what? Try to be more specific, I like this kind of thing i'm not trying to pick a fight with you.

You;ve became delusional because you constantly make up excuses when you haven't even seen the guys fight.

Well, there are footage of guys from that era, just not Greb. As to my being delusional - why? What is my interest in deluding myself and attempting to delude others into thinking something that isn't true? There is nothing for me to gain, i've already said that I don't consider this era "better", i'm not working for it.

Yet I can't critique sparring footage and say guys from an older era wouldn't last today.

You can critique it - but look at that sentance. Why do you think you can watch one guy sparring and get from that to "guys from an older era wouldn't last today"?

The first part of the sentance cannot be used to "prove" the second part. Isn't that obvious? I've asked you this already, you've chosen not to answer.

All sports evolve, I can't think of any sports that were evolved to the point of today in the early 1900's.

Fishing rods have evolved, have fishermen?

Tennis rackets have evolved, have tennis players?

The rules of boxing and the equipment involved has changed. Have boxers?

Oh and to respond to what you said about Langford only feeling out his opponent, fighter do that today as well and I never see them try and block all of the punches coming out them by cutting them off at the pass with their hands.

You have never seen a fighter in old footage where a fighter slips a punch or blocks it with his arms or smothers it with movement, or moves out of its way? Honest? Try Jack Johnson if this is the case.

McGrain

07-25-2007, 05:59 PM

I've read all of your post picking about what I said about feints, go back and read what I said again. All of your ideas have been brought up by other guys already.

I may have missed it; where is feinting descibred as holding the key to the Hopkins advatage over southpaws?

salsanchezfan

07-25-2007, 09:29 PM

Tbooze's stance is incorrect in my thinking, as it pertains to Sanchez and "what might have been."

It's my opinion that we did indeed probably see the best Sanchez had to offer, and that to claim "I have to deduct points because I can't assume anything on potential" or some such rather overlooks some key points.

First, let's debunk the idea that because he was 23 when he died, he was cut short of his prime years........

Anyone following this game for enough time knows it isn't physical age that is the deal breaker, it's boxing years. Can we all agree on that? Good. Sanchez was already an eight year veteran when he passed, had over forty pro fights and nine title defenses, almost all of which were extended into the championship rounds (i.e., extended, taxing efforts). Had a thirty-year old fighter died or retired after compiling such a resume, would anyone balk at his stance historically?

Also, let's look at the physical considerations.........

Sanchez was a natural 126 pounder; at 23, he was fast, mobile, sharp and strong in the late rounds. What exactly would anyone say could improve with age here? Would anyone have the balls to say he'd "gain experience?" I sure hope not.

It's not like he was Alexis Arguello, in that he was emaciated-looking at 126, practically demanding a weight jump, nor did he have the equalizing power to get him out of tight spots at the higher weights; Sanchez was never terribly powerful at 126, and we all know fighters typically (well, almost never) gain power with a weight jump.

I guess I'll pose the question to those who think he died to soon to show us his best.......what was it you expected to see later on?