Deleted

First topic message reminder :

Deleted

Rodney wrote:One of the most forgotten effect of modern training techniques that is forgotten and is substantial, is that of regular fighting. If you look at someone like Harry Greb who had hundreds of fights, and used to fight every couple of days, half the time, with modern training, he simply would not fight this often. Modern techniques consider the need for rest, peaking etc. How would this effect a fighter like Greb. would he need the experience garned from hundreds of fights, or would taking a lesser fighting schedule mean he would be a better fighter?

Not naive there are advantages of both methods. I tend to think that for the average fighter, the modern method is far better, but for the actual greats, the older method is much better. I think this may be proved by looking at heavy greats where they always rip through the comp when fighting regularly (pre title) and then once they get the money and reduce their number of fights regualrly they soon lose their edge and are not the same fighter.

Rodders

You would learn more by fighting Floyd Mayweather once than fighting a 100 bums. My opinion anyway.

azania wrote:Cheers windy. If you can recommend a few titles, I'd get them. Its my son's birthday soon and he's a boxing fan so it will give me an excuse to kick my missus and daughter out of the living room whilst we indulge ourselves.

I await to be convinced in any manner.

Very good place to start would be the ' Boxing Classics ' boxed set, azania. It's a ten DVD set with good quality footage dating from way back right up to Sugar Ray Leonard & co. Also, the Italian producer, DeAgostini, produces some very good stuff with COMPLETE fights, often in digitally remastered quality.

eBay is not a bad source, though I've been caught a couple of times buying ' copies ' when I believed that I had been bidding on originals.

Also, check links at the really good boxing history websites, such as IBRO or cyberboxingzone. Some good quality stuff can be found by so doing.

Best of luck with it. I'll convert you yet, you scoundrel !!

Scottrf wrote:Did you watch the Sugar Ray Robinson documentary on ESPN classic recently Azania? Watch him go 15 hard rounds with LaMotta and tell me he needs better nutrition.

I certainly did and I recognise skill when I se eit and SRR was the best ever. But just imagine a boxer of that class and talent with today's techniques, training, nutritien etc etc etc. he would have taken out LaMotta inside 10.

I also saw Tiger Jones outbox a tired looking 33 year old SRR. Now with today's conditioning et al, he would be able to fight for longer. Look at PBF and Pac for example. Forget Bhop, he's a one off.

Green Giant wrote:

Rodney wrote:One of the most forgotten effect of modern training techniques that is forgotten and is substantial, is that of regular fighting. If you look at someone like Harry Greb who had hundreds of fights, and used to fight every couple of days, half the time, with modern training, he simply would not fight this often. Modern techniques consider the need for rest, peaking etc. How would this effect a fighter like Greb. would he need the experience garned from hundreds of fights, or would taking a lesser fighting schedule mean he would be a better fighter?

Not naive there are advantages of both methods. I tend to think that for the average fighter, the modern method is far better, but for the actual greats, the older method is much better. I think this may be proved by looking at heavy greats where they always rip through the comp when fighting regularly (pre title) and then once they get the money and reduce their number of fights regualrly they soon lose their edge and are not the same fighter.

Rodders

You would learn more by fighting Floyd Mayweather once than fighting a 100 bums. My opinion anyway.

Absolutely.

Azania there is a flip side to that though if Robinson went pro now as a starried amateur as he was he would be matched against tomato cans and journeymen and so his skills would not develop as they did. Worth remembering Ray was matched with Zivic in something like his second year as a pro, as Zivic is as dirty a fighter as ever laced up a pair this would not happen now but Robbo himself says he learned more in 20 rounds with Zivic than in almost every other fight. Can't put a price on this and no amount of protein shakes or sports science can replace that.

Robbo was the greatest of all time but talent alone is not the reason, tough matchmaking, plenty of fights on the way up and exposure to all types of fighters and styles is equally as important and fighters simply do not get this now, or are too old by the time they have got it to make the most of the knowledge.

Sorry but no one in history takes La Motta out in 10

Azania, you can't say that 'modern training and nutrition' is better on the grounds that Mayweather / Pacquiao look fresher in their early thirties than Robinson did. Robinson had been through something like 150 fights by then, are you telling me that Mayweather and Pacquiao wouldn't be looking a little more ragged if they'd had as many?

The best days of Jack Dempsey and Joe Frazier were separated by roughly fifty years, and yet they both struggled after hitting (or even approaching) the big '3 and 0.' Tyson seemed flat in his early thirties as well, just like Frazier some twenty-odd years before him.

Every generation has similar cases to Robinson when it comes to hitting a stage where the fighter looks old in the ring all of a sudden. For every fresh Mayweather and Pacquiao, we still have a Cotto or Hatton, who look a shadow of their former selves despite being of a comprable age to Mayweather and Pacquiao.

What's the point of fighting into your late 30's to have 40 odd bouts? Not only was Robbo old, he had 150 or so fights by that point, and was above his most effective weight limit. That's one person anyway, Moore fought until quite old without nutrigrain bars.

To add to Chris' point only have to look at Fernando Vargas he was a shell by 29, and he was a convert to modern training "improvements" such as weight training and the other snake oil that passes for innovation and improvement nowadays.

You would learn more by fighting Floyd Mayweather once than fighting a 100 bums. My opinion anyway.
____________________________________________________________

Absolutely put Mayweather in with 4oz gloves, make him fight twice a month, lets see if you'd still regard him as superman.

He is yet to fight someone he calls a midget and a easy pay day, so I'd doubt he'd be that forthcoming.

I think you only have to look at how regular fighters fought back in the day to realise nutrition would't be a major factor, fights were taken weeks if not days apart, there's no doubt they would have benefited from a better nutrition but they all had a toughness about them that is missing today. You wouldn't catch modern fighters going 45 rounds or even 20 at that.

Jimmy Stuart wrote:You would learn more by fighting Floyd Mayweather once than fighting a 100 bums. My opinion anyway.
____________________________________________________________

Absolutely put Mayweather in with 4oz gloves, make him fight twice a month, lets see if you'd still regard him as superman.

He is yet to fight someone he calls a midget and a easy pay day, so I'd doubt he'd be that forthcoming.

I reckon he would be ok if he fought the Benny Evans and Charley dodson's of the world. Floyd gets enough grief for fighting the likes of mosley, marquez and hatton yet it ok to fight bums as long as you do it twice a month. Floyd wouldnt get away with fighting bums like that even if he did it twice a month.

Deleted

Green Giant wrote:

Jimmy Stuart wrote:You would learn more by fighting Floyd Mayweather once than fighting a 100 bums. My opinion anyway.
____________________________________________________________

Absolutely put Mayweather in with 4oz gloves, make him fight twice a month, lets see if you'd still regard him as superman.

He is yet to fight someone he calls a midget and a easy pay day, so I'd doubt he'd be that forthcoming.

I reckon he would be ok if he fought the Benny Evans and Charley dodson's of the world. Floyd gets enough grief for fighting the likes of mosley, marquez and hatton yet it ok to fight bums as long as you do it twice a month. Floyd wouldnt get away with fighting bums like that even if he did it twice a month.

Have a look at Greb's opposition over 18 months, he fought some incredible names.

Floyd would handle himself in any era I have no doubt, but to fight once a year and for guys to use him as the pedestal is a little far fetched IMO.

Grebs 23 year in itself makes most boxers whole careers look insignificant

Jimmy Stuart wrote:

Green Giant wrote:

Jimmy Stuart wrote:You would learn more by fighting Floyd Mayweather once than fighting a 100 bums. My opinion anyway.
____________________________________________________________

Absolutely put Mayweather in with 4oz gloves, make him fight twice a month, lets see if you'd still regard him as superman.

He is yet to fight someone he calls a midget and a easy pay day, so I'd doubt he'd be that forthcoming.

I reckon he would be ok if he fought the Benny Evans and Charley dodson's of the world. Floyd gets enough grief for fighting the likes of mosley, marquez and hatton yet it ok to fight bums as long as you do it twice a month. Floyd wouldnt get away with fighting bums like that even if he did it twice a month.

Have a look at Greb's opposition over 18 months, he fought some incredible names.

Floyd would handle himself in any era I have no doubt, but to fight once a year and for guys to use him as the pedestal is a little far fetched IMO.

Whos putting him on a pedestal, just saying you would learn alot being in the ring with him. Everyone thinks he could fight better oppositionbut to expect him to fight twice a month is rediculous. you cant do that againest the best out there.

Never been half as impressed with greb as everyone else im afraid.

On what grounds are you not impressed with Greb, Green Giant?

88Chris05 wrote:On what grounds are you not impressed with Greb, Green Giant?

Not that im not impressed with him i just cant give him the God like status that evryone else gives him. there is no context in his wins im afraid, not his fault but its a big problem for me. When we discuss fights all we do is talk about the context and we add or take away alot depending on that. Greb gets full credit for every win which doesnt happen today.

Just doesnt seem fair.

Greb's wins have context if you read newspaper reports or books. Of course if you just look at the stats they have no context.

Scottrf wrote:Greb's wins have context if you read newspaper reports or books. Of course if you just look at the stats they have no context.

They also have context when we read what his opponents said about him, and especially so since most of his high profile opponents are readily available on film.

In all fairness on the grounds that I am fairly sure Greb did not actually exist think it is pretty reasonable to question his record.

rowley wrote:In all fairness on the grounds that I am fairly sure Greb did not actually exist think it is pretty reasonable to question his record.

True enough, jeff.

If only we had a colour photograph of the man.

HumanWindmill wrote:

rowley wrote:In all fairness on the grounds that I am fairly sure Greb did not actually exist think it is pretty reasonable to question his record.

True enough, jeff.

If only we had a colour photograph of the man.

That wouldn't prove anything. Anyone can fake a colour photo.

Besids I seen ftage of Harri Greb wher he luks like a BUM!! FACT!!

And even if he did fight, superior modern training techniques would mean he'd be toast today in any case...

Newpapers reports, fighters oipnions are all flawed sources. they are comprised of other peoples opinions and views which change from person to person.
Stories are always exaggerated and hardly ever give the feel of whta happened, bias is unavoidable.

Reading german papers you would think Sven Ottke was a top 10 ATG. Have any of you seen a german current P4P list.

oxring wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

rowley wrote:In all fairness on the grounds that I am fairly sure Greb did not actually exist think it is pretty reasonable to question his record.

True enough, jeff.

If only we had a colour photograph of the man.

That wouldn't prove anything. Anyone can fake a colour photo.

Besids I seen ftage of Harri Greb wher he luks like a BUM!! FACT!!

And even if he did fight, superior modern training techniques would mean he'd be toast today in any case...

Ha !

An' if Greb's so good why didn't he fight a prime Mike Tyson FACT!!!!!!

wow usually it takes a while for you lot to get this bitter. Footage of his opponments in later fights doesnt give much context to their actual fight. Manny is not the same fighter he was 4-5 years ago. hes better, so morales win should only be credited with the version he beat not just the name.

Well if it's 71-90 then that's it isn't it...

Me I'd say either the 40's/70's or 80's.............

Probably go with the 80's..............Sanchez, Camacho, Arguello, Pryor, Whittaker, Nelson, Duran, Leonard, Hagler , Benitez, Hearns, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Spinks, CURRY, Mccallum, Gomez, Pintor, Mcgirt, Brown, Nunn.....That kind of strength in depth is truelly awesome..

Green Giant wrote:Newpapers reports, fighters oipnions are all flawed sources. they are comprised of other peoples opinions and views which change from person to person.
Stories are always exaggerated and hardly ever give the feel of whta happened, bias is unavoidable.

Reading german papers you would think Sven Ottke was a top 10 ATG. Have any of you seen a german current P4P list.

Day - after, blow by blow accounts of the major fights can hardly be biased if newspapers from various parts of the US covered the fight. Hard - bitten trainers who saw Greb in the flesh and lived to see succeeding generations are less likely to be swayed by nostalgia than the average fan, and a man like Gene Tunney, who is renowned for his ring savvy and ability to judge fighters, and who shared a ring with Greb so many times, is about as authoritative as it gets, in my book.

Just on a side note if we are going from 1971-90........and you can add Ali, Monzon, Foreman etc to the 80's mix how can there be so many votes for 1911-30??

Don't think you can really argue against the regularity with which he beat fellow all time greats

Because people obviously voted for bums such as Harry Greb, Mickey Walker, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Jimmy Wilde, Pancho Villa, Johnny Kilbane, Benny Leonard, Ted 'Kid' Lewis, Jack Britton and Jack Dillon, my dear Truss!

Newspaper journalists have always been guilty of bigging up fights to sell papers Windy...

Anyone remember the photos of Corbett-Fitz when they had a picture of about 50,000 at the fight............When really only a man and his dog attended!!

When people like Arcel pick all and sundry to beat Ali then I'll prefer to see evidence with my own eyes..

There is no comparison between Greb and Mayweather. If you look at any sources - be it newspaper reports, his fight record or respected opinions from those that shared his era then that should be all the context neccessary to realise how exceptional a fighter he was.

Mayweather is great in the context of his era. Greb is great in the context of any era.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Green Giant wrote:Newpapers reports, fighters oipnions are all flawed sources. they are comprised of other peoples opinions and views which change from person to person.
Stories are always exaggerated and hardly ever give the feel of whta happened, bias is unavoidable.

Reading german papers you would think Sven Ottke was a top 10 ATG. Have any of you seen a german current P4P list.

Day - after, blow by blow accounts of the major fights can hardly be biased if newspapers from various parts of the US covered the fight. Hard - bitten trainers who saw Greb in the flesh and lived to see succeeding generations are less likely to be swayed by nostalgia than the average fan, and a man like Gene Tunney, who is renowned for his ring savvy and ability to judge fighters, and who shared a ring with Greb so many times, is about as authoritative as it gets, in my book.

Blow by blow accounts are impossible, in todays game anyway. Boxing much more than punching. Every generations always says that theirs is better than the next. Bert sugar who grew to love boxing through dempsey has him in his top 10 of all time. That is plain retarded but that what bias gives you, even from respectecd historians. Lennox lewis doesnt make his top 100.

In the bold: would that not make him be more than kind to Grebs abilities.

Trussman, I don't think you can accuse Arcel of being biased or favouring his 'own' era. He picked Ali as one of his top three Heavyweights of all time, saying he couldn't pick between him, Dempsey and Louis (so obviously doesn't pick that many people to beat Ali), and he also proclaimed that Nicolino Locche was a more talented fighter than Benny Leonard, who was definitely of 'his' era and someone who he worked the corner for.

All things considered, I'd say his word seems pretty reliable.

Look Pal don't denigrate Mayweather...Who's to say he isn't the best of alltime?????

Leonard is top 5 and lost to a brawling Duran...Ali lost to Norton three times....

No evidence to suggest Mayweather isn't the greatest....

I'd pick him to beat Leonard and duran.......Struggle with Tommy though..

Getting sick of people with no primary evidence to suggest these old fighters were as good as they are meant to be..trashing modern fighters..

His word is reliable... what that Dempsey and Louis both cream Ali!!!

He did say that...............

All these old timers hate to believe times move on...

Sure you guys think Nicklaus who never beat the strength in depth Tiger had too is much better..........

Past is always better...................

Arcel was biased we all are to a certain extent........but i like to give modern fighters credit..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:When people like Arcel pick all and sundry to beat Ali then I'll prefer to see evidence with my own eyes..

Arcel said no such thing. In fact, he named Dempsey, Louis and Ali as the three greatest heavies of all time and refused to put them in order.

It amuses me when folks belittle the opinions of men such as Tunney, Arcel, reporters of the day, but then expect us to be swayed by THEIR opinions. I'm happy with the views of those who saw him, fought him, sparred with him and wrote about him. No offence, they are better placed than you are to offer an informed opinion.

Jack Dempsey on Greb :

“The fastest fighter I ever saw. Hell. Greb is faster than Benny Leonard.”

Gene Tunney on Greb :

“He was never in one spot for more than half a second. All my punches were aimed and timed properly but they always wound up hitting empty air. He'd jump in and out, slamming me with a left and whirling me around with his right or the other way around. My arms were plastered with leather and although I jabbed, hooked and crossed, it was like fighting an octopus.”

Opponent, Pat Walsh on Greb :

“I thought somebody had opened up the ceiling and dumped a carload of boxing gloves on me.”


The May 24, 1922 NY Times on Greb v Tunney I :

“Greb, a human perpetual motion machine if there ever was one received the decision of the judges Tommy Shortem and Eddie Hurley and Referee Billy McPartland. Tunney tried with every ounce of strength and every trick of the trade to offset the speed and remarkable ability of his rival. But the defending champion could find no defense for the rain of blows which met him at every turn.”

Grantland Rice, one of the top sportswriters of the time wrote,

“Harry handled Gene like a butcher hammering a Swiss steak. How Gene survived 15 rounds I will never know.” Tunney himself said, “Greb gave me a terrible whipping. My jaw was swollen from the right temple down the cheek, along the chin and part way up the other side. The referee, the ring itself, was full of my blood. If boxing was afflicted with the commission doctors that we have now, the first fight probably would have been stopped and no one would have heard of me today.”

Mickey Walker on Greb :

“Harry Greb was the greatest fighter I ever fought. He was one of the greatest that ever stepped in the ring.”

The July 3, NY Times on Greb v Walker :

“Greb retained his world middleweight title when he battered his way to the decision…in as savage and furious a ring encounter as either boxer has ever experienced. Walker left the ring badly used up. He had a split lip, a bruised and battered nose, and a cut under his right eye which was puffed and almost closed. Greb was unmarked, although he absorbed punishing blows to the body through every round. The entire bout was fought at an extremely fast pace. Walker started off well in the early rounds but by the 6th Greb was firmly in charge. There was seesaw action in the mid to late rounds. The champion finished strongly taking the final "championship" rounds, nearly knocking Walker out in the 14th. "

On the flip side we're sick of you trashing the old fighters just because your too ignorant, we all know Mayweather is talented but he's done nothing to prove he's one of the greatest

Look Pal don't denigrate Mayweather...Who's to say he isn't the best of alltime?????
________________________________________________________

Nobody, particularly when as soon as the kind of challenge comes along that may be allow people to make a more informed opinion about his greatness he goes missing.

You're happy with their views and yet you didn't know the guys.......

Happy because like you they resented the future....Like Sal Marciano who thought his brother would knock out Tyson and anybody else...

Be happy with their views I'm sure they weren't biased by any means..

But i've seen Ali, Mayweather et al fight................

I'm not a sheep..I make my own mind up...with my own eyes....Newspapers do me a favor!!

Most American newspapers had Pazienza beating Mayweather....

Don't think the earth is round because someone told you!!..

[quote="TRUSSMAN66"]You're happy with their views and yet you didn't know the guys.......quote]

Unless you're good friends with Marlon Starling, Milton McCrory and Mike McCallum then, does that mean you'll stop mentioning that they all said that Don Curry was the best technical boxer they ever faced?

Whether someone like Mayweather could compete in an era likeGrebs is, to me, highly debateable.

Hes fragile and fights iregularly. Can he handle facing top opponents at greater than a year long interval? Could he consistently fight at a high level on a weekly basis? Can he beat top opponents giving away significant size advantages. We are expected to be wowed by him as a model athlete because he goes to the gym and keeps in shape. Greb HAD to be in shape every moment of every year he fought. There were no holidays.

We KNOW Greb could do all this - because he did it. His record says it, his opponents said it, fans and media said it, trainers said it. What more do people need?

You're happy to have Louis in your top 10 greatest Rowley!!!!

He didn't beat the likes of Oscar, Marquez, Hatton etc etc..........

But then again he was born nearly a century ago...........

1911-30 dear oh dear..................

Duran, Leonard, Hearns, Hagler,Holmes, Holy, Sanchez, Arguello, Ali, Foreman, Olivares, Gomez, Chavez, Nunn, Spinks, Frazier............etc


You've got more top 30 alltimers in that list than anyother era............

But 1911 was better.......................What a joke..

Have Louis in my top ten heavies Truss but so do you so am not sure what your point is, don't have him in my top ten P4P

But 1911 was better.......................What a joke..
____________________________________________________

I voted for the 30's to 50s Truss as I have said earlier in the thread but don't let facts get in the way of one of your meltdowns

Why do you even bother coming on here because your unable to accept that people have different opinions to you.

So beating Oscar, Marquez and Hatton makes you the greatest ever then does it?

Keep it civil please.

rowley wrote:Azania there is a flip side to that though if Robinson went pro now as a starried amateur as he was he would be matched against tomato cans and journeymen and so his skills would not develop as they did. Worth remembering Ray was matched with Zivic in something like his second year as a pro, as Zivic is as dirty a fighter as ever laced up a pair this would not happen now but Robbo himself says he learned more in 20 rounds with Zivic than in almost every other fight. Can't put a price on this and no amount of protein shakes or sports science can replace that.

Robbo was the greatest of all time but talent alone is not the reason, tough matchmaking, plenty of fights on the way up and exposure to all types of fighters and styles is equally as important and fighters simply do not get this now, or are too old by the time they have got it to make the most of the knowledge.

Fighting every other week means you never enter into a fight in peak condition. Your body is never rested and you dont train properly.

1 Sugar Ray Robinson 50s
2 Henry Armstrong 40s
3 Willie Pep 40s-50s
4 Joe Louis 30s
5 Harry Greb 20s
6 Benny Leonard 20s
7 Muhammad Ali 60s
8 Roberto Duran 70-80s
9 Jack Demsey 20-30s
10 Jack Johnson 1900s
11 Mickey Walker 20s-30s
12 Tony Canzoneri 20s-30s
13 Gene Tunney 20s
14 Rocky Marciano 40s
15 Joe Gans 1900s
16 Sam Langford 1900s
17 Julio Cesar Chavez 80s
18 Jimmy Wilde 10s
19 Stanley Ketchal 1900
20 Barney Ross 30s

So according to bert as boxing has evolved and spread across the world and populations and talent pools have grown we have become worst and worst at boxing. This is the logic behind your ridiculous bias.

Its embarrassing and insulting to modern talent.