Harry Greb is considered the ultimate guy that stayed in shape by fighting. Look at his arms in this picture.Did he do presses with his opponents?
Harry Greb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Printable View
Harry Greb is considered the ultimate guy that stayed in shape by fighting. Look at his arms in this picture.Did he do presses with his opponents?
Harry Greb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fought 49 times in a year once.
You know how some people just have that energy that raises as they fight into long rounds he was one of them so Ive read. Probably the hardest bastard there was, turned out he was blind in one eye and still fought on for a few years. That mans an old style machine.These boys would work with axes or load coal in the sun into rail carts all day long with hardly a break. Tough as they come.Who needs weights?
Sounds like dynamo with some insanity thrown in. Man, once a week. Amazing!Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedSounds like dynamo with some insanity thrown in. Man, once a week. Amazing!Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
I think Young Stribling fought 55 times one year but would have to check.
i always say that the difference between fighters now and then is that at that time, people had to just keep fighting to put food on the table. its not like now to where these fighters will have a match 2-3 times and year and get out of shape in between fights. as you can see now, all of the best fighters of the past decade have stayed in shape year round (mayweather, bhop, jones, etc). this is no coincidence.
i wish more than anything that there were fight tapes of greb. i wish that i could see what his windmill style really looked like.
Fighting once a week sounds impressive until you realize that a lot of those guys didn't belong in the ring with him and were little more than sparring sessions.
It's not like these guys were fighting world beaters every time out. Nobody can do that.
Of course. I mean why say anything good about anyone prior to the primedonna era? They were all scrubs. Unlike the little spoiled brats today that can barely make it past 4 rds before they are gassed and I'd like to see one of these posers today fight 49 sparring partners a year. People act as if everyone today can fight a pace equal to Floyd and Manny. Sorry but in order to see fights that even resemble a fight in most cases takes watching a domestic card with fighters nobody has heard of. Most title fights and ppv events today are complete duds and mismatches. I bet Jeanette v Mcvy was quite the sparring session. In addition people look at records and dismiss opponents not realizing that these people lost because they fought every other week and when you do that, at times you lose to lesser men.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
Carry on
He was not a flailing wild man like the term windmill suggests. He was way ahead of his time and like Armstrong probably had an over-sized heart. He got his nickname from throwing over a hundred punches a round and seemed to run on perpetual motion. Dempsey wouldn't fight him.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
@greynotsoold Joe Gans is another mutant and most definitely a top 5 atg lightweight. Fought close to 180 times only losing ten times and scored 100 ko's. Only stopped 5 times and two of those to the crazy man Nelson in the 17th and 21st rounds in scheduled 45 round fights at the very end of his career. On one occasion the guy fought Holly who was 27/0 and after the fight jumped on a train traveled cross country and then fought Langford the next day and at a higher weight. Child's play I suppose for today's crop of elite lightweights LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
That statement had nothing to do with era vs era quality. It's a shame you seem to have a stick up your ass about the golden era and have to make everything a comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
The fact is, there's not enough quality opponents for ANYBODY of ANY ERA to fight one quality guys once a week.
Look at Greb's record: for every quality opponent, there are about 20 opponents who have losing records, or even less than 10 fights.
Tom Burns: 1-5
Ray Nelson: 0-1
Frankie Ritz: 1-3
Johnny Papke: 2-3
Billy Briton: 14-8
Soldier Buck: 8-11
Jim Nuss: 10-7
Otis Bryant: 3-4
Ed Smith: 1-1
Joe Lohman: 14-20
Fay Keiser: 21-13
That's just from a quick scan of the first page of his record. And these were guys he fought AFTER he was world champ. He had over 80 pro fights and was fighting guys who were 0-1 and 1-5.
And I don't slag the guy for fighting bums: it was a different time, there was no PPV and big network deals, you fought as many times as you could because you needed the pay days, and if you could get paid to fight a severely out classed guys, you'd do it. It was the 1920s, you had to make a buck however you could. No disrespect to Greb whatsoever.
The guys I do slag are guys like you who gush over the fact that they fought so often, like that was a great accomplishment and somehow makes them superior to modern fighters. But if Floyd was to fight once a week with the same opposition, you and other like-minded people would call him a sissy for picking on bums.
Floyd is getting dissed because he chose to fight a fellow world champion who is 35-3 with a KO percentage over 80%, and you guys are gushing over this dude because he fought bums once a week? PLEASE.
Most of Greb's opponents would be worthy to even spar a guy like Mayweather or Pacquaio.
I reckon Pacquiao sweat more and suffered more trauma sparring monsters like Provodnikov everyday than a world champion with 80+ fights rolling over a bunch of guys with 1-3 records.
Get out of here with that nonsense...
From your point, won/loss records at that time meant less because fighters fought way more often to make ends meet. In other words, a guy who was 25-25 might have only been a professional for two years, and because of the number of fights, might still be a novice at the professional game. So, it's difficult to accurately gauge how good some of the guys with so-so records actually were.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
As to Floyd, I'm sorry but there is real reason for criticism at the choice of Maidana. Floyd is a former Olympian, undefeated professional, with a record of 46-0. We can poke holes in his record, and talk about the guys he missed on his way up, sure, but no one can deny he's at least one of the best in the last 20 years.
Floyd's facing Marcos Maidana. The odds are 15-1 in favor of Floyd. Speaking of built up records, in a day and age where fighters fight 2-3 times per year, Maidana, who is 35-3, fought guys with losing records until his 14th professional fight and, even then, in his fourteenth fight fought a guy he had previously knocked out. Moreover, he did that in this day and age, not when fighters fought 50 times per year. He didn't even fight anyone recognizable until his 27th fight, when he lost to Kotelnik--which means that he has only been operating at the world level for approximately ten fights. His only notable wins have come against Broner and Ortiz. Ortiz never won a big fight and Broner, well, Broner is Broner. Devon Alexander took Maidana to school. So, yes, Maidana is better than the 3-5 guy on Greb's record, but he ain't nothing to write home about either.
Floyd's the biggest name in boxing. He's the self-proclaimed TBE - The Best Ever. Frankly, the question is not why people would be hard on Floyd when he fights twice a year for choosing Maidana as an opponent: the question is why wouldn't they? If he fought five times a year, Maidana is maybe just ok as an opponent. If he fought 10 times, which is far less than Greb did, Maidana makes more sense. Conversely, if he fought 30 times a year, Maidana as an opponent might be damn impressive. If he fights twice, however, fighting a guy who has faced guys with losing records in approximately half his fights, not so much.
Speaking of Ruslan, he has 25 total fights. In this day and age when fighters fight two or three times a year, 10 of 25 of his opponents were against guys with losing records. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, there are probably six recognizable names on his resume. He lost to two of six.
So, how can we be certain Maidana and Ruslan are quality when almost half of their opponents have losing records and they have lost on multiples times when they step up? How much credit do we give Floyd and Manny for facing them?
Greb fought 30 times in 1919. Keeping in mind there are 52 weeks in a year, he fought Battling Levinsky, who is in the Hall of Fame, three times. He fought Billy Miske, a tremendous fighter. He fought Mike McTigue, another tremendous fighter. He fought Willie Meehan, antother great fighter. In the same year. Maidana isn't making the Hall Of Fame unless he shocks people come Mary 3rd. So, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and same somehow he compares on a p4p sense to McTigue or Miske Or Meehan. Greb fought three guys at his level in the same year that he faced a Hall of Famer in Battling Levinksy three times and fought a total of 30 times. By the way, 1919 wasn't Greb's best year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerThat statement had nothing to do with era vs era quality. It's a shame you seem to have a stick up your ass about the golden era and have to make everything a comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
The fact is, there's not enough quality opponents for ANYBODY of ANY ERA to fight one quality guys once a week.
Look at Greb's record: for every quality opponent, there are about 20 opponents who have losing records, or even less than 10 fights.
Tom Burns: 1-5
Ray Nelson: 0-1
Frankie Ritz: 1-3
Johnny Papke: 2-3
Billy Briton: 14-8
Soldier Buck: 8-11
Jim Nuss: 10-7
Otis Bryant: 3-4
Ed Smith: 1-1
Joe Lohman: 14-20
Fay Keiser: 21-13
That's just from a quick scan of the first page of his record. And these were guys he fought AFTER he was world champ. He had over 80 pro fights and was fighting guys who were 0-1 and 1-5.
And I don't slag the guy for fighting bums: it was a different time, there was no PPV and big network deals, you fought as many times as you could because you needed the pay days, and if you could get paid to fight a severely out classed guys, you'd do it. It was the 1920s, you had to make a buck however you could. No disrespect to Greb whatsoever.
The guys I do slag are guys like you who gush over the fact that they fought so often, like that was a great accomplishment and somehow makes them superior to modern fighters. But if Floyd was to fight once a week with the same opposition, you and other like-minded people would call him a sissy for picking on bums.
Floyd is getting dissed because he chose to fight a fellow world champion who is 35-3 with a KO percentage over 80%, and you guys are gushing over this dude because he fought bums once a week? PLEASE.
You have a point, but theres the other side of the coin in those old times; a challenge was a challenge some of those tough bastards would try to FIGHT ALL COMERS and hop on trains across states to do it within the week.
Doesnt happen now and fights are not as long either,buts that ok dont have to get protective about it, because its impossible in these modern times in light of our law with rules and regulations.
Its just two different situations. Too many fighters these days there are literally millions of them all after the money day, so you cant fight all comers and all challenges,you cant skip weights and you cant fight till you drop instead of just 12 rounds max.
So why try to compare or make out one is better?
One thing is for sure that today with so many fighters around you have to pick a road through them all cheery picking is an art now. It still happened but the further you go back it was a rarer occurrence.
im not saying that he was out of control but from everything that i have heard, he was very aggressive in the ring and his opponents said that he tended to use his head and elbows. i hold greb in very high regard. i just think that if he fought today a lot of people would call him a cheater just like people call ward a cheater for his tactics despite his greatness.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitHe was not a flailing wild man like the term windmill suggests. He was way ahead of his time and like Armstrong probably had an over-sized heart. He got his nickname from throwing over a hundred punches a round and seemed to run on perpetual motion. Dempsey wouldn't fight him.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
[QUOTE=Andre;1240236][QUOTE=Beanflicker;1240096]i think that this is the biggest thing for me. i understand that they arent fighting world beaters every fight but i still like the fact that they fought. i have always said that i would be fine with current world class fighters fighting lower opposition sometimes if they fought 10 times a year. the problem comes when you fight 2 times a year. that means that you dont have time to pick anybody but the best opponent possible for every fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
I hear Greb went to the Philippines and stumbled across that Aside meth.;D
Listen, you're not going to pump up losing records. If a guy has a losing record, he has no business in the ring with a champion, I don't give a shit what era we're talking about. Once again, it's the hypocrisy of gushing over QUANTITY, (the great Greb fought 30 times in one year, what a guy, 30 times can you believe that) as an accomplishment in and of itself, irregardless of quality (I know you listed 3 quality guys he fought in that time, but you're still operating under the premise that quantity is an accomplishment in and of itself).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rantcatrat
Now I'm going to pose this question again. I've posed this question several times over the years and nobody has ever answered it for whatever reason. So once again I will ask to you and those in this thread who are gushing over a big number...
If Floyd was to fight 30 times in a year - that would include 2 or 3 quality guys (and yes, Maidana does count as a quality guy) and the rest would be club fighters with records the likes of 14-20, 1-3, 0-1, ect ect... WOULD ANY OF YOU BE IMPRESSED?
Two or three fights vs high ranked, quality opposition, and 28 fights sprinkled in vs guys who he wouldn't even consider qualified to be his sparring partners. Guys he probably wouldn't break a sweat dispatching. Fights that would be easier than one of his daily sparring sessions. Would any of you give a sweet fuck, or would it be "FUCK FLOYD! FUCKIN PUSSY IS TRYING TO PAD HIS RECORD!!!"
Greb fought a bum a week and he's p4p royalty. George Foreman fought 5 bums in one night and he was a laughing stock in the boxing world. We're operating under the false pre tense that the 20s were this magical time where men were men and even a club fighter was a highly skilled, fine tuned athlete. IT'S IDIOCY. Most of these mother fuckers with the losing records were probably poor, broke motherfuckers who were doing anything they could to earn a buck. The majority of them worked shitty jobs all day and fought at night. Does that make them tough? Sure. Does it mean they are quality opposition? Fuck no.
The fact is, the hypothetical I posed couldn't happen because NO COMMISSION WOULD ALLOW IT.
If the commission back then was like the ones we have today, none of these guys would have fought so much because THE COMMISSIONS WOULD NOT ALLOW CHAMPIONS IN THE RING WITH BEGINNERS AND CLUB FIGHTERS.
No surprise both sides take it too far.
Quantity isn't what's impressive. It's the quantity mixed with the quality. One side pretends the quantity is of more value than it is. The other side dismisses the quality.
The old timers were tough and were skilled. I propose the toughness is connected to natural food that is practically non-existant in this genetically altered processed age. And lack of the myriad of poisons that surround us now. Combine the lack of a constant barrage of poison with genuine struggles and toughness is a natural byproduct.
And todays fighters are more athletic. Every sport the fans argue "not in our sport because ...." but every single sport where you can measure the athletic prowess it shows in the numbers. Bigger, faster, stronger. Weightclasses only alter that they don't stop it. Bigger guys today have the grace of body control that smaller men had years past. There's an ascending slope athletically through every class.
We can't properly value old time/now. Sure it was hard to fight all the time, it's also hard to fight a guy that had 5 months to prepare just for you. What seems to get lost is both sides deserve the respect they've earned.
Natural food? NATURAL FOOD?? You think the food was of higher quality back then? And with all this fear mongering of "genetically altered" food, there's absolutely no accepted evidence that these foods are harmful. There's no way you actually believe that nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
There were tough guys and pussies back then, and there are tough guys and pussies now.
There were elite guys and BUMS back then, there are elite guys and BUMS now.
A guy with a losing record was a BUM then, just like he's a BUM now.
If any of you think any different, you're kidding yourself.
The only big difference is that the commissions weren't as strict and they allowed a lot of horrible mismatches that would never be allowed today.
People want to talk about Floyd/Maidana being a mismatch. What if Floyd was fighting a guy who was 1-3? A guy who had a full time job working 40 hours or more a week and trained whenever he had some spare time? That's the reality of a lot of these guys that pad Greb's record.
I'm not dismissing quality at all BTW. I think Gene Tunney and Battling Levinsky were very high quality opposition.
I'm just saying to these golden age knuckle heads: don't shit on Floyd for fighting Maidana and then come back and tell me how great Greb was because he fought a bum a week. Who cares? These guys with losing records were not of high quality. Quit lying to yourself.
Some do and some dont. I mean you actually have people suggesting or trying to that boxing is not watered down and yet dismiss guys from the past that fought once a week and got some loses. How does one even debate that? You cant because those making such myopic statements have closed the door for there own sake, not boxing. They treat boxing history and past greats like an old mans tale of walking 2 miles home up hill both ways with snow up to their knees. They wont acknowledge anything they haven't seen and yet ignore what they do see in the present tense. The whole thing is like some gigantic twisted straw man argument. its almost like theism vs atheism. I try my best to stay out of these threads because they always end up at the same place. Nowhere. But damn....Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
Even something as fundamental as athleticism is bent more then theories of time and space. Window dressing. The fancy gyms, the fancy tech, sculptured frames, nutrition, peds, sports science and they fight two divisions out of their weight class and outside of a handful of fighters are breathing through every orifice in their body by the start of the fifth rd. Taking rounds off to the point that after a few years they got enough time saved to take a 2 week holiday. People stand straight up more then they ever have and step back in the position with their lead hand more today then at anytime in history. Or lets say since I have watched boxing since the sixties. All of this manufactured enlightened technique is a crock. I watch more boxing most likely then anyone else on this forum and I have never seen fighters go the wrong way as I weekly witness today. It makes no difference to me how good the production is, how many people are there or how these people look in the gym or fighting against no hopers. What happened to the jab? Its a freakin endangered species I could teach these people how to use a jab and stay away from a power side and I have not boxed in 30 years which leads to another undeniable fact. Outside of a bunch of celebrity poser lap dogs, there are no trainers left. Those real trainers that are left are composting in east side gyms living off pork and beans in a one room suite. People shitting on Joe Louis and yet idol worshiping James Toney. Yes Albert there really are 14 dimensions.
Ahh fuck it, I better go earn my keep. Picture man walking backwards hands at his side and through the western door. Ibid you a good morning, afternoon, tomorrow whatever.
You're missing something here, my friend. No one is arguing with you that the guy who is 2-4 facing Harry Greb is a world-beater, or anything more than a club fighter fighting for a pay check. No one is pumping up losing records. Defending your title against a 2-4 guy does nothing for legacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerListen, you're not going to pump up losing records. If a guy has a losing record, he has no business in the ring with a champion, I don't give a shit what era we're talking about. Once again, it's the hypocrisy of gushing over QUANTITY, (the great Greb fought 30 times in one year, what a guy, 30 times can you believe that) as an accomplishment in and of itself, irregardless of quality (I know you listed 3 quality guys he fought in that time, but you're still operating under the premise that quantity is an accomplishment in and of itself).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rantcatrat
Now I'm going to pose this question again. I've posed this question several times over the years and nobody has ever answered it for whatever reason. So once again I will ask to you and those in this thread who are gushing over a big number...
If Floyd was to fight 30 times in a year - that would include 2 or 3 quality guys (and yes, Maidana does count as a quality guy) and the rest would be club fighters with records the likes of 14-20, 1-3, 0-1, ect ect... WOULD ANY OF YOU BE IMPRESSED?
Two or three fights vs high ranked, quality opposition, and 28 fights sprinkled in vs guys who he wouldn't even consider qualified to be his sparring partners. Guys he probably wouldn't break a sweat dispatching. Fights that would be easier than one of his daily sparring sessions. Would any of you give a sweet fuck, or would it be "FUCK FLOYD! FUCKIN PUSSY IS TRYING TO PAD HIS RECORD!!!"
Greb fought a bum a week and he's p4p royalty. George Foreman fought 5 bums in one night and he was a laughing stock in the boxing world. We're operating under the false pre tense that the 20s were this magical time where men were men and even a club fighter was a highly skilled, fine tuned athlete. IT'S IDIOCY. Most of these mother fuckers with the losing records were probably poor, broke motherfuckers who were doing anything they could to earn a buck. The majority of them worked shitty jobs all day and fought at night. Does that make them tough? Sure. Does it mean they are quality opposition? Fuck no.
Why do you think I brought up that Maidana was facing guys with losing records until his 14th fight and he's only had 38 fights or that in 24 total fights, Ruslan has fought guys with losing records 10 times? I was agreeing with you.
While it's good to be active, if you're active against bums, we take it with a grain of salt. I see your point.
Yet Greb not only fought 30 times in 1919, a large number of those fights were against elite guys.
He fought one Hall of Famer three times, and another Hall of Famer, Mike Gibbons, and he fought three other notable top 10 guys in the divisions around him, all three of which held a belt at a time where there was only one belt.
He also fought Jeff Smith (43-3), Bill Brennan three times (26-4) and Clay Turner (20-3). So, in one year, Greb fought 4 times against Hall-of-Fame-level competition, 4-5 times against elite competition, 5 times against solid competition and 16 other times against crappy competition.
Filter out the crap and in one of his average years, Greb fought a Maidana-level guy 10 times and Hall-of-Fame level guys 4 times. Compare that with Floyd this year.
Floyd will fight twice this year against Maidana-level competition.
Here is what Wikipedia said about Mike Gibbons:
The brother of heavyweight Tommy Gibbons, Mike claimed Middleweight Champion of the World status in 1909 following Stanley Ketchel's murder. Although he never won the title, Gibbons is regarded as one of the all-time best welter and middleweight boxers by historians. Gibbons retired due to deteriorating vision. Gibbons was elected to the Ring Boxing Hall of Fame in 1958 and the International Boxing Hall of Fame in 1992 and the Minnesota Boxing Hall of Fame in 2010.
About Levinksy:
Nat Fleischer ranked Levinsky as the #6 All-Time Light Heavyweight; He was inducted into the Ring Boxing Hall of Fame in 1966 and the International Boxing Hall of Fame in 2000
The Silence is deafening :oQuote:
Originally Posted by RantcatratYou're missing something here, my friend. No one is arguing with you that the guy who is 2-4 facing Harry Greb is a world-beater, or anything more than a club fighter fighting for a pay check. No one is pumping up losing records. Defending your title against a 2-4 guy does nothing for legacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerListen, you're not going to pump up losing records. If a guy has a losing record, he has no business in the ring with a champion, I don't give a shit what era we're talking about. Once again, it's the hypocrisy of gushing over QUANTITY, (the great Greb fought 30 times in one year, what a guy, 30 times can you believe that) as an accomplishment in and of itself, irregardless of quality (I know you listed 3 quality guys he fought in that time, but you're still operating under the premise that quantity is an accomplishment in and of itself).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rantcatrat
Now I'm going to pose this question again. I've posed this question several times over the years and nobody has ever answered it for whatever reason. So once again I will ask to you and those in this thread who are gushing over a big number...
If Floyd was to fight 30 times in a year - that would include 2 or 3 quality guys (and yes, Maidana does count as a quality guy) and the rest would be club fighters with records the likes of 14-20, 1-3, 0-1, ect ect... WOULD ANY OF YOU BE IMPRESSED?
Two or three fights vs high ranked, quality opposition, and 28 fights sprinkled in vs guys who he wouldn't even consider qualified to be his sparring partners. Guys he probably wouldn't break a sweat dispatching. Fights that would be easier than one of his daily sparring sessions. Would any of you give a sweet fuck, or would it be "FUCK FLOYD! FUCKIN PUSSY IS TRYING TO PAD HIS RECORD!!!"
Greb fought a bum a week and he's p4p royalty. George Foreman fought 5 bums in one night and he was a laughing stock in the boxing world. We're operating under the false pre tense that the 20s were this magical time where men were men and even a club fighter was a highly skilled, fine tuned athlete. IT'S IDIOCY. Most of these mother fuckers with the losing records were probably poor, broke motherfuckers who were doing anything they could to earn a buck. The majority of them worked shitty jobs all day and fought at night. Does that make them tough? Sure. Does it mean they are quality opposition? Fuck no.
Why do you think I brought up that Maidana was facing guys with losing records until his 14th fight and he's only had 38 fights or that in 24 total fights, Ruslan has fought guys with losing records 10 times? I was agreeing with you.
While it's good to be active, if you're active against bums, we take it with a grain of salt. I see your point.
Yet Greb not only fought 30 times in 1919, a large number of those fights were against elite guys.
He fought one Hall of Famer three times, and another Hall of Famer, Mike Gibbons, and he fought three other notable top 10 guys in the divisions around him, all three of which held a belt at a time where there was only one belt.
He also fought Jeff Smith (43-3), Bill Brennan three times (26-4) and Clay Turner (20-3). So, in one year, Greb fought 4 times against Hall-of-Fame-level competition, 4-5 times against elite competition, 5 times against solid competition and 16 other times against crappy competition.
Filter out the crap and in one of his average years, Greb fought a Maidana-level guy 10 times and Hall-of-Fame level guys 4 times. Compare that with Floyd this year.
Floyd will fight twice this year against Maidana-level competition.
Here is what Wikipedia said about Mike Gibbons:
The brother of heavyweight Tommy Gibbons, Mike claimed Middleweight Champion of the World status in 1909 following Stanley Ketchel's murder. Although he never won the title, Gibbons is regarded as one of the all-time best welter and middleweight boxers by historians. Gibbons retired due to deteriorating vision. Gibbons was elected to the Ring Boxing Hall of Fame in 1958 and the International Boxing Hall of Fame in 1992 and the Minnesota Boxing Hall of Fame in 2010.
About Levinksy:
Nat Fleischer ranked Levinsky as the #6 All-Time Light Heavyweight; He was inducted into the Ring Boxing Hall of Fame in 1966 and the International Boxing Hall of Fame in 2000
Harry Grebb died on an operating table trying to have a nose job?
Fuckers are writing essays in this thread.
No one is reading all that lol
Yes show us some pictures as well. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulk
I forgot I posted in this thread, but I'll rep Rantacant for actually debating a point instead of being a butt hurt baby.
Rep away the guy is a great poster. You can toss any amount of insults at a large section of the board that might take issue with some of your sweeping statements, but personally my bottom is fine and calling me a baby is not the same as answering a post. If you want to throw your lot in with infantile posters who dismiss everybody pre 1990 as fighting in an era crowded with bums and take offence at people merely acknowledging Mayweather as a great fighter rather than elevating him to the pinnacle of their own p4p list then I guess I should not be surprised that your own sense of humour is as brittle as Floyds hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
It's not personal, you are a great poster who makes some very cogent arguments I am just a little sick of being labelled as some kind of Boxing nincompoop because I personally think a lot of modern fighters are not all they claim to be. You are right there are exaggerated claims made on behalf of many fighters from previous eras but I am not that old and when I watch fights from before my time it is not nostalgia that leads to me enjoying and rating fighters from those eras. It is simply my opinion and the result of using my eyes in judging effective ring marshalling abilities, stamina and techniques that are just not as prevalent today. IMHO.
I don't think Boxing is merely a sport or a game. For me it is also an art form and as so, appreciation of it is entirely subjective. In reality there is no such thing as bad art. I will often wrtie and argue till I am blue in the face that there is but in the end I like what I like and you like what you like. There are points where we may be in common agreement but neither of us is going to change what the other one loves.
this x 100!Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbeanzrep away the guy is a great poster. You can toss any amount of insults at a large section of the board that might take issue with some of your sweeping statements, but personally my bottom is fine and calling me a baby is not the same as answering a post. If you want to throw your lot in with infantile posters who dismiss everybody pre 1990 as fighting in an era crowded with bums and take offence at people merely acknowledging mayweather as a great fighter rather than elevating him to the pinnacle of their own p4p list then i guess i should not be surprised that your own sense of humour is as brittle as floyds hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by beanflicker
It's not personal, you are a great poster who makes some very cogent arguments i am just a little sick of being labelled as some kind of boxing nincompoop because i personally think a lot of modern fighters are not all they claim to be. You are right there are exaggerated claims made on behalf of many fighters from previous eras but i am not that old and when i watch fights from before my time it is not nostalgia that leads to me enjoying and rating fighters from those eras. It is simply my opinion and the result of using my eyes in judging effective ring marshalling abilities, stamina and techniques that are just not as prevalent today. Imho.
I don't think boxing is merely a sport or a game. For me it is also an art form and as so, appreciation of it is entirely subjective. In reality there is no such thing as bad art. I will often wrtie and argue till i am blue in the face that there is but in the end i like what i like and you like what you like. There are points where we may be in common agreement but neither of us is going to change what the other one loves.
Don't want to interrupt the flow here but I wanted to say great thread. Lots of quality information.
^^. I just don't understand how some people get so emotional over a sport we all obviously love. I think it's the work of a few trolls mainly, there is a rift being created between genuinely great objective posters. Both Bean(s,z) are terrific contributors here imo. Some of ya'll are being reduced to some bullshit round hurrr lately.
http://www.americanbluesscene.com/wp...Skip-James.jpg
Wasn't thinking about you when I wrote that. I don't disrespect anyone who puts thought into a post and offers up some logic behind their post, as much as I might disagree with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenbeanz
The only thing I can remember off hand that I thought was fucked about you was your view on the Zimmerman case, but I chalked it up to the difference in gun control between the States and where you live.
There's a lot of babies on the forum who can't debate a point and just misquote you or call you a nut hugger, those are the ones that annoy me.