Kalan wrote:BoxBuzz wrote: how do you KNOW Greb was or was not a great technician? Just curious on that one.
I DON'T. .
Kalan wrote:Greb-Walker and Greb-Tunney fights were available at one time, and now they're not for whatever reason. If you're trying to research Greb and have no access to his fights, you have to go by fighter's accounts, newspaper accounts, and his record, and whatever historical data you can gather. How did he do versus fighters who's fights are available, such as Tunney. The "Fighting Marine" was much bigger, taller, and stronger than Greb, but HG is the only man with a victory over Tunney. You don't go by one fight but by his whole career. If you're an intelligent and experienced Boxing pro you can make a strong assessment that's valid.
If you're somebody like Dan Rafael or Jim Lampley, who never boxed or trained anyone - and maybe they're half bright, but to me they seem dim witted a lot of the time, you pick Hopkins to beat Kovalev because Hopkins is an American, and says "Kovalev will be a lot easier than Pavlik." So it really doesn't matter how much footage is available when you start picking the guys you emotionally want to win, even though they don't have a chance in Hell.
misterpunch wrote:"kalan wrote"
that's where I stop reading
Kalan wrote:Greb-Walker and Greb-Tunney fights were available at one time, and now they're not for whatever reason. If you're trying to research Greb and have no access to his fights, you have to go by fighter's accounts, newspaper accounts, and his record, and whatever historical data you can gather. How did he do versus fighters who's fights are available, such as Tunney. The "Fighting Marine" was much bigger, taller, and stronger than Greb, but HG is the only man with a victory over Tunney. You don't go by one fight but by his whole career. If you're an intelligent and experienced Boxing pro you can make a strong assessment that's valid.
If you're somebody like Dan Rafael or Jim Lampley, who never boxed or trained anyone - and maybe they're half bright, but to me they seem dim witted a lot of the time, you pick Hopkins to beat Kovalev because Hopkins is an American, and says "Kovalev will be a lot easier than Pavlik." So it really doesn't matter how much footage is available when you start picking the guys you emotionally want to win, even though they don't have a chance in Hell.
Put your brain in gear.. I have no idea why ZERO Greb fights are available on the Internet. HIs contemporaries are there.BoxBuzz wrote:What is this "whatever reason" of which you speak?
Kalan wrote:Easy questions for you simpletons.... How many losses did Henry Armstrong have in his first 27 fights???? ... How many did Valero have????
Another one... How many losses did Valero have in his boxing career??? How many did Armstrong have???
Another one... Who displayed greater range, a better jab, better deception, more defensive finesse, better punching speed and power???
Another one... Which boxer continuously pushed and butted illegally with his head -- often absorbing 2 punches to land 1???
last two questions... Which boxer had 100% wins and a 100% KO ratio???? ... Which boxer had 21 losses and a 55% KO ratio???
When you can figure all that out you'll have your answer as to who was better ...
There's one HELL of a difference. Ottke was an anemic puncher with a 18% KO ratio.. Valero was a dynamite puncher with 100% KO ratio.. And get your brain in gear - Ottke fought the majority of his fights in Germany and Valero fought the majority of his fights outside of Venezuela. Maybe that's why he brought his own judges - his 2 dynamite fists.BoxBuzz wrote:When you go with the percentages....there's not a dimes worth of difference between Valero and Ottke. So you are definitely on to something with this line of reasoning.
I think most of us are just amused not insulted. I think Kaplan believes what he is saying. But unlike Jonestown it appears no one is drinking the kool aid.PredatorHayds wrote:As well as in the ring actions it's fair to judge a fighter on his mental attributes aswell.
Mentally he wasn't all there which resulted him in doing the cowardly and stupid crime he committed.
As it wasn't a tragic accident I actually use his personal life to also go towards how I judge him as a fighter.
Not a nice man, would of eventually got found out and doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as a ATG.
It's actually insulting to boxing fans to even put Valero in the same category.
Kalan wrote:There's one HELL of a difference. Ottke was an anemic puncher with a 18% KO ratio.. Valero was a dynamite puncher with 100% KO ratio.. And get your brain in gear - Ottke fought the majority of his fights in Germany and Valero fought the majority of his fights outside of Venezuela. Maybe that's why he brought his own judges - his 2 dynamite fists.BoxBuzz wrote:When you go with the percentages....there's not a dimes worth of difference between Valero and Ottke. So you are definitely on to something with this line of reasoning.
You guys want it both ways and say Armstrong was more experienced. Many strident Ali fans insist his best days were in 60's when Ali had 19 to 27 fights. Joe Louis always said his best fight was Max Baer when he had only 14 months pro experience and only 21 fights. Having 27 fights doesn't mean you won't beat a ring worn out swinger with 100 fights or more. Armstrong wasn't a technician anyway. Armstrong’s KO streak of 27 is always hyped. What they DON’T tell you is one of those KO victims was 0-2, another was 1-1, and another was in the middle of a 15 fight winless streak and it was his 6th loss in a row. Armstrong’s record was heavily padded. Robinson shut him out easy as pie. Fritzie Zivic stopped Armstrong and beat him bad twice in a row. Zivic had 24 losses when he fought Armstrong and a KO ratio of 35%. He was no hitter but got Armstrong out of there.Ketchel wrote:So we are still debating a guy who had 27 fights compared to a guy who had over 180? Does Kalan think that Valero was going to stay unbeaten for the rest of his career and keep his 100% KO record? Was Valero going to go up through the weights like Armstrong and win more titles? Does Kalan think that Valero would have gone on to beat Pacquiao, Mayweather, Sergio Martinez because these are the guys he would have had to beat to get close to matching Henry's achievements?
First, they don't read books. I do. They don't look at stats. I look at all the stats and present the relevant ones. They don't discuss with top boxing experts, they don't know any except me. They don't spend years collecting and assessing information or end up with an informed opinion. If they did that they'd make a fortune betting on fights and they don't do that either.BoxBuzz wrote:We'll probably never convince those Armstrong nuthuggers anyway. You know them, they read books, look at stats, discuss with top boxing experts and then, after years of collecting and assessing information they end up with some informed opinion
I could GAF less who won the Hank Armstrong-Ceferino Garcia fight. Ross easily beat Garcia and Garcia certainly wasn't a Middleweight or close to it.. Garcia couldn't box or punch so it would make no difference to me if Armstrong knocked him out cold.. Garcia won 6 of his last 13 fights and the Armstrong fight was in that mix. That "Middleweight Title Fight" was just another fake "World Title" they set up for Armstrong to win against a weak opponent as a marketing ploy.. I'm not into being conned and scammed by smart assed, manipulative, conniving Boxing Impresarios. There may be one born every minute - but P T Barnum would go broke if he tried to rip-off guys like me.BoxBuzz wrote:OK......here's an olive branch. Genuine thoughtful answer buys peace in our time. Who honestly won the second Armstrong Garcia fight, Kalan? I want you to think about your answer, and be honest with yourself and everyone here.
