BoxRec

oogiebe wrote: ↑22 May 2020, 17:08 EO: I posted that vid to add commentary on Greb. I see no need to defend anything. You moved the goal posts again by interjecting "definitely' into the conversation. Like many others here, I think you're a jerkoff, DEFINITELY.

Why post a video containing so many factual inaccuracies?

It detracts from your own credibility if you post something so substandard.

I posed questions about the video YOU posted and YOU couldn’t even answer ONE of them.

There has to be a reason for this, so hopefully you can explain why?

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑22 May 2020, 17:17

oogiebe wrote: ↑22 May 2020, 17:08 EO: I posted that vid to add commentary on Greb. I see no need to defend anything. You moved the goal posts again by interjecting "definitely' into the conversation. Like many others here, I think you're a jerkoff, DEFINITELY.

Why post a video containing so many factual inaccuracies?

It detracts from your own credibility if you post something so substandard.

I posed questions about the video YOU posted and YOU couldn’t even answer ONE of them.

There has to be a reason for this, so hopefully you can explain why?

The vid displayed a wide swath of those inside the sport. I found it interesting. Not sure what all your huff is about. It's fine you think that folks opinions are inaccurate. But, that is the primary issue with you. You need to understand that opinions are just that...opinions. All your bvllshvt about 'facts' as YOU see them is quite entertaining at times, but borish for the most part. Here's a question for you. Please tell me why you post in the obnoxious style that you do. It is quite evident that most of us feel the same about you, but you persist in being a pudendum. Maybe, just maybe if you loosen up those tight panties and try to get along and respect opinions, you'd be better off. Just a bit of friendly guidance. Can I get an AMEN?

I wouldn't put to much stock into that sparring video...most of the time it was horseplay back then for the cameras.. remember that Corbett/Courtney "match"?

oogiebe wrote: ↑22 May 2020, 17:25All your bvllshvt about 'facts' as YOU see them is quite entertaining at times, but borish for the most part. Here's a question for you. Please tell me why you post in the obnoxious style that you do. It is quite evident that most of us feel the same about you, but you persist in being a pudendum. Maybe, just maybe if you loosen up those tight panties and try to get along and respect opinions, you'd be better off. Just a bit of friendly guidance. Can I get an AMEN?

We had a disagreement about Harry Greb, which led you to post a short video containing more than a dozen factual inaccuracies.

When I posed more than a dozen questions that were intended to force you to concede these inaccuracies and inconsistencies, YOU couldn’t even answer ONE of them, because YOU knew I was right.

The video YOU posted actually supported my own argument about Harry Greb, but YOU chose to sidestep this blatantly obvious fact and resort to insults instead.

YOU might claim I’m obnoxious and others might agree with you, but at least I don’t resort to insults when someone provides a compelling counter argument to one of my claims.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑22 May 2020, 19:44

oogiebe wrote: ↑22 May 2020, 17:25All your bvllshvt about 'facts' as YOU see them is quite entertaining at times, but borish for the most part. Here's a question for you. Please tell me why you post in the obnoxious style that you do. It is quite evident that most of us feel the same about you, but you persist in being a pudendum. Maybe, just maybe if you loosen up those tight panties and try to get along and respect opinions, you'd be better off. Just a bit of friendly guidance. Can I get an AMEN?

We had a disagreement about Harry Greb, which led you to post a short video containing more than a dozen factual inaccuracies.

When I posed more than a dozen questions that were intended to force you to concede these inaccuracies and inconsistencies, YOU couldn’t even answer ONE of them, because YOU knew I was right.

The video YOU posted actually supported my own argument about Harry Greb, but YOU chose to sidestep this blatantly obvious fact and resort to insults instead.

YOU might claim I’m obnoxious and others might agree with you, but at least I don’t resort to insults when someone provides a compelling counter argument to one of my claims.

Waaaaaahhhhhh!!! I picture you stamping your feet.

Duran1970 wrote: ↑22 May 2020, 19:25 I wouldn't put to much stock into that sparring video...most of the time it was horseplay back then for the cameras.. remember that Corbett/Courtney "match"?

That sparring vid was more like a marketing vid for movie goers before the feature is shown. I'd be curious as to the origins of it, now that I think about it.

oogiebe wrote: ↑22 May 2020, 19:51

Duran1970 wrote: ↑22 May 2020, 19:25 I wouldn't put to much stock into that sparring video...most of the time it was horseplay back then for the cameras.. remember that Corbett/Courtney "match"?

That sparring vid was more like a marketing vid for movie goers before the feature is shown. I'd be curious as to the origins of it, now that I think about it.

Proof?

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Greb the only one to defeat Gene Tunney? Greb was smaller, and I read that he fought a good part of his career with being blind in one eye. That is incredible. You basically have no depth perception with one eye.

It goes without saying that some modern athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, etc, but I seriously doubt if they would have the mental and physical toughness to compete successfully in an era where they fought several times a month, or in a week even. In a way, money, technology, and fame has damaged the sport and softened the athletes.

So many people point to clip of greb clearly playing around on the bag. Fighters were much tougher and better conditioned then. I don't have to see him to know he'd excel in any era.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑23 May 2020, 15:01 Fighters were ... better conditioned then.

That is just plain ridiculous. In literally every other sport athletes are WAY better conditioned now than a 100 years ago, but boxing is so special that it is the other way around.

boxing_rocks wrote: ↑23 May 2020, 16:18

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑23 May 2020, 15:01 Fighters were ... better conditioned then.

That is just plain ridiculous. In literally every other sport athletes are WAY better conditioned now than a 100 years ago, but boxing is so special that it is the other way around.

It definitely shows in the pace of the fights.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑23 May 2020, 06:38

oogiebe wrote: ↑22 May 2020, 19:51
That sparring vid was more like a marketing vid for movie goers before the feature is shown. I'd be curious as to the origins of it, now that I think about it.

Proof?

LOL! Easy boyo. I didn't assert anything, I commented on the vid's appearance!

When fighting 40+fights a year I think it's safe to assume they were in better fighting shape.. without the shortcuts that modern day fighters use (steroids hgh diuretics power shakes etc)... Longer fights as well back then..you weren't in shape you didn't last