BoxRec

Go to http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=011079

According to this, he was inactive in 1943, but then when he came back in late '44, he had 18 fights in the few remaining months of the year.

So what. Henry Armstrong made 20 defences of his world welterweight title in 23 months.

bennie wrote:So what. Henry Armstrong made 20 defences of his world welterweight title in 23 months.

Let's see...

20 fights in 23 months.

18 fights in 5 months.

What Costner did means "nothing" compared to that???

The Keed wrote:

bennie wrote:So what. Henry Armstrong made 20 defences of his world welterweight title in 23 months.

Let's see...

20 fights in 23 months.

18 fights in 5 months.

What Costner did means "nothing" compared to that???

No, nothing. How can 18 routine fights compare to 20 world title fights!
Check out Battling Levinsky's record, and countless others, and you will see that Costner's fight schedule was, as you say, NOTHING.
Freddie Miller had 18 fights in four months in 1935 just for one brief example.

These sort of stats put todays fighters to shame.

How about Beau Jack who headlined Three Madison Square Garden cards in March 1944?

Reggie Strickland had 42 fights in one year. Not exactly a main event guy though.

Wow! Greb was something else.

Terap, Mike Gibbons was a Middleweight, you're thinking of Tommy Gibbons. Bartfield also was a Welterweight in his prime probably.

Not arguing the greatness of Greb. That year 1919, IMO is probably the greatest single one year performance in boxing history. Had there been decisions he should've won every bout.

I was just pointing out that Bartfield was not a Heavy, as well as the Gibbons error.

terap wrote:The Gibbons"error" was an obvious slip as the other detailed post I made on Tommy Gibbons showed.

Greb doesn't need you or anyone else to pat him on the head.

Tunney said Greb was by far the greatest fighter he fought.

Mickey Walker said the same thing.

Practice what you preach and stop patting him on the head damn it.

Terap,

I once heard that Greb Fought most of his career with only half sight?

Can you tell me details at all?

Or anyone else in that case?

He went blind in one eye during his 1921 bout with Kid Norfolk.

terap wrote: Greb lost the decision.

It was a newspaper decision, I think. Greb was also knocked down early in that fight.

From http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/norfolk.htm

"It was in the summer of 1921 that Norfolk got his first real break when he was matched up with Pittsburgh legend Harry Greb. The fight itself was a torrid affair, with both men giving and taking tremendous amounts of punishment. The Kid outweighed the mighty Greb by twelve pounds but the Steeltown crowd gave the "Human Windmill" his own kind of advantage. Norfolk floored Greb for a six count in the first and gave him quite a beating over the first few rounds. Greb fought back as only he could and took the fight to his heavier foe in the middle rounds. Norfolk's greater strength seemed to be the difference in the closing rounds and he "cut Greb to ribbons in the final frame". The newspaper decision was Norfolk's..."

He went blind in one eye during his 1921 bout with Kid Norfolk."

[quote="terap"]"Interesting phrasing.

For all the knowledge you show in this forum, your total lack of respect for others is apalling. Constructive criticism of others opinions, which is what goes on in here amongst knowledgeable boxing fans; when directed towards your views is taken as a personal insult.

It's too bad that for all you've stored up in your brain on boxing, that you couldn't have figured out how to deal with people just a little bit in your life.

And don't tell me that comment is constructive criticism. You wrote it in pure spite.

tegenm.....considering all the anger terap has let so many times in so many posts i find it odd that you'd pick this mild comment to be the one you react so strongly to.

note: this is not an attack on tegenm or terap...it's just an observation.


(....before terap jumps on me for my phrasing.....change to "...the one to which you react so strongly.")

...just mulling this one over and it struck me that a fighter today with FIVE fights in EIGHTEEN months would be considered something of a wonder...and I'm talking about a quality fighter...not one of those "whatg town are we in andf when do I go down ?" opponents.

Jaclem wrote:...just mulling this one over and it struck me that a fighter today with FIVE fights in EIGHTEEN months would be considered something of a wonder...and I'm talking about a quality fighter...not one of those "whatg town are we in andf when do I go down ?" opponents.

Another reason for the decline in boxings popularity and why it is no longer covered by the press as a major sport IMO