Ring Magazine - Greb v. Hagler

[Robert Phillips]

"There are no films of Greb fighting, but he was known as a rough,
strong, extremely slippery, whirlwind fighter, who threw punches from
all angles, had remarkable stamina and guts, and had one of the
best-ever chins...Even Jack Dempsey couldn't handle him in sparring.
Greb bettered 14 world champions from middleweight to heavyweight...He
went 188 fights without defeat...He was not a huge puncher...He was a
drinking man who seldom trained hard...He was also an extremely dirty
fighter...and may have faced disqualification in Hagler's era...(Hagler)
could box beautifully behind his right jab, then switch to orthodox,
slipping, parrying, and countering. He could also brawl with the best.
He was a heavy puncher with both hands...seemed impervious to
punishment, and was always in splendid shape...He was not a particularly
big middleweight...and sometimes struggled with pressure fighting from
strong men...

Outcome:
Greb throws hooks from all angles. Hagler tries to hold him off with
his right jab, but Greb closes the gap, giving no room to punch.
Hagler, the heavier hitter, switches to orthodox and then resorts to
slugging, but Greb is stronger and has a higher work rate. He is
continually warned for fouls and has two points deducted, but wins a
disputed split decision anyway. A bitter Hagler leaves with one eye
closed and the other cut."


Pie

[King David]

I like Hagler by decision if they fight at 160 pounds.

Post by Robert Phillips
"There are no films of Greb fighting, but he was known as a rough,
strong, extremely slippery, whirlwind fighter, who threw punches from
all angles, had remarkable stamina and guts, and had one of the
best-ever chins...Even Jack Dempsey couldn't handle him in sparring.
Greb bettered 14 world champions from middleweight to heavyweight...He
went 188 fights without defeat...He was not a huge puncher...He was a
drinking man who seldom trained hard...He was also an extremely dirty
fighter...and may have faced disqualification in Hagler's era...(Hagler)
could box beautifully behind his right jab, then switch to orthodox,
slipping, parrying, and countering. He could also brawl with the best.
He was a heavy puncher with both hands...seemed impervious to
punishment, and was always in splendid shape...He was not a particularly
big middleweight...and sometimes struggled with pressure fighting from
strong men...
Greb throws hooks from all angles. Hagler tries to hold him off with
his right jab, but Greb closes the gap, giving no room to punch.
Hagler, the heavier hitter, switches to orthodox and then resorts to
slugging, but Greb is stronger and has a higher work rate. He is
continually warned for fouls and has two points deducted, but wins a
disputed split decision anyway. A bitter Hagler leaves with one eye
closed and the other cut."
Pie

[bill]

hagler easily

Post by Robert Phillips
"There are no films of Greb fighting, but he was known as a rough,
strong, extremely slippery, whirlwind fighter, who threw punches from
all angles, had remarkable stamina and guts, and had one of the
best-ever chins...Even Jack Dempsey couldn't handle him in sparring.
Greb bettered 14 world champions from middleweight to heavyweight...He
went 188 fights without defeat...He was not a huge puncher...He was a
drinking man who seldom trained hard...He was also an extremely dirty
fighter...and may have faced disqualification in Hagler's era...(Hagler)
could box beautifully behind his right jab, then switch to orthodox,
slipping, parrying, and countering. He could also brawl with the best.
He was a heavy puncher with both hands...seemed impervious to
punishment, and was always in splendid shape...He was not a particularly
big middleweight...and sometimes struggled with pressure fighting from
strong men...
Greb throws hooks from all angles. Hagler tries to hold him off with
his right jab, but Greb closes the gap, giving no room to punch.
Hagler, the heavier hitter, switches to orthodox and then resorts to
slugging, but Greb is stronger and has a higher work rate. He is
continually warned for fouls and has two points deducted, but wins a
disputed split decision anyway. A bitter Hagler leaves with one eye
closed and the other cut."
Pie

[Zroaster]

Nice touch.......left the two of them even in the sight department.......

; )

"Robert Phillips" <***@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:8SVgb.70228$***@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
A bitter Hagler leaves with one eye

Post by Robert Phillips
closed and the other cut."
Pie

[Blade Of Sorrow]

Post by Robert Phillips
. He is
continually warned for fouls and has two points deducted, but wins a
disputed split decision anyway. A bitter Hagler leaves with one eye
closed and the other cut."

I saw the fight! Hagler was robbed! Heh heh.....

[iggy07450]

Post by Blade Of Sorrow

Post by Robert Phillips
. He is
continually warned for fouls and has two points deducted, but wins a
disputed split decision anyway. A bitter Hagler leaves with one eye
closed and the other cut."

I saw the fight! Hagler was robbed! Heh heh.....

I got a Boxing Illistrated article from the mid eighties wherein Ray
Arcell
made his feelings VERY clear about a Greb victory in this incounter.
Id also like to add Harry was NOT a drinker but a develishly clever
boy who sipped from a glass of colored water and faked being drunk in
order to manipulate more favorable betting terms for himselfe. In
closing Id like to also add perhapse Grebs greatest assett as a
fighter was his abilitie to continually dart about the ring, attacking
from angeles, before his opponant could respond as well as never
presenting his opponant with a still targert to hit back at.
Now boys, think about the slo footed Hagler trying to deal with
this!!

P.S. Its in the bag for Harry!!

[Robert Phillips]

Post by iggy07450
Id also like to add Harry was NOT a drinker but a develishly clever
boy who sipped from a glass of colored water and faked being drunk in
order to manipulate more favorable betting terms for himselfe.

It's good that RSB has somebody like you around who spent enough time
around Harry Greb that you can tell us with certainty what he did and
did not drink. Please share more of your personal knowledge with us.


Pie

[SuperCalo]

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by iggy07450
Id also like to add Harry was NOT a drinker but a develishly clever
boy who sipped from a glass of colored water and faked being drunk in
order to manipulate more favorable betting terms for himselfe.

It's good that RSB has somebody like you around who spent enough time
around Harry Greb that you can tell us with certainty what he did and
did not drink. Please share more of your personal knowledge with us.

watching grebs fights it was obvious he drank, or did not.

[Loki]

Post by SuperCalo

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by iggy07450
Id also like to add Harry was NOT a drinker but a develishly clever
boy who sipped from a glass of colored water and faked being drunk in
order to manipulate more favorable betting terms for himselfe.

It's good that RSB has somebody like you around who spent enough time
around Harry Greb that you can tell us with certainty what he did and
did not drink. Please share more of your personal knowledge with us.

watching grebs fights it was obvious he drank, or did not.

Ask box. He has seen them all.


Loki

[michel]

Since there are no tapes of Greb fighting, how can anybody say how he would
do against Hagler?

[Loki]

Post by michel
Since there are no tapes of Greb fighting, how can anybody say how he would
do against Hagler?

Ask box. He has seen all of Grebs fights.


Loki

[iggy07450]

Post by michel
Since there are no tapes of Greb fighting, how can anybody say how he would
do against Hagler?

In Re: My knowledge of Grebs life,
Your just gonna have to take a leap of faith and believe me when i
say I've researched Harry's' life from A to Z and back again. (see
below article)
As far as never seeing him in action, well.. 1 I've seen so many
tapes of Greb victims that its enough for me to have the opinions that
I do. If the newsgroup wanted to match Harry with SR Leonard Id be
much more quiet, but slo foot Hagler.. NO WAY!. 2 When you have read
as many (damm near all) contemporary accounts of this great fighter in
his prime from the likes of boxing writers of that era who were so
superior to today's lot in knowledge and making their point I feel
almost as though I've seen him fight. In closing is should also
add...I just cant shake that first fight with Vito from my memory,
yuck!!
Ed


Article 1 of 1, Article ID: 9605100390
Published on May 7, 1996, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA)


GREB ADMIRER IS LOOKING FOR FACTS ON BOXER'S LIFE


In a case of hero worship meets the cable age, a New York man has set
out to make a documentary on Hall of Fame boxer Harry Greb.

And you're invited to help.

Ed Cahill, who describes himself as an underemployed actor and also
works in catering, is fascinated by the life of the one-time world
middleweight champ and American light heavyweight titlist from
Garfield.

``Twenty years ago, I started reading about boxing,'' Cahill said. ``I
read about this middleweight who was


Complete Article, 460 words

[Robert Phillips]

Post by iggy07450
2 When you have read
as many (damm near all) contemporary accounts of this great fighter in
his prime from the likes of boxing writers of that era who were so
superior to today's lot in knowledge and making their point I feel
almost as though I've seen him fight.

So your belief in Greb's ability is based in large part (one of two
reasons you mention) on your opinion that boxing writers of that time
were so much better than boxing writers today??

Pardon me while I laugh for a really long time.


Pie

[SuperCalo]

Post by iggy07450

Post by michel
Since there are no tapes of Greb fighting, how can anybody say how he would
do against Hagler?

In Re: My knowledge of Grebs life,
Your just gonna have to take a leap of faith and believe me when i
say I've researched Harry's' life from A to Z and back again. (see
below article)
As far as never seeing him in action, well.. 1 I've seen so many
tapes of Greb victims that its enough for me to have the opinions that
I do. If the newsgroup wanted to match Harry with SR Leonard Id be
much more quiet, but slo foot Hagler.. NO WAY!. 2 When you have read
as many (damm near all) contemporary accounts of this great fighter in
his prime from the likes of boxing writers of that era who were so
superior to today's lot in knowledge and making their point I feel
almost as though I've seen him fight. In closing is should also
add...I just cant shake that first fight with Vito from my memory,
yuck!!
Ed

no offense to you kid, I'm sure you mean well, but when you get a bit more
educated about boxing you'll understand that you're talking rubbish

Post by iggy07450
Article 1 of 1, Article ID: 9605100390
Published on May 7, 1996, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA)
GREB ADMIRER IS LOOKING FOR FACTS ON BOXER'S LIFE
In a case of hero worship meets the cable age, a New York man has set
out to make a documentary on Hall of Fame boxer Harry Greb.
And you're invited to help.
Ed Cahill, who describes himself as an underemployed actor and also
works in catering, is fascinated by the life of the one-time world
middleweight champ and American light heavyweight titlist from
Garfield.
``Twenty years ago, I started reading about boxing,'' Cahill said. ``I
read about this middleweight who was
Complete Article, 460 words

[iggy07450]

Post by SuperCalo

Post by iggy07450

Post by michel
Since there are no tapes of Greb fighting, how can anybody say how he

would

Post by iggy07450

Post by michel
do against Hagler?

In Re: My knowledge of Grebs life,
Your just gonna have to take a leap of faith and believe me when i
say I've researched Harry's' life from A to Z and back again. (see
below article)
As far as never seeing him in action, well.. 1 I've seen so many
tapes of Greb victims that its enough for me to have the opinions that
I do. If the newsgroup wanted to match Harry with SR Leonard Id be
much more quiet, but slo foot Hagler.. NO WAY!. 2 When you have read
as many (damm near all) contemporary accounts of this great fighter in
his prime from the likes of boxing writers of that era who were so
superior to today's lot in knowledge and making their point I feel
almost as though I've seen him fight. In closing is should also
add...I just cant shake that first fight with Vito from my memory,
yuck!!
Ed

no offense to you kid, I'm sure you mean well, but when you get a bit more
educated about boxing you'll understand that you're talking rubbish

ok sonny quick quiz! keed gavalan was never Koed, name 2 who floored
him (hurry up and take yer time)

Post by SuperCalo

Post by iggy07450
Article 1 of 1, Article ID: 9605100390
Published on May 7, 1996, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA)
GREB ADMIRER IS LOOKING FOR FACTS ON BOXER'S LIFE
In a case of hero worship meets the cable age, a New York man has set
out to make a documentary on Hall of Fame boxer Harry Greb.
And you're invited to help.
Ed Cahill, who describes himself as an underemployed actor and also
works in catering, is fascinated by the life of the one-time world
middleweight champ and American light heavyweight titlist from
Garfield.
``Twenty years ago, I started reading about boxing,'' Cahill said. ``I
read about this middleweight who was
Complete Article, 460 words

[michel]

Post by iggy07450

Post by michel
Since there are no tapes of Greb fighting, how can anybody say how he would
do against Hagler?

In Re: My knowledge of Grebs life,
Your just gonna have to take a leap of faith and believe me when i
say I've researched Harry's' life from A to Z and back again. (see
below article)
As far as never seeing him in action, well.. 1 I've seen so many
tapes of Greb victims that its enough for me to have the opinions that
I do. If the newsgroup wanted to match Harry with SR Leonard Id be
much more quiet, but slo foot Hagler.. NO WAY!. 2 When you have read
as many (damm near all) contemporary accounts of this great fighter in
his prime from the likes of boxing writers of that era who were so
superior to today's lot in knowledge and making their point I feel
almost as though I've seen him fight. In closing is should also
add...I just cant shake that first fight with Vito from my memory,
yuck!!

In any sport where there is impartial information available, the best of
yesterday can't match today's best. Just how well would Jesse Owen do today?
Not well at all. I doubt very much that Greb could even be a contender
today. Yes, reporters of his time were amazed at his skill, but irt was all
against opponents of his time.

[BoxMuham]

From: "michel"
Just how well would Jesse Owen do today?
Not well at all.

There is an obvious "other side" to this point. By your claim, Sugar
Ray Robinson would not do "well at all" today.
You should realize that's pure bullshit.

BoxMuham

[michel]

Post by BoxMuham

From: "michel"
Just how well would Jesse Owen do today?
Not well at all.

There is an obvious "other side" to this point. By your claim, Sugar
Ray Robinson would not do "well at all" today.
You should realize that's pure bullshit.

Please, show me any athlete of his time whose measurable performance is
competitive today.

[Robert Phillips]

Post by michel
In any sport where there is impartial information available, the best of
yesterday can't match today's best. Just how well would Jesse Owen do today?
Not well at all. I doubt very much that Greb could even be a contender
today. Yes, reporters of his time were amazed at his skill, but irt was all
against opponents of his time.

While I agree with your basic premise, the problem with the way you said
it is, there *is* no "impartial information" about boxing. Opinion and
subjective judgement have always been a part of the sport.
The difference between boxing and other sports (like sprinting, which
you alluded to with your Jesse Owens reference) is that sprinting
consists of a single task, which is then evaluated according to
objective means - the stopwatch. Boxing, on the other hand, consists of
a near-infinite combination of tasks during any one match (much less
over the course of a career) and is NOT evaluated according to any
objective means (unless one fighter is KOed).
Boxing is also not affected (except at heavyweight) by the increase in
size of the athlete. In football, by comparison, size becomes a factor
in any theoretical game between a team from today and a team from the
'50s. In boxing, though, a middleweight is a middleweight; 160 pounds
today would be 160 pounds in the '50s, too.
That said, I think the burden of proof is still on the folks who would
defend the performance of older fighters to demonstrate why boxing is
immune to the general improvement in pure athletic ability, and why
boxing is immune to the otherwise near-universal fact that improved
athletics nearly always translates into improved performance at any of
the tasks within any one sport. That is, if a 160-pound fighter today
is a "better athlete" by any objective criteria than a 160-pound
fighgter from the 1950s, then the burden of proof is on the fan of the
'50s fighter to show why, all else being equal, the fact that the modern
fighter is a "better athlete" would be meaningless in a head-to-head
competition with the '50s fighter.

This is an old, old topic around here, and nobody really has anything
new to add to this discussion. People are pretty much locked into their
opinions.
Mine is that *in general*, I think fighters are getting better through
time, due to the evolution of boxing techniques, the improvements in
diet and nutrition, in strength training, etc. Athletics are much
better today than ever before, and I think that naturally informs the
quality of the boxer. Standard Disclaimer: There are exceptions in
every weight class in every decade, of course.


Pie

[michel]

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by michel
In any sport where there is impartial information available, the best of
yesterday can't match today's best. Just how well would Jesse Owen do today?
Not well at all. I doubt very much that Greb could even be a contender
today. Yes, reporters of his time were amazed at his skill, but irt was all
against opponents of his time.

While I agree with your basic premise, the problem with the way you said
it is, there *is* no "impartial information" about boxing. Opinion and
subjective judgement have always been a part of the sport.
The difference between boxing and other sports (like sprinting, which
you alluded to with your Jesse Owens reference) is that sprinting
consists of a single task, which is then evaluated according to
objective means - the stopwatch. Boxing, on the other hand, consists of
a near-infinite combination of tasks during any one match (much less
over the course of a career) and is NOT evaluated according to any
objective means (unless one fighter is KOed).
Boxing is also not affected (except at heavyweight) by the increase in
size of the athlete. In football, by comparison, size becomes a factor
in any theoretical game between a team from today and a team from the
'50s. In boxing, though, a middleweight is a middleweight; 160 pounds
today would be 160 pounds in the '50s, too.
That said, I think the burden of proof is still on the folks who would
defend the performance of older fighters to demonstrate why boxing is
immune to the general improvement in pure athletic ability, and why
boxing is immune to the otherwise near-universal fact that improved
athletics nearly always translates into improved performance at any of
the tasks within any one sport. That is, if a 160-pound fighter today
is a "better athlete" by any objective criteria than a 160-pound
fighgter from the 1950s, then the burden of proof is on the fan of the
'50s fighter to show why, all else being equal, the fact that the modern
fighter is a "better athlete" would be meaningless in a head-to-head
competition with the '50s fighter.
This is an old, old topic around here, and nobody really has anything
new to add to this discussion. People are pretty much locked into their
opinions.
Mine is that *in general*, I think fighters are getting better through
time, due to the evolution of boxing techniques, the improvements in
diet and nutrition, in strength training, etc. Athletics are much
better today than ever before, and I think that naturally informs the
quality of the boxer. Standard Disclaimer: There are exceptions in
every weight class in every decade, of course.

Robert, it would be hard to discuss the argument in better terms than you
just did! When many people post to newsgroups only to display their grasp of
insults and not facts your post is wonderful.

[Robert Phillips]

Post by michel
Robert, it would be hard to discuss the argument in better terms than you
just did! When many people post to newsgroups only to display their grasp of
insults and not facts your post is wonderful.

Thanks, I appreciate that.
Be aware, though, that my post will generate some insults from people
who scoff at what I wrote, or at the very least, people will *think*
insulting thoughts because of it. ;)


Pie

[The Arranger]

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by michel
In any sport where there is impartial information available, the best of
yesterday can't match today's best. Just how well would Jesse Owen do today?
Not well at all. I doubt very much that Greb could even be a contender
today. Yes, reporters of his time were amazed at his skill, but irt was all
against opponents of his time.

While I agree with your basic premise, the problem with the way you said
it is, there *is* no "impartial information" about boxing. Opinion and
subjective judgement have always been a part of the sport.
The difference between boxing and other sports (like sprinting, which
you alluded to with your Jesse Owens reference) is that sprinting
consists of a single task, which is then evaluated according to
objective means - the stopwatch. Boxing, on the other hand, consists of
a near-infinite combination of tasks during any one match (much less
over the course of a career) and is NOT evaluated according to any
objective means (unless one fighter is KOed).
Boxing is also not affected (except at heavyweight) by the increase in
size of the athlete. In football, by comparison, size becomes a factor
in any theoretical game between a team from today and a team from the
'50s. In boxing, though, a middleweight is a middleweight; 160 pounds
today would be 160 pounds in the '50s, too.
That said, I think the burden of proof is still on the folks who would
defend the performance of older fighters to demonstrate why boxing is
immune to the general improvement in pure athletic ability, and why
boxing is immune to the otherwise near-universal fact that improved
athletics nearly always translates into improved performance at any of
the tasks within any one sport. That is, if a 160-pound fighter today
is a "better athlete" by any objective criteria than a 160-pound
fighgter from the 1950s, then the burden of proof is on the fan of the
'50s fighter to show why, all else being equal, the fact that the modern
fighter is a "better athlete" would be meaningless in a head-to-head
competition with the '50s fighter.
This is an old, old topic around here, and nobody really has anything
new to add to this discussion. People are pretty much locked into their
opinions.
Mine is that *in general*, I think fighters are getting better through
time, due to the evolution of boxing techniques, the improvements in
diet and nutrition, in strength training, etc. Athletics are much
better today than ever before, and I think that naturally informs the
quality of the boxer. Standard Disclaimer: There are exceptions in
every weight class in every decade, of course.
Pie

The mitigating factor here may be a lower participation rate and
outstanding athletes gravitating to other sports. Certainly the
lifting of the coilor barrier in baseball and the greater prominenbce
of professional foorball, basketball, tennis, golf, etc. gives top
athletes more choices nowadays. Also, the mountain of evidence that
boxing leads to brain damage obviously will have some sway pver
multi-talented athletes.

To what degree do these generally unemasurable factors offset the
demonstrable and quantifiable phenomenon of improved athletic
performance over time? I have no idea.

The Arranger

[iggy07450]

Post by The Arranger

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by michel
In any sport where there is impartial information available, the best of
yesterday can't match today's best. Just how well would Jesse Owen do today?
Not well at all. I doubt very much that Greb could even be a contender
today. Yes, reporters of his time were amazed at his skill, but irt was all
against opponents of his time.

While I agree with your basic premise, the problem with the way you said
it is, there *is* no "impartial information" about boxing. Opinion and
subjective judgement have always been a part of the sport.
The difference between boxing and other sports (like sprinting, which
you alluded to with your Jesse Owens reference) is that sprinting
consists of a single task, which is then evaluated according to
objective means - the stopwatch. Boxing, on the other hand, consists of
a near-infinite combination of tasks during any one match (much less
over the course of a career) and is NOT evaluated according to any
objective means (unless one fighter is KOed).
Boxing is also not affected (except at heavyweight) by the increase in
size of the athlete. In football, by comparison, size becomes a factor
in any theoretical game between a team from today and a team from the
'50s. In boxing, though, a middleweight is a middleweight; 160 pounds
today would be 160 pounds in the '50s, too.
That said, I think the burden of proof is still on the folks who would
defend the performance of older fighters to demonstrate why boxing is
immune to the general improvement in pure athletic ability, and why
boxing is immune to the otherwise near-universal fact that improved
athletics nearly always translates into improved performance at any of
the tasks within any one sport. That is, if a 160-pound fighter today
is a "better athlete" by any objective criteria than a 160-pound
fighgter from the 1950s, then the burden of proof is on the fan of the
'50s fighter to show why, all else being equal, the fact that the modern
fighter is a "better athlete" would be meaningless in a head-to-head
competition with the '50s fighter.
This is an old, old topic around here, and nobody really has anything
new to add to this discussion. People are pretty much locked into their
opinions.
Mine is that *in general*, I think fighters are getting better through
time, due to the evolution of boxing techniques, the improvements in
diet and nutrition, in strength training, etc. Athletics are much
better today than ever before, and I think that naturally informs the
quality of the boxer. Standard Disclaimer: There are exceptions in
every weight class in every decade, of course.
Pie

The mitigating factor here may be a lower participation rate and
outstanding athletes gravitating to other sports. Certainly the
lifting of the coilor barrier in baseball and the greater prominenbce
of professional foorball, basketball, tennis, golf, etc. gives top
athletes more choices nowadays. Also, the mountain of evidence that
boxing leads to brain damage obviously will have some sway pver
multi-talented athletes.
To what degree do these generally unemasurable factors offset the
demonstrable and quantifiable phenomenon of improved athletic
performance over time? I have no idea.
The Arranger

Well lets see.. gotta go to bat for Harry Greb. What an honor!!
Feel im in pretty good company picking a fighter from the past over a
"Modern" As a matter of fact there's not enough time to drive that
point home. However if you can get Ring Mag from Sept 1980 there's an
article by the late great Jack Fiske of the San Fran Chronicle titled
"Duran Greatest Lightweight?" This article has commentary from folks
such as, Eddie Futch/Ray Arcell/Freddy Brown/Don Dunphey/WC
Heinz/Teddy Brenner/Chris Dundee and my personal hero and fav Cus
D'Amato (anybody wanna question the boxing iq of these boys?) picking
MANY past fighters over Duran. Cus mentioned among others, favoring
Jack Blackburn over Duran at "135" quote " ..although i never saw him
fight i must pick him over Duran based on his record and listening to
folks i respected highly talk of his abilities.." quote...
Yes im picking Harry over Hagler based on his mind blowing
achievements as a fighting machine and the descriptions of the finest
boxing writers who ever lived such as Damon Runyon/Grantland
Rice/Westbrook Pegler/Hype Igoe/Nat Fleischer/Sam Taub et all and let
me not to leave out Harry's Pittsburgh crew Regis Welsh and Harry
Keck. As far as questioning my personal knowledge of the fight game, i
will gladly refer you to none other that my friend Hank Kaplan...ever
heard of him??
In closing i will again repeat
... That first fight with Vito....Yuck!! Harry wins!!

Ed

[michel]

Post by iggy07450

Post by The Arranger

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by michel
In any sport where there is impartial information available, the best of
yesterday can't match today's best. Just how well would Jesse Owen do today?
Not well at all. I doubt very much that Greb could even be a contender
today. Yes, reporters of his time were amazed at his skill, but irt was all
against opponents of his time.

While I agree with your basic premise, the problem with the way you said
it is, there *is* no "impartial information" about boxing. Opinion and
subjective judgement have always been a part of the sport.
The difference between boxing and other sports (like sprinting, which
you alluded to with your Jesse Owens reference) is that sprinting
consists of a single task, which is then evaluated according to
objective means - the stopwatch. Boxing, on the other hand, consists of
a near-infinite combination of tasks during any one match (much less
over the course of a career) and is NOT evaluated according to any
objective means (unless one fighter is KOed).
Boxing is also not affected (except at heavyweight) by the increase in
size of the athlete. In football, by comparison, size becomes a factor
in any theoretical game between a team from today and a team from the
'50s. In boxing, though, a middleweight is a middleweight; 160 pounds
today would be 160 pounds in the '50s, too.
That said, I think the burden of proof is still on the folks who would
defend the performance of older fighters to demonstrate why boxing is
immune to the general improvement in pure athletic ability, and why
boxing is immune to the otherwise near-universal fact that improved
athletics nearly always translates into improved performance at any of
the tasks within any one sport. That is, if a 160-pound fighter today
is a "better athlete" by any objective criteria than a 160-pound
fighgter from the 1950s, then the burden of proof is on the fan of the
'50s fighter to show why, all else being equal, the fact that the modern
fighter is a "better athlete" would be meaningless in a head-to-head
competition with the '50s fighter.
This is an old, old topic around here, and nobody really has anything
new to add to this discussion. People are pretty much locked into their
opinions.
Mine is that *in general*, I think fighters are getting better through
time, due to the evolution of boxing techniques, the improvements in
diet and nutrition, in strength training, etc. Athletics are much
better today than ever before, and I think that naturally informs the
quality of the boxer. Standard Disclaimer: There are exceptions in
every weight class in every decade, of course.
Pie

The mitigating factor here may be a lower participation rate and
outstanding athletes gravitating to other sports. Certainly the
lifting of the coilor barrier in baseball and the greater prominenbce
of professional foorball, basketball, tennis, golf, etc. gives top
athletes more choices nowadays. Also, the mountain of evidence that
boxing leads to brain damage obviously will have some sway pver
multi-talented athletes.
To what degree do these generally unemasurable factors offset the
demonstrable and quantifiable phenomenon of improved athletic
performance over time? I have no idea.
The Arranger

Well lets see.. gotta go to bat for Harry Greb. What an honor!!
Feel im in pretty good company picking a fighter from the past over a
"Modern" As a matter of fact there's not enough time to drive that
point home. However if you can get Ring Mag from Sept 1980 there's an
article by the late great Jack Fiske of the San Fran Chronicle titled
"Duran Greatest Lightweight?" This article has commentary from folks
such as, Eddie Futch/Ray Arcell/Freddy Brown/Don Dunphey/WC
Heinz/Teddy Brenner/Chris Dundee and my personal hero and fav Cus
D'Amato (anybody wanna question the boxing iq of these boys?) picking
MANY past fighters over Duran. Cus mentioned among others, favoring
Jack Blackburn over Duran at "135" quote " ..although i never saw him
fight i must pick him over Duran based on his record and listening to
folks i respected highly talk of his abilities.." quote...
Yes im picking Harry over Hagler based on his mind blowing
achievements as a fighting machine and the descriptions of the finest
boxing writers who ever lived such as Damon Runyon/Grantland
Rice/Westbrook Pegler/Hype Igoe/Nat Fleischer/Sam Taub et all and let
me not to leave out Harry's Pittsburgh crew Regis Welsh and Harry
Keck. As far as questioning my personal knowledge of the fight game, i
will gladly refer you to none other that my friend Hank Kaplan...ever
heard of him??
In closing i will again repeat
... That first fight with Vito....Yuck!! Harry wins!!

While I very much respect that the people you mention know a lot more about
boxing than I ever could, there are different opinions about any particular
fighter. Were that not the case, each of these pundits people would be quite
wealthy from betting on fights.

[Ivan Weiss]

Post by Robert Phillips
That is, if a 160-pound fighter today
is a "better athlete" by any objective criteria than a 160-pound
fighgter from the 1950s, then the burden of proof is on the fan of the
'50s fighter to show why, all else being equal, the fact that the modern
fighter is a "better athlete" would be meaningless in a head-to-head
competition with the '50s fighter.

No, the burden of proof is on *you* to show that the burden of proof is on
someone else. The idea that *you* decide where the burden of proof lies is
absurd on its face.

Post by Robert Phillips
This is an old, old topic around here, and nobody really has anything
new to add to this discussion. People are pretty much locked into their
opinions.
Mine is that *in general*, I think fighters are getting better through
time, due to the evolution of boxing techniques, the improvements in
diet and nutrition, in strength training, etc.

In general means dick when trying to evaluate a matchup between any two
*specific* fighters. So even though your entire screed is based on two false
premises, nice try. };->
--
Ivan Weiss http://www.twonewspapertown.org
Vashon WA http://www.ussmariner.blogspot.com
Proud to sponsor the Smead Jolley, Zeke Bonura, Dale Alexander,
and Bob Fothergill pages at http://www.baseball-reference.com

[Isaiah]

Post by Ivan Weiss

Post by Robert Phillips
That is, if a 160-pound fighter today
is a "better athlete" by any objective criteria than a 160-pound
fighgter from the 1950s, then the burden of proof is on the fan of the
'50s fighter to show why, all else being equal, the fact that the modern
fighter is a "better athlete" would be meaningless in a head-to-head
competition with the '50s fighter.

No, the burden of proof is on *you* to show that the burden of proof is on
someone else. The idea that *you* decide where the burden of proof lies is
absurd on its face.

He carried that burden in the part you snipped. To sum up, he said
that people who argue against general improvement are arguing that the
trends of a sport that can't be tracked objectively are different from
the trends of sports that can. Here's an analogy: If there was a
comparison of the temperature of 50 sites in a country from one year
to another and all of them showed a large increase, a reasonable
expectation would be that the unmeasured cities would also show an
increase. The burden of proof would be on the person claiming that
this or that spot is an exception.

Post by Ivan Weiss

Post by Robert Phillips
This is an old, old topic around here, and nobody really has anything
new to add to this discussion. People are pretty much locked into their
opinions.
Mine is that *in general*, I think fighters are getting better through
time, due to the evolution of boxing techniques, the improvements in
diet and nutrition, in strength training, etc.

In general means dick when trying to evaluate a matchup between any two
*specific* fighters.

No piece of true information "means dick." If Greb's opponents were
generally inferior to Hagler's, and we rated the fighters partly on
dominance, there would have to be an adjustment. I think the key to
the disagreement is that you don't rate fighters on how they compare
to their opponents but rather on your own visual impression. That's a
less reliable method, and your poor record of predicting fights
attests to that.


-Isaiah

[Robert Phillips]

Post by Ivan Weiss

Post by Robert Phillips
That is, if a 160-pound fighter today
is a "better athlete" by any objective criteria than a 160-pound
fighgter from the 1950s, then the burden of proof is on the fan of the
'50s fighter to show why, all else being equal, the fact that the modern
fighter is a "better athlete" would be meaningless in a head-to-head
competition with the '50s fighter.

No, the burden of proof is on *you* to show that the burden of proof is on
someone else. The idea that *you* decide where the burden of proof lies is
absurd on its face.

Well, in that case, the burden of proof is on *you* to show that the
burden of proof is on me to show that the burden of proof is on somebody
else. If the burden of proof can be passed around by those who don't
seem to want it, it can be passed around by those (like me!) who don't
need it, also.
Otherwise, for folks who actually bother to think about the issue rather
than play rhetorical games, I'll refer them to Isaiah's post, which
explains why the burden of proof is on the person claiming the exception
rather than the person claiming the generality.

Post by Ivan Weiss

Post by Robert Phillips
This is an old, old topic around here, and nobody really has anything
new to add to this discussion. People are pretty much locked into their
opinions.
Mine is that *in general*, I think fighters are getting better through
time, due to the evolution of boxing techniques, the improvements in
diet and nutrition, in strength training, etc.

In general means dick when trying to evaluate a matchup between any two
*specific* fighters.

Gee, Ivan, do you think - maybe - that my ending sentence, which you
conveniently snipped ("Standard Disclaimer: There are exceptions in
every weight class in every decade, of course.) might - just maybe -
cover matchups between specific fighters?
Is it possible? Do ya think that's possible? Just maybe?
I included that to prevent the idiotic comment you just made. I'd rap
gently on your forehead to see if anybody's home, but I wouldn't knock
your glasses off. You know, the glasses you use to filter out parts of
a post that you choose not to read. Like my last sentence, for instance.


Pie

[JK]

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by michel
In any sport where there is impartial information available, the best of
yesterday can't match today's best. Just how well would Jesse Owen do today?
Not well at all. I doubt very much that Greb could even be a contender
today. Yes, reporters of his time were amazed at his skill, but irt was all
against opponents of his time.

While I agree with your basic premise, the problem with the way you said
it is, there *is* no "impartial information" about boxing. Opinion and
subjective judgement have always been a part of the sport.
The difference between boxing and other sports (like sprinting, which
you alluded to with your Jesse Owens reference) is that sprinting
consists of a single task, which is then evaluated according to
objective means - the stopwatch. Boxing, on the other hand, consists of
a near-infinite combination of tasks during any one match (much less
over the course of a career) and is NOT evaluated according to any
objective means (unless one fighter is KOed).
Boxing is also not affected (except at heavyweight) by the increase in
size of the athlete. In football, by comparison, size becomes a factor
in any theoretical game between a team from today and a team from the
'50s. In boxing, though, a middleweight is a middleweight; 160 pounds
today would be 160 pounds in the '50s, too.
That said, I think the burden of proof is still on the folks who would
defend the performance of older fighters to demonstrate why boxing is
immune to the general improvement in pure athletic ability, and why
boxing is immune to the otherwise near-universal fact that improved
athletics nearly always translates into improved performance at any of
the tasks within any one sport. That is, if a 160-pound fighter today
is a "better athlete" by any objective criteria than a 160-pound
fighgter from the 1950s, then the burden of proof is on the fan of the
'50s fighter to show why, all else being equal, the fact that the modern
fighter is a "better athlete" would be meaningless in a head-to-head
competition with the '50s fighter.
This is an old, old topic around here, and nobody really has anything
new to add to this discussion. People are pretty much locked into their
opinions.
Mine is that *in general*, I think fighters are getting better through
time, due to the evolution of boxing techniques, the improvements in
diet and nutrition, in strength training, etc. Athletics are much
better today than ever before, and I think that naturally informs the
quality of the boxer. Standard Disclaimer: There are exceptions in
every weight class in every decade, of course.
Pie

Well said.. I even think I read somewhere that the human body gets smaller
and weaker as decades/centuries pass. Therefore if past athletes had today's
training techniques, wouldn't that make them better than todays athletes?

[Robert Phillips]

Post by JK
Well said.. I even think I read somewhere that the human body gets smaller
and weaker as decades/centuries pass. Therefore if past athletes had today's
training techniques, wouldn't that make them better than todays athletes?

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying you read somewhere. It's been
demonstrated fairly conclusively that humans have, on the average,
gotten larger since approximately the middle of the last century (1950s
or so). Studies worldwide of cultures worldwide have shown this to be
true and it's generally accepted that improvements in childhood
nutrition and medical care have caused (or contributed to) this,
although some people also point to the increased use of various hormones
in the animals that are used for food and milk.
I think it's also generally understood that modern-day humans are
*slightly* smaller (on the average) than were Cro-Magnons.
So again, perhaps you can clarify what you meant by "the human body gets
smaller and weaker as decades/centuries pass"...?


Pie

[JK]

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by JK
Well said.. I even think I read somewhere that the human body gets smaller
and weaker as decades/centuries pass. Therefore if past athletes had today's
training techniques, wouldn't that make them better than todays athletes?

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying you read somewhere. It's been
demonstrated fairly conclusively that humans have, on the average,
gotten larger since approximately the middle of the last century (1950s
or so). Studies worldwide of cultures worldwide have shown this to be
true and it's generally accepted that improvements in childhood
nutrition and medical care have caused (or contributed to) this,
although some people also point to the increased use of various hormones
in the animals that are used for food and milk.
I think it's also generally understood that modern-day humans are
*slightly* smaller (on the average) than were Cro-Magnons.
So again, perhaps you can clarify what you meant by "the human body gets
smaller and weaker as decades/centuries pass"...?
Pie

Beats me... that's why I said "I think I read....." I'm more or less bringing
up the point, not arguing it. Whatever it was, I thought it mentioned how the
bones get less dense but gain more marrow and even project people to weigh much
less and have larger heads.. E.T.!! :)

[5016]

Post by JK

Post by Robert Phillips
Mine is that *in general*, I think fighters are getting better through
time, due to the evolution of boxing techniques, the improvements in
diet and nutrition, in strength training, etc. Athletics are much
better today than ever before, and I think that naturally informs the
quality of the boxer. Standard Disclaimer: There are exceptions in
every weight class in every decade, of course.
Pie

Well said.. I even think I read somewhere that the human body gets smaller
and weaker as decades/centuries pass. Therefore if past athletes had today's
training techniques, wouldn't that make them better than todays athletes?

This would be significant if true, but it isn't true. People in
general have got bigger and stronger during civilized times. There is
a wealth of anthropological/archaelogical evidence on this topic.

However, like all evolutionary patterns, it isn't all one way.
Certainly, for instance, people in urban areas in industrial societies
became smaller and weaker in the 19th century than they were prior to
the industrial revolution. But in general the pattern is pretty clear.

[Robert Phillips]

Post by 5016
This would be significant if true, but it isn't true. People in
general have got bigger and stronger during civilized times. There is
a wealth of anthropological/archaelogical evidence on this topic.
However, like all evolutionary patterns, it isn't all one way.
Certainly, for instance, people in urban areas in industrial societies
became smaller and weaker in the 19th century than they were prior to
the industrial revolution. But in general the pattern is pretty clear.

That's a much longer period of time than I was talking about, but okay...


Pie

[iggy07450]

"Record holder of the fastball, at 107.9 Miles Per Hour, Bob Feller is
84 years old"

Not to claim the above stat is etched in stone but just as surely as
Fellers fastball would be highly effective vs today's very best, Harry
Grebs bouncing windmill get hit and fight back harder, attack from 90
degree angel with blinding speed style would be the answer to Haglers
slo foot plow ahead and slug M-O. Sugar Ray showed the style to beat
Marvin and Greb in his prime would certainly be the man to outdo that
effort and win!

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by 5016
This would be significant if true, but it isn't true. People in
general have got bigger and stronger during civilized times. There is
a wealth of anthropological/archaelogical evidence on this topic.
However, like all evolutionary patterns, it isn't all one way.
Certainly, for instance, people in urban areas in industrial societies
became smaller and weaker in the 19th century than they were prior to
the industrial revolution. But in general the pattern is pretty clear.

That's a much longer period of time than I was talking about, but okay...
Pie

[Robert Phillips]

Post by iggy07450
"Record holder of the fastball, at 107.9 Miles Per Hour, Bob Feller is
84 years old"
Not to claim the above stat is etched in stone

Good, because it's not. There's no substantial evidence of Feller's claim.

Post by iggy07450
Sugar Ray showed the style to beat
Marvin and Greb in his prime would certainly be the man to outdo that
effort and win!

Yes, yes, we know, because the great boxing writers of the day described
him that way.


Pie

[iggy07450]

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by iggy07450
"Record holder of the fastball, at 107.9 Miles Per Hour, Bob Feller is
84 years old"
Not to claim the above stat is etched in stone

Good, because it's not. There's no substantial evidence of Feller's claim.

Post by iggy07450
Sugar Ray showed the style to beat
Marvin and Greb in his prime would certainly be the man to outdo that
effort and win!

Yes, yes, we know, because the great boxing writers of the day described
him that way.

Ok buddy now its on you to disprove it!! Just as Feller (and MANY
others) had modern abilities, so did Greb. Also my posts mentioned
MUCH film of Greb victims and the evaluating it allows you to do. Ever
see Walker vs Sharkey? Well just think of Harry kicking Micks ass well
past his prime and half blind! And exactly what makes my thorough
familiarization with the fighting style of Greb irrelevant because it
comes from what I've read and had described to me buy people who saw
him, as opposed to seeing myself?? If this methodology is now
officially irrelevant so too is 3/4 of all recorded fuckin history!!!
Ed
Feller's hitless opener still stands after 60 years
By MIKE LESKO
Staff Writer
April 13, 2000
....later in the 1940 season, also in Chicago, the speed of Feller's
famed fastball was timed — by a motorcycle. Footage of the curious
event can be seen at the Baseball Hall of Fame.
In a stunt near Chicago's Wrigley Field, Feller was supposed to wind
up and throw a baseball at a target as a motorcycle sped by. The
motorcycle was traveling at 86 mph.
"It was difficult to take your wind-up and release the ball just as
the motorcycle was going by," Feller said. "But it was a warm day, and
I hit the bull's-eye on the first attempt. I just lucked into throwing
the ball where I wanted to on the first try.
"The motorcycle was past me by about 10 feet when I released the ball.
The ball caught up with the motorcycle and went by it. The ball gained
13 feet on the motorcycle. They determined that the ball was moving at
about 120 feet a second."
The speed of the pitch was calculated at 104 mph.
That wasn't the fastest clocking on a Feller fastball. In 1946, the
Washington Senators staged an event at Griffith Stadium in Washington,
D.C., prior to a night game.
About 37,000 fans scurried to the stadium to watch Feller hurl pitches
through a 3-foot-wide contraption containing electric cells that was
placed on top of home plate to measure the speed of the pitches.
The pitches had to travel through boards made of pine. Tribe bullpen
catcher George Suche was behind them.
Feller was timed at 107 mph, which remains the swiftest clocking ever.








[Robert Phillips]

Post by iggy07450
Ok buddy now its on you to disprove it!!

There's no "proving" either way. There's no "proof" in your collection
of boxing writers who described Greb however they described him.

Post by iggy07450
"The motorcycle was past me by about 10 feet when I released the ball.
The ball caught up with the motorcycle and went by it. The ball gained
13 feet on the motorcycle. They determined that the ball was moving at
about 120 feet a second."
The speed of the pitch was calculated at 104 mph.

You can't possibly place any substantial faith on anything conducted
with such a sore lack of scientific rigor.

Post by iggy07450
About 37,000 fans scurried to the stadium to watch Feller hurl pitches
through a 3-foot-wide contraption containing electric cells that was
placed on top of home plate to measure the speed of the pitches.
The pitches had to travel through boards made of pine. Tribe bullpen
catcher George Suche was behind them.
Feller was timed at 107 mph, which remains the swiftest clocking ever.

If this was a reliable method of determining speed, don't you think
they'd still be using it?

Your faith in the myths and stories of your youth is not unique around here.


Pie

[Mike Haught]

In article <Mrwlb.14525$***@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Robert Phillips
says...

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by iggy07450
Ok buddy now its on you to disprove it!!

There's no "proving" either way. There's no "proof" in your collection
of boxing writers who described Greb however they described him.

Post by iggy07450
"The motorcycle was past me by about 10 feet when I released the ball.
The ball caught up with the motorcycle and went by it. The ball gained
13 feet on the motorcycle. They determined that the ball was moving at
about 120 feet a second."
The speed of the pitch was calculated at 104 mph.

You can't possibly place any substantial faith on anything conducted
with such a sore lack of scientific rigor.

I guess mathematicians whose many correct calculations by crude methods of a few
decades or centuries ago are full of it by your argument.

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by iggy07450
About 37,000 fans scurried to the stadium to watch Feller hurl pitches
through a 3-foot-wide contraption containing electric cells that was
placed on top of home plate to measure the speed of the pitches.
The pitches had to travel through boards made of pine. Tribe bullpen
catcher George Suche was behind them.
Feller was timed at 107 mph, which remains the swiftest clocking ever.

If this was a reliable method of determining speed, don't you think
they'd still be using it?

It was probably state of the art at the time. Radar won't be what is used to
calculate speed of pitches one day. I guess by your argument, this will
invalidate all clocked pitches of the last 30 or so years.

Post by Robert Phillips
Your faith in the myths and stories of your youth is not unique around here.
Pie

You try too hard. So hard that you can't even recognize when you chase your
own tail in debates. I had a smart guy tell me that a person's first great
warning sign to return to earth (i.e. reality) is when they become impressed
with their own intelligence. You certainly fit that profile.

-mwh

[michel]

Post by Mike Haught
says...

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by iggy07450
Ok buddy now its on you to disprove it!!

There's no "proving" either way. There's no "proof" in your collection
of boxing writers who described Greb however they described him.

Post by iggy07450
"The motorcycle was past me by about 10 feet when I released the ball.
The ball caught up with the motorcycle and went by it. The ball gained
13 feet on the motorcycle. They determined that the ball was moving at
about 120 feet a second."
The speed of the pitch was calculated at 104 mph.

You can't possibly place any substantial faith on anything conducted
with such a sore lack of scientific rigor.

I guess mathematicians whose many correct calculations by crude methods of a few
decades or centuries ago are full of it by your argument.

One person describing how fabulous he is doesn't even qualify as a "crude
method".

[Robert Phillips]

Post by Zroaster
Phillips

Post by Mike Haught
says...

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by iggy07450
Ok buddy now its on you to disprove it!!

There's no "proving" either way. There's no "proof" in your collection
of boxing writers who described Greb however they described him.

Post by iggy07450
"The motorcycle was past me by about 10 feet when I released the ball.
The ball caught up with the motorcycle and went by it. The ball gained
13 feet on the motorcycle. They determined that the ball was moving at
about 120 feet a second."
The speed of the pitch was calculated at 104 mph.

You can't possibly place any substantial faith on anything conducted
with such a sore lack of scientific rigor.

I guess mathematicians whose many correct calculations by crude methods of

a few

Post by Mike Haught
decades or centuries ago are full of it by your argument.

One person describing how fabulous he is doesn't even qualify as a "crude
method".

Mike still reads me.
*sniff*
That's so sweet.


Pie

[Mike Haught]

In article <85ylb.14548$***@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Robert Phillips
says...

Post by Robert Phillips
Mike still reads me.
*sniff*
That's so sweet.
Pie

Everyone needs an occasional chuckle. The absurdity of some of your posts can
make anyone feel good about themselves or make a Trick or Treater walk through
10 miles of bad neighborhood just to skip your apartment complex.

-mwh

[michel]

Post by Mike Haught
says...

Post by Robert Phillips
Mike still reads me.
*sniff*
That's so sweet.
Pie

Everyone needs an occasional chuckle. The absurdity of some of your posts can
make anyone feel good about themselves or make a Trick or Treater walk through
10 miles of bad neighborhood just to skip your apartment complex.

His posts are mostly filled with well-constructed arguments. Your posts are
mostly filled with hollow wisecracks.

[Mike Haught]

Post by Zroaster
Phillips

Post by Mike Haught
says...

Post by Robert Phillips
Mike still reads me.
*sniff*
That's so sweet.
Pie

Everyone needs an occasional chuckle. The absurdity of some of your posts

can

Post by Mike Haught
make anyone feel good about themselves or make a Trick or Treater walk

through

Post by Mike Haught
10 miles of bad neighborhood just to skip your apartment complex.

His posts are mostly filled with well-constructed arguments. Your posts are
mostly filled with hollow wisecracks.

Pie didn't disprove that the methods may have been fairly accurate in testing
Feller's fastball. He more or less just used a lot of words ridiculing it.

Some arguments deserve thought out replies. Some aren't worth more effort than
to simply tell the person that they can be just as impressed with themselves
without typing voluminous essays to provide their own self worth. But if you
appreciate that kind of thing, so be it. To me, it wasn't worth more than a
wisecrack.

And Pie or yourself still have not provided a thing that shows the testing
methods were grossly inaccurate.

-mwh

[michel]

Post by Mike Haught

Post by Zroaster
Phillips

Post by Mike Haught
says...

Post by Robert Phillips
Mike still reads me.
*sniff*
That's so sweet.
Pie

Everyone needs an occasional chuckle. The absurdity of some of your posts

can

Post by Mike Haught
make anyone feel good about themselves or make a Trick or Treater walk

through

Post by Mike Haught
10 miles of bad neighborhood just to skip your apartment complex.

His posts are mostly filled with well-constructed arguments. Your posts are
mostly filled with hollow wisecracks.

Pie didn't disprove that the methods may have been fairly accurate in testing
Feller's fastball. He more or less just used a lot of words ridiculing it.
Some arguments deserve thought out replies. Some aren't worth more effort than
to simply tell the person that they can be just as impressed with themselves
without typing voluminous essays to provide their own self worth. But if you
appreciate that kind of thing, so be it. To me, it wasn't worth more than a
wisecrack.
And Pie or yourself still have not provided a thing that shows the testing
methods were grossly inaccurate.

You consider some guy writing how fast he pitches to be an accurate measure?

[Mike Haught]

Post by michel

Post by Mike Haught
And Pie or yourself still have not provided a thing that shows the testing
methods were grossly inaccurate.

You consider some guy writing how fast he pitches to be an accurate measure?

I didn't say that. I have read a couple of pieces which documented studies of
the methods used in these instances. It was pointed out that, as crude as the
methods were, they were probably accurate within 3 or 4 mph. These were
scientists who make these kinds of calculations for a living. You and Pie
saying the methods were FOS with no evidence place both of you in the hollow
wiseass catagory.

Pie replied with some snide comments about the methods of measurement and not
much else. I replied with a "wisecrack" pointing out that he used an awful lot
of words and basically said not much at all. More or less his post was a long,
boring "wisecrack." Occasionally I reply to a Pie post, more out of amusement
at his own delusional sense of debating skills than anything else.

You obviously are in his fan club. Now Pie has someone to talk to in the
meetings.

-mwh

[michel]

Post by Mike Haught

Post by michel

Post by Mike Haught
And Pie or yourself still have not provided a thing that shows the testing
methods were grossly inaccurate.

You consider some guy writing how fast he pitches to be an accurate measure?

I didn't say that. I have read a couple of pieces which documented studies of
the methods used in these instances.

Care to share?

[Mike Haught]

Post by Mike Haught

Post by Mike Haught

Post by michel

Post by Mike Haught
And Pie or yourself still have not provided a thing that shows the

testing

Post by Mike Haught

Post by michel

Post by Mike Haught
methods were grossly inaccurate.

You consider some guy writing how fast he pitches to be an accurate

measure?

Post by Mike Haught
I didn't say that. I have read a couple of pieces which documented

studies of

Post by Mike Haught
the methods used in these instances.

Care to share?

I'll try to find the sources. They were pieces written, one in my high school
years (mid-late 1970s) and another that I read as a young adult. The latter
piece was mainly about Nolan Ryan's fastball late into his career and how he
compared to other fireballers.

If I find them online, I'll post the sources.

-mwh

[michel]

Post by Mike Haught

Post by Mike Haught

Post by Mike Haught

Post by michel

Post by Mike Haught
And Pie or yourself still have not provided a thing that shows the

testing

Post by Mike Haught

Post by michel

Post by Mike Haught
methods were grossly inaccurate.

You consider some guy writing how fast he pitches to be an accurate

measure?

Post by Mike Haught
I didn't say that. I have read a couple of pieces which documented

studies of

Post by Mike Haught
the methods used in these instances.

Care to share?

I'll try to find the sources. They were pieces written, one in my high school
years (mid-late 1970s) and another that I read as a young adult. The latter
piece was mainly about Nolan Ryan's fastball late into his career and how he
compared to other fireballers.
If I find them online, I'll post the sources.

Thanks Mike. at least we'll know what were arguing about!

[SkippyPB]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:17:42 GMT, Mike

Post by Mike Haught

Post by Mike Haught

Post by Mike Haught

Post by michel

Post by Mike Haught
And Pie or yourself still have not provided a thing that shows the

testing

Post by Mike Haught

Post by michel

Post by Mike Haught
methods were grossly inaccurate.

You consider some guy writing how fast he pitches to be an accurate

measure?

Post by Mike Haught
I didn't say that. I have read a couple of pieces which documented

studies of

Post by Mike Haught
the methods used in these instances.

Care to share?

I'll try to find the sources. They were pieces written, one in my high school
years (mid-late 1970s) and another that I read as a young adult. The latter
piece was mainly about Nolan Ryan's fastball late into his career and how he
compared to other fireballers.
If I find them online, I'll post the sources.
-mwh

There's a very good article at:

http://baseball-almanac.com/articles/fastest-pitcher-in-baseball.shtml

This talks about how Feller's ball was timed and the whole who has/had
the fastest pitched ball.

Regards,

////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"There's nothing wrong with you that reincarnation
won't cure."
----- Jack E. Leonard
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

[Mike Haught]

Post by SkippyPB

Post by Mike Haught

Post by michel
Care to share?

I'll try to find the sources. They were pieces written, one in my high school
years (mid-late 1970s) and another that I read as a young adult. The latter
piece was mainly about Nolan Ryan's fastball late into his career and how he
compared to other fireballers.
If I find them online, I'll post the sources.
-mwh

http://baseball-almanac.com/articles/fastest-pitcher-in-baseball.shtml
This talks about how Feller's ball was timed and the whole who has/had
the fastest pitched ball.
Regards,

I found that one. Not quite what I am looking for. But, IIRC, does speak to
the photoelectric cells sued to measure Feller's pitch.

-mwh

[Robert Phillips]

Post by SkippyPB
http://baseball-almanac.com/articles/fastest-pitcher-in-baseball.shtml
This talks about how Feller's ball was timed and the whole who has/had
the fastest pitched ball.

Geez, am I talking to myself here? I've posted and referred to that
link twice already! :)


Pie

[Robert Phillips]

Post by Robert Phillips
Geez, am I talking to myself here? I've posted and referred to that
link twice already! :)
Pie

PS. That was the post I was referring to, the one Mike avoided
responding to when he instead just repeated that all I did was ridicule
the Feller claim without really responding to it. That site casts
serious doubt on the Feller claim, if only by demonstrating how muddled
the claims are regarding speed, location, and measuring technique.
In other words, I wasn't just speaking from personal bias.
I wonder if Mike could make that claim.

Actually, I don't.


Pie

[Robert Phillips]

Post by michel

Post by Mike Haught
Pie didn't disprove that the methods may have been fairly accurate in
testing Feller's fastball. He more or less just used a lot of words ridiculing
it.

You must have missed the post where I spent a little bit more time
discussing it. If you'd call THAT "ridiculing" it, you're revealing
your bias. I have a feeling Google would tell me you didn't even try to
respond to that one.

Post by michel

Post by Mike Haught
And Pie or yourself still have not provided a thing that shows the testing
methods were grossly inaccurate.

Again, you're revealing your bias. Nowhere did I claim, or attempt to
provide, anything to suggest that the testing methods were "grossly
inaccurate." But when you're talking about sports numbers and records
with sports fans, the difference between 104mph and 98mph (for instance)
is profound. No way would I suggest that Feller didn't have a
spectacular fastball, at least relative to his peers and possibly even
relative to today's pitchers. But I'm skeptical of any claim that makes
it *that* extraordinary relative to his peers, and I'm especially
skeptical of any claim that makes him *that* spectacular relative to his
successors, given the measurable gains and improvements that athletes
have made virtually across the board in other areas. I know you're
hostile to the "athletes are better today" argument, but I have a very
hard time believing that pitching velocity peaked about 60 years ago,
given the improvements in virtually every other area of athletic
performance in general and baseball capability specifically.

I wasn't interested in demonstrating that the testing methods were
"grossly inaccurate." That's something you've invented in your usual
kneejerk hostility to anything I write about any topic. The testing
methods might have been "almost" accurate, and that margin of error
might not matter to you. But that probable margin of error, whatever it
was, was very likely, given the totality of evidence which I introduced
in the post you couldn't bring yourself to respond to (according to
Google) enough to bring Feller's fastball down from the
extreme-to-absurd 104 or 107.9 range, to the much more reasonable
80s-to-low 90s range.

Post by michel
You consider some guy writing how fast he pitches to be an accurate measure?

*shrug*


Pie

[Mike Haught]

In article <OBSlb.25350$***@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Robert Phillips
says...

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by michel

Post by Mike Haught
Pie didn't disprove that the methods may have been fairly accurate in
testing Feller's fastball. He more or less just used a lot of words ridiculing
it.

You must have missed the post where I spent a little bit more time
discussing it. If you'd call THAT "ridiculing" it, you're revealing
your bias. I have a feeling Google would tell me you didn't even try to
respond to that one.

Your words:

"You can't possibly place any substantial faith on anything conducted
with such a sore lack of scientific rigor."

"If this was a reliable method of determining speed, don't you think
they'd still be using it?"

"Your faith in the myths and stories of your youth is not unique around here."

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by michel

Post by Mike Haught
And Pie or yourself still have not provided a thing that shows the testing
methods were grossly inaccurate.

Again, you're revealing your bias. Nowhere did I claim, or attempt to
provide, anything to suggest that the testing methods were "grossly
inaccurate." But when you're talking about sports numbers and records
with sports fans, the difference between 104mph and 98mph (for instance)
is profound. No way would I suggest that Feller didn't have a
spectacular fastball, at least relative to his peers and possibly even
relative to today's pitchers. But I'm skeptical of any claim that makes
it *that* extraordinary relative to his peers, and I'm especially
skeptical of any claim that makes him *that* spectacular relative to his
successors, given the measurable gains and improvements that athletes
have made virtually across the board in other areas. I know you're
hostile to the "athletes are better today" argument, but I have a very
hard time believing that pitching velocity peaked about 60 years ago,
given the improvements in virtually every other area of athletic
performance in general and baseball capability specifically.

OK, be skeptical. But don't deny what you said, OK?

Your words:

"You can't possibly place any substantial faith on anything conducted
with such a sore lack of scientific rigor."

"If this was a reliable method of determining speed, don't you think
they'd still be using it?"

"Your faith in the myths and stories of your youth is not unique around here."

Post by Robert Phillips
I wasn't interested in demonstrating that the testing methods were
"grossly inaccurate." That's something you've invented in your usual
kneejerk hostility to anything I write about any topic. The testing
methods might have been "almost" accurate, and that margin of error
might not matter to you. But that probable margin of error, whatever it
was, was very likely, given the totality of evidence which I introduced
in the post you couldn't bring yourself to respond to (according to
Google) enough to bring Feller's fastball down from the
extreme-to-absurd 104 or 107.9 range, to the much more reasonable
80s-to-low 90s range.

Your words:

"You can't possibly place any substantial faith on anything conducted
with such a sore lack of scientific rigor."

"If this was a reliable method of determining speed, don't you think
they'd still be using it?"

"Your faith in the myths and stories of your youth is not unique around here."

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by michel
You consider some guy writing how fast he pitches to be an accurate measure?

*shrug*
Pie

Heh-heh. The "yawn" or "shrug" usually happens when your words trip you up.

-mwh

[Robert Phillips]

Post by michel
His posts are mostly filled with well-constructed arguments.

Thanks, I appreciate that.
Actually, Mike and I used to be quite friendly years ago here in RSB.
But over a period of time, his anti-RJJ bias became so extreme that it
became ludicrous, and it got to the point where the guy was just
scraping the bottom of the rhetorical barrel when it came to RJJ
discussions. I wasn't able to take him seriously anymore, and after
about the 200th time he insulted Jones in a discussion that previously
had nothing to do with him, I ended up killfiling him.
Threads like this demonstrate that it was mostly a wise decision,
although I see from other people quoting him that he occasionally does
manage some interesting points on other topics. He hasn't done so in
this thread, of course; according to Google he's offered very little to
this discussion except the usual insults of me.


Pie

[Mike Haught]

In article <_CSlb.25363$***@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Robert Phillips
says...

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by michel
His posts are mostly filled with well-constructed arguments.

Thanks, I appreciate that.
Actually, Mike and I used to be quite friendly years ago here in RSB.
But over a period of time, his anti-RJJ bias became so extreme that it
became ludicrous, and it got to the point where the guy was just
scraping the bottom of the rhetorical barrel when it came to RJJ
discussions. I wasn't able to take him seriously anymore, and after
about the 200th time he insulted Jones in a discussion that previously
had nothing to do with him, I ended up killfiling him.
Threads like this demonstrate that it was mostly a wise decision,
although I see from other people quoting him that he occasionally does
manage some interesting points on other topics. He hasn't done so in
this thread, of course; according to Google he's offered very little to
this discussion except the usual insults of me.
Pie

LOL, old boy. Your disinterested, take the high road act again? Sometime you
should remember what you post.

If you remember, I've always been one to call b.s. just that, b.s. If that
applies to you when I decide to check out one of your posts, then you may want
to add a little substance to the 1000 word essays. If you get caught with a
b.s. throw away line, don't whine.

You're puffed up pontificating is still good for the occasional chuckle BTW.

-mwh

[michel]

Post by Mike Haught
If you remember, I've always been one to call b.s. just that, b.s.

So you decide what's b.s.? A touch of megalomania perhaps?

[Mike Haught]

Post by michel

Post by Mike Haught
If you remember, I've always been one to call b.s. just that, b.s.

So you decide what's b.s.? A touch of megalomania perhaps?

A) Yes and B) No

-mwh
p.s. Are you any relation to SuperCalo?

[michel]

Post by Mike Haught

Post by michel

Post by Mike Haught
If you remember, I've always been one to call b.s. just that, b.s.

So you decide what's b.s.? A touch of megalomania perhaps?

A) Yes and B) No
-mwh
p.s. Are you any relation to SuperCalo?

No, but maybe my cousin Mediocre Calo knows him.

[Robert Phillips]

Damn, I hit 'send' on that previous post too soon.

Post by Zroaster
Phillips

Post by Mike Haught
says...

Post by Robert Phillips
You can't possibly place any substantial faith on anything conducted
with such a sore lack of scientific rigor.

I guess mathematicians whose many correct calculations by crude methods of a few
decades or centuries ago are full of it by your argument.

Not if their measurements and calculations can be verified using more
modern techniques today.
Any measurement of Feller's fastball that used that method, though,
can't be verified today using more accurate methods, and so can't be
lumped in with other early measurements that can be. The fallacy you
seem to be operating under is that since Feller was measured with that
technique during a time when other non-baseball measurements were made
which turned out to be accurate even with subsequent, more modern
methods of measurement, the method which measured Feller must therefore
be accurate and valid as well. That's false reasoning and I'm sure that
with a less emotional reaction to the fact that I'm the one saying so,
you'll agree.

Post by Zroaster
One person describing how fabulous he is doesn't even qualify as a "crude
method".

I found several sites which said that Feller "claimed" to have been
clocked at 104, and other sites which said that Feller "claimed" to have
been clocked at another site at another time at 107.9 or something.
Still other sites mentioned that the electric-cell stunt took place not
at Griffith Stadium but at Lincoln Park in Chicago. From such sites,
it's not altogether clear that there was any consistency to Feller's
claims, or to any claims made on his behalf.

This site:

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/fastest-pitcher-in-baseball.shtml

in fact states that during the Griffith Stadium demonstration, Feller
"claimed" that he was clocked at 107.9. It attaches the 104mph
measurement not to Griffith Stadium but to a demonstration at Lincoln
Park in Chicago.
This same site claims that Feller's speed was calculated at 98.6 during
one of those "motorcycle contests."
During a Cleveland exhibition of a "photo-electric pitching meter,"
Feller achieved results which translates into a paltry 81mph. Other
pitchers who tried it achieved results of anywhere from 83 to 86mph.
It's reported on that site that according to the developers of that
device, there were few comparable tests to use as a comparison, but one
such test using a different device indicated that Walter Johnson reached
91mph, Christy Mathewson 86mph, and Joe Wood 85mph. These speeds seem
low to us now, based on what we've been told, but they're not
unreasonably slow. One wonders what the margin of error is on a
technique that has long since been replaced by more reliable techniques.

The point is not simply another random game of insult-the-oldies. The
point is healthy skepticism of extraordinary claims. When there are
competing and contradictory claims, and reasonable suspicion of them
based on other evidence, the default position should be not blind
acceptance of those claims, but doubt pending further evidence. And
unfortunately, there will never be any more evidence to be found about
Bob Feller's fastball.
Guinness isn't to be taken as an infallible authority. But they use
rigourous methods that need a certain degree of either repeatable
results, and/or independently measurable observation, and/or results
using methods that are clearly stated beforehand. That's commendable.

Remember: skepticism isn't a position. It's a method.


Pie

[5016]

Post by Robert Phillips
Damn, I hit 'send' on that previous post too soon.

Post by Zroaster
Phillips

Post by Mike Haught
says...

Post by Robert Phillips
You can't possibly place any substantial faith on anything conducted
with such a sore lack of scientific rigor.

I guess mathematicians whose many correct calculations by crude methods of a few
decades or centuries ago are full of it by your argument.

Not if their measurements and calculations can be verified using more
modern techniques today.
Any measurement of Feller's fastball that used that method, though,
can't be verified today using more accurate methods, and so can't be
lumped in with other early measurements that can be. The fallacy you
seem to be operating under is that since Feller was measured with that
technique during a time when other non-baseball measurements were made
which turned out to be accurate even with subsequent, more modern
methods of measurement, the method which measured Feller must therefore
be accurate and valid as well. That's false reasoning and I'm sure that
with a less emotional reaction to the fact that I'm the one saying so,
you'll agree.

Not disagreeing with you here, but I think that it is important to
remember at around this time people were able to split the atom,
measure the speed of light and measure relativistic effects. They
would be perfectly able to measure the speed of a baseball if they had
chosen to. The problem is not the advance in techniques, but that they
clearly didn't put much effort into devising a good experiment in this
case. If this test had been conducted by a physicist and written up in
Nature in 1940, then I would certainly believe it. But it wasn't - it
was a few guys messing around with a baseball and a motorcycle as a
stunt.

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by Zroaster
One person describing how fabulous he is doesn't even qualify as a "crude
method".

I found several sites which said that Feller "claimed" to have been
clocked at 104, and other sites which said that Feller "claimed" to have
been clocked at another site at another time at 107.9 or something.
Still other sites mentioned that the electric-cell stunt took place not
at Griffith Stadium but at Lincoln Park in Chicago. From such sites,
it's not altogether clear that there was any consistency to Feller's
claims, or to any claims made on his behalf.
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/fastest-pitcher-in-baseball.shtml
in fact states that during the Griffith Stadium demonstration, Feller
"claimed" that he was clocked at 107.9. It attaches the 104mph
measurement not to Griffith Stadium but to a demonstration at Lincoln
Park in Chicago.
This same site claims that Feller's speed was calculated at 98.6 during
one of those "motorcycle contests."
During a Cleveland exhibition of a "photo-electric pitching meter,"
Feller achieved results which translates into a paltry 81mph. Other
pitchers who tried it achieved results of anywhere from 83 to 86mph.
It's reported on that site that according to the developers of that
device, there were few comparable tests to use as a comparison, but one
such test using a different device indicated that Walter Johnson reached
91mph, Christy Mathewson 86mph, and Joe Wood 85mph. These speeds seem
low to us now, based on what we've been told, but they're not
unreasonably slow. One wonders what the margin of error is on a
technique that has long since been replaced by more reliable techniques.
The point is not simply another random game of insult-the-oldies. The
point is healthy skepticism of extraordinary claims. When there are
competing and contradictory claims, and reasonable suspicion of them
based on other evidence, the default position should be not blind
acceptance of those claims, but doubt pending further evidence. And
unfortunately, there will never be any more evidence to be found about
Bob Feller's fastball.
Guinness isn't to be taken as an infallible authority. But they use
rigourous methods that need a certain degree of either repeatable
results, and/or independently measurable observation, and/or results
using methods that are clearly stated beforehand. That's commendable.
Remember: skepticism isn't a position. It's a method.

Excellent explanation of the scientific method. Well done. There is a
magazine called the "Skeptical Inquirer" that specializes in this kind
of thing and is worth reading.

How come you're always allied with the religious nutcases when you can
think rationally like this ? :-)

Post by Robert Phillips
Pie

[Robert Phillips]

Post by 5016

Post by Robert Phillips
Not if their measurements and calculations can be verified using more
modern techniques today.

Not disagreeing with you here, but I think that it is important to
remember at around this time people were able to split the atom,
measure the speed of light and measure relativistic effects. They
would be perfectly able to measure the speed of a baseball if they had
chosen to. The problem is not the advance in techniques, but that they
clearly didn't put much effort into devising a good experiment in this
case. If this test had been conducted by a physicist and written up in
Nature in 1940, then I would certainly believe it. But it wasn't - it
was a few guys messing around with a baseball and a motorcycle as a
stunt.

I agree that it's likely - if not a given - that Feller's fastball could
have been reliably timed with methods that even today would be
considered reliable and scientifically valid.
The point is, it wasn't. Baseball, like any sport, engenders great
emotional attachments. Numbers mean something: 56, 755, 511. Those
are all specific, landmark achievements that every moderate baseball fan
should recognize instantly. We grow up hearing about those numbers.
(For non-fans, those numbers represent Joe Dimaggio's 56-game hitting
streak; Hank Aaron's career homeruns; and pitcher Cy Young's career
pitching victories, respectively, all all-time records.)
But in addition to specific numbers, there are numbers that are
considered benchmarks: .300 batting average (or .400, for that matter);
20 wins in a season for pitchers; and the 100-mph fastball. Those
numbers make people talk. Winning 19 games isn't nearly as special as
winning 20, although the margin is only one game and might not be
determined by the pitcher himself in many cases. Hitting .299 doesn't
sound nearly as good as calling a guy a .300 hitter. And throwing at
98mph is damn fast, but isn't nearly as impressive as saying that
somebody has/had a 100-mph fastball. Fans take these numbers seriously,
and they don't take well to people claiming them where they're not
warranted. An 18-game winning pitcher who rounds up and calls himself a
20-game winner...well, it just doesn't happen. Writers and fans can
call him a guy who's capable of winning 20, but they don't dare play
around with numbers like that. They know better. Similarly, it's taken
seriously when you claim to have a 100mph fastball. Because it's such a
landmark number, people will almost automatically assume you're either
estimating, or exaggerating. I'll even go out on a limb that any kid
who grows up reading a Guinness book (as I did) remembers that Nolan
Ryan holds the "official" record even though it's been surpassed on
occasions considered mostly reliable.
So for Bob Feller to go around claiming that he was once timed at 104,
or 107.9, or for guys like Iggy to go around claiming it like it's
carved in stone (even if he admits that it might not be), people react.
There's an instinctive "yeah, right..." factor. So I debunked the
claim. Maybe not conclusively, but no less conclusive than the claim(s)
being debunked. I have nothing against Feller personally. In fact, I
don't particulary consider myself the baseball fan I was describing
above. I have a lot of factual knowledge (IMO) about the game and its
history, but my affection and enthusiasm for it have been bled almost
dry by the thugs wearing the gloves and swinging the bats.

Post by 5016

Post by Robert Phillips
Remember: skepticism isn't a position. It's a method.

Excellent explanation of the scientific method. Well done. There is a
magazine called the "Skeptical Inquirer" that specializes in this kind
of thing and is worth reading.

I read 'Skeptical Inquirer' just about every issue, though I don't hold
a subscription. :) (I also read 'Skeptic.')

Post by 5016
How come you're always allied with the religious nutcases when you can
think rationally like this ? :-)

Lol...well, I always say that crazy people make the world much more fun.
(Although, on a serious note, I'm not sure what religious nutcases
that I'm allied with you're talking about, unless you're referring to
Charles on the other political/economic thread.)


Pie

[The Arranger]

Post by 5016
Not disagreeing with you here, but I think that it is important to
remember at around this time people were able to split the atom,
measure the speed of light and measure relativistic effects. They
would be perfectly able to measure the speed of a baseball if they had
chosen to. The problem is not the advance in techniques, but that they
clearly didn't put much effort into devising a good experiment in this
case. If this test had been conducted by a physicist and written up in
Nature in 1940, then I would certainly believe it. But it wasn't - it
was a few guys messing around with a baseball and a motorcycle as a
stunt.

These types of scientific measurements of baseball pitches have been
plagued with problems historically. In one case, a pitcher (I think it
was Steve Dalkowsky, a minor leaguer from the 1960s whose fastball -
and lack of control of it - was legendary) was measured throwing on
flat ground, without a rubber, with one or two warm up pitches.

While eyewitnesses are subject to their own biases, Feller is hardly
James Figg or Buddy Bolden (to use an analogy from the world of jazz).
He pitched at the same time as Lefty Grove, who overlapped with Walter
Johnson -- who was contemporaneous with Smoky Joe Wood. Feller also
overlaps with Don Drysdale, who overlaps with N olan Ryan. I would
give some credence here to eyewitness testomony of their relative
speeds.

If Wood's top fastball were only 85 mph, as a previous poster said
film studies have claimed, this is merely todayt's below-avergae major
league fastball. I would think in general that hitters who faced Wood
and Johnson would state therefore that Johnson was MUCH faster; with
Grove being MUCH faster than Johnson, and Feller being faster than
Grove, and down the line, if this were the case.

Interestingly enough, the man who is still considered the ultimate
fastball throwe, Nolan Ryan, started his major league career about 35
years ago. I would guess Randy Johnson is the only pitcher since that
has the reputation of possibly throwing harder. That's a point in
favor of those who say that old timers can compare with today's
athletes.

Me, I think it's a hard issue to get a firm grip on. Skepticism cuts
both ways.

The Arranger



The Arranger

[Robert Phillips]

Post by The Arranger
While eyewitnesses are subject to their own biases, Feller is hardly
James Figg or Buddy Bolden (to use an analogy from the world of jazz).
He pitched at the same time as Lefty Grove, who overlapped with Walter
Johnson -- who was contemporaneous with Smoky Joe Wood. Feller also
overlaps with Don Drysdale, who overlaps with N olan Ryan. I would
give some credence here to eyewitness testomony of their relative
speeds.

Eyewitness testimony is worth something when we're trying to determine
whether a fastball is travelling at 100mph or 50mph. It's worth next to
nothing, though, if we're trying to determine whether it's travelling
99mph or 100mph.
Nobody doubts that Feller was fast, or that Wood was fast, or Johnson,
or Ryan. But hearing any of them say that a peer was "the fastest I
ever saw" doesn't help one bit in determining whether the guy hit 100mph
or merely the high '90s.

Post by The Arranger
If Wood's top fastball were only 85 mph, as a previous poster said
film studies have claimed, this is merely todayt's below-avergae major
league fastball.

I was that previous poster; the site I referenced was

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/fastest-pitcher-in-baseball.shtml

I don't find that range of speed for early pitchers to be that
unreasonable or so hard to believe. That is, I don't find it hard to
believe that they threw only in the 80s to low 90s. That seems
consistent with the general improvement in any other particular athletic
task over the years. I wouldn't expect the fastest pitchers from the
'40s to be able to pitch only at 50mph, but I wouldn't expect them to
pitch as fast as, and certainly not faster than, today's pitchers,
either. So if in 60 years the fastest pitchers have gained 5-10mph on
the fastest pitchers from the 1940s, I don't find that level of
improvement so difficult to believe at all.

Post by The Arranger
Interestingly enough, the man who is still considered the ultimate
fastball throwe, Nolan Ryan, started his major league career about 35
years ago. I would guess Randy Johnson is the only pitcher since that
has the reputation of possibly throwing harder. That's a point in
favor of those who say that old timers can compare with today's
athletes.

I don't see how. A lot of pitchers have had reputations as hard
throwers since then, during Ryan's prime and before Johnson's. (Ryan's
own teammate JR Richard comes to mind!) Mark Wohlers, too. The
difference is, they didn't have the success or longevity that Ryan had.
I think it's generally accepted that numerous pitchers have eclipsed
the 100mph mark, and have eclipsed Ryan's longstanding Guinness record.
But they do so on individual pitches on individual days, without
having anywhere near the overall reputation as a fastball pitcher that
Ryan had. In boxing terms, it's the difference between scoring a
devastating KO and actually being known as a devastating knockout
artist. Doing the former doesn't always translate into the latter.


Pie

[The Arranger]

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by The Arranger
While eyewitnesses are subject to their own biases, Feller is hardly
James Figg or Buddy Bolden (to use an analogy from the world of jazz).
He pitched at the same time as Lefty Grove, who overlapped with Walter
Johnson -- who was contemporaneous with Smoky Joe Wood. Feller also
overlaps with Don Drysdale, who overlaps with N olan Ryan. I would
give some credence here to eyewitness testomony of their relative
speeds.

Eyewitness testimony is worth something when we're trying to determine
whether a fastball is travelling at 100mph or 50mph. It's worth next to
nothing, though, if we're trying to determine whether it's travelling
99mph or 100mph.

The 1 mph difference is not whatI'me really talking about. I, for one,
would have given Ted Williams a great deal of credence on such an
issue if he said that Sam McDowell, for example, threw harder than
Feller or Grove, absent real scientific data. The difference between
an 85 mph fastball and a 100 mph fastball is easily discernable by a
decent sandlot player. I think Ted Williams, for one, could have
probably make distinctions in the 2 mph range.

Post by Robert Phillips
Nobody doubts that Feller was fast, or that Wood was fast, or Johnson,
or Ryan. But hearing any of them say that a peer was "the fastest I
ever saw" doesn't help one bit in determining whether the guy hit 100mph
or merely the high '90s.

If Wood threw 85 mph, then he was not "fast" by today's major-league
standards. If several people likeConnie Mack said Wood was as fast or
faster than Feller, yeah, I think that is credible - not conclusive -
evidence. I'd give it some weight, absent scientific data.

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by The Arranger
If Wood's top fastball were only 85 mph, as a previous poster said
film studies have claimed, this is merely todayt's below-avergae major
league fastball.

I was that previous poster; the site I referenced was
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/fastest-pitcher-in-baseball.shtml
I wouldn't expect the fastest pitchers from the
'40s to be able to pitch only at 50mph, but I wouldn't expect them to
pitch as fast as, and certainly not faster than, today's pitchers,
either.

That's because you have an expectation, reasonably constructed (and
which I generally share), that athletes in general have improved over
time. That's how we moved from Greb to Grove. But to assert the
hypothesis as evidence for itself is not helpful.

Post by Robert Phillips
So if in 60 years the fastest pitchers have gained 5-10mph on
the fastest pitchers from the 1940s, I don't find that level of
improvement so difficult to believe at all.

Then you would expect that longtime baseball people such as Don
Zimmer, Johnny Pesky, Felipe Alou, Joe Torre, etc. to say that today's
pitchers throw harder than did their peers.

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by The Arranger
Interestingly enough, the man who is still considered the ultimate
fastball thrower, Nolan Ryan, started his major league career about 35
years ago. I would guess Randy Johnson is the only pitcher since that
has the reputation of possibly throwing harder. That's a point in
favor of those who say that old timers can compare with today's
athletes.

I don't see how. A lot of pitchers have had reputations as hard
throwers since then, during Ryan's prime and before Johnson's. (Ryan's
own teammate JR Richard comes to mind!) Mark Wohlers, too.
The
difference is, they didn't have the success or longevity that Ryan had.
I think it's generally accepted that numerous pitchers have eclipsed
the 100mph mark, and have eclipsed Ryan's longstanding Guinness record.
But they do so on individual pitches on individual days, without
having anywhere near the overall reputation as a fastball pitcher that
Ryan had. In boxing terms, it's the difference between scoring a
devastating KO and actually being known as a devastating knockout
artist. Doing the former doesn't always translate into the latter.

Actually, your comparison, including consistency, is better evidence
for those who believe in slower or no evolution, for lack of a better
term, in pitching. I'm not arguing that position, but merely
indicating that no fastball pitcher (with the possible exception of R.
Johnson) has surpassed Ryan, who made his Mets debut c. 1968, in
terms of consistent velocity.

The Arranger

Post by Robert Phillips
Pie

[Robert Phillips]

Post by The Arranger

Post by Robert Phillips
Nobody doubts that Feller was fast, or that Wood was fast, or Johnson,
or Ryan. But hearing any of them say that a peer was "the fastest I
ever saw" doesn't help one bit in determining whether the guy hit 100mph
or merely the high '90s.

If Wood threw 85 mph, then he was not "fast" by today's major-league
standards.

But the only people who could have called him "fast" never saw today's
major-league fireballers. Therefore their estimation of "fast" might
not correlate well with what we consider "fast."

Post by The Arranger

Post by Robert Phillips
So if in 60 years the fastest pitchers have gained 5-10mph on
the fastest pitchers from the 1940s, I don't find that level of
improvement so difficult to believe at all.

Then you would expect that longtime baseball people such as Don
Zimmer, Johnny Pesky, Felipe Alou, Joe Torre, etc. to say that today's
pitchers throw harder than did their peers.

Not necessarily, because, shockingly, I don't regard their testimony as
very useful, actually, no matter what they say or who they favour.
There are egos involved, biases, faulty memories, exaggerations,
estimations, assumptions, grudges, etc.etc.etc. I'd sooner rely on the
speeding motorcycle test! ;)

Post by The Arranger
Actually, your comparison, including consistency, is better evidence
for those who believe in slower or no evolution, for lack of a better
term, in pitching. I'm not arguing that position, but merely
indicating that no fastball pitcher (with the possible exception of R.
Johnson) has surpassed Ryan, who made his Mets debut c. 1968, in
terms of consistent velocity.

Well, how many pitchers have surpassed Ryan in terms of consistency of
*anything*? What I was trying to say was, pitchers have indeed had
reputations as fastball pitchers similar to Ryan's. They're not
remembered like Ryan, though, because they didn't pitch as well as Ryan,
didn't pitch into their mid-40s, didn't throw seven no-hitters, didn't
record 5000 strikeouts, etc. But guys like Wohlers and Richard and even
shitheadss like Rob Dibble had reputations as tremendous fastball
pitchers - but nobody *should* remember them the way they remember one
of, arguably, the five greatest pitchers of all time. Just because they
were inferior pitchers who didn't last anywhere near as long doesn't
mean they were slower pitchers.


Pie

[Isaiah]

Post by Robert Phillips
Well, how many pitchers have surpassed Ryan in terms of consistency of
*anything*? What I was trying to say was, pitchers have indeed had
reputations as fastball pitchers similar to Ryan's. They're not
remembered like Ryan, though, because they didn't pitch as well as Ryan,
didn't pitch into their mid-40s, didn't throw seven no-hitters, didn't
record 5000 strikeouts, etc. But guys like Wohlers and Richard and even
shitheadss like Rob Dibble had reputations as tremendous fastball
pitchers - but nobody *should* remember them the way they remember one
of, arguably, the five greatest pitchers of all time.

Que?! By what meaningful criteria can Ryan be consider one of the five
(or 20) greatest pitchers of all time? I would say pitchers should be
measured by their effectiveness at preventing runs times the amount of
innings they pitched with an era adjustment (let's be honest, today's
players are the best ever). Ryan is miles behind Johnson, Grove,
Alexander, Clemens and Seaver. I could admit others into my top five,
it's not a well-thought-out list. Those are just the first five that
jump into my mind as being way, way better than Ryan.


As to the question that has swallowed this thread, I think it is very
unlikely that Feller threw over 105 and pretty unlikely that he topped
100 based on what we have been able to measure and on Feller's stats.
I do believe that Steve Dalkowski has an argument as the hardest
thrower of all time...



-Isaiah

[Ivan Weiss]

Post by Robert Phillips
Your faith in the myths and stories of your youth is not unique around here.

Neither is *your* smug, arrogant, pseudo-intellectual, supercilious,
condescending, solipsistic -- and circumlocuitous -- shtick. So lighten
up, OK?
--
Ivan Weiss http://www.twonewspapertown.org
Vashon WA http://www.ussmariner.blogspot.com

[Robert Phillips]

Post by Ivan Weiss

Post by Robert Phillips
Your faith in the myths and stories of your youth is not unique around

here.
Neither is *your* smug, arrogant, pseudo-intellectual, supercilious,
condescending, solipsistic -- and circumlocuitous -- shtick.

You're right.
We always were two of a kind.


Pie

[Ivan Weiss]

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by Ivan Weiss

Post by Robert Phillips
Your faith in the myths and stories of your youth is not unique around

here.
Neither is *your* smug, arrogant, pseudo-intellectual, supercilious,
condescending, solipsistic -- and circumlocuitous -- shtick.

You're right.
We always were two of a kind.

Except in bandwidth usage, eh?
--
Ivan Weiss http://www.twonewspapertown.org
Vashon WA http://www.ussmariner.blogspot.com

[Robert Phillips]

Post by Ivan Weiss
Except in bandwidth usage, eh?

Means zero. Zip. Nada.

In language you're more comfortable with, bandwidth means dick.


Pie

[SkippyPB]

Post by iggy07450
"Record holder of the fastball, at 107.9 Miles Per Hour, Bob Feller is
84 years old"

Sorry, but that is not correct. According to Guiness Book of Records,
the greatest reliably recorded speed at which a baseball has been
pitched is 100.9 mph by Lynn Nolan Ryan (California Angels) at Anaheim
Stadium in California on August 20, 1974.

Post by iggy07450
Not to claim the above stat is etched in stone but just as surely as
Fellers fastball would be highly effective vs today's very best, Harry
Grebs bouncing windmill get hit and fight back harder, attack from 90
degree angel with blinding speed style would be the answer to Haglers
slo foot plow ahead and slug M-O. Sugar Ray showed the style to beat
Marvin and Greb in his prime would certainly be the man to outdo that
effort and win!

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by 5016
This would be significant if true, but it isn't true. People in
general have got bigger and stronger during civilized times. There is
a wealth of anthropological/archaelogical evidence on this topic.
However, like all evolutionary patterns, it isn't all one way.
Certainly, for instance, people in urban areas in industrial societies
became smaller and weaker in the 19th century than they were prior to
the industrial revolution. But in general the pattern is pretty clear.

That's a much longer period of time than I was talking about, but okay...
Pie

////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"There's nothing wrong with you that reincarnation
won't cure."
----- Jack E. Leonard
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

[iggy07450]

Post by SkippyPB

Post by iggy07450
"Record holder of the fastball, at 107.9 Miles Per Hour, Bob Feller is
84 years old"

Sorry, but that is not correct. According to Guiness Book of Records,
the greatest reliably recorded speed at which a baseball has been
pitched is 100.9 mph by Lynn Nolan Ryan (California Angels) at Anaheim
Stadium in California on August 20, 1974.

Post by iggy07450
Not to claim the above stat is etched in stone but just as surely as
Fellers fastball would be highly effective vs today's very best, Harry
Grebs bouncing windmill get hit and fight back harder, attack from 90
degree angel with blinding speed style would be the answer to Haglers
slo foot plow ahead and slug M-O. Sugar Ray showed the style to beat
Marvin and Greb in his prime would certainly be the man to outdo that
effort and win!

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by 5016
This would be significant if true, but it isn't true. People in
general have got bigger and stronger during civilized times. There is
a wealth of anthropological/archaelogical evidence on this topic.
However, like all evolutionary patterns, it isn't all one way.
Certainly, for instance, people in urban areas in industrial societies
became smaller and weaker in the 19th century than they were prior to
the industrial revolution. But in general the pattern is pretty clear.

That's a much longer period of time than I was talking about, but okay...

Ya know not recognizing my completely valid point, that Feller threw
MAJOR heat is very namby pamby of you. Even if the equipment was 10
mph off there's still a crucial point to this discussion, that the
very few times these tests were done amounts to a tiny snapshot of
Fellers career.With that info from this brief snapshot being what it
is, give or take up to 10 mph let some logic dictate that if Feller
had every pitch of his career clocked what do you suppose the results
would be????
I cant see a fighter who struggled to a draw with Vito Anterfermo and
look so unimpressive vs a great light and damm good welter (R. Duran)
fare too well vs a guy who whipped Hall of Famers like
Walker/Tunney/Gibbons/Loughran and got fired as a sparring partner for
fucking up Dempsey in Benton Harbor workouts. SR Leonard showed up
Hagler with movement and movement was a Greb specialty.

Some Believe Hagler Is Among Greatest of All Middleweight Fighters Is
He Marvelous Or Merely Good?:[Home Edition]
EARL GUSTKEY. The Los Angeles Times (Pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles,
Calif.: Mar 10, 1986. pg. 1

LOU DUVA, boxing trainer: "I think Hagler is hurting when you compare
him to a lot of the old-timers. The middleweight division isn't as
tough as it used to be. There just aren't any animals around any more.
Robinson beats Hagler. Monzon beat him. LaMotta beats him. Hey, Jake
would take everything out of Hagler then come back for more. Mickey
Walker* beats him. And I think a slick boxer from the 1930s, Ken
Overlin, would beat Hagler. I even like Fullmer's chances against
Hagler."

IRVING RUDD, boxing publicist: "I put Hagler right up there. Look at
the shots he took from Hearns. Those shots by Hearns would have put
Larry Holmes on the deck. I'd rate Robinson and Mickey Walker* over
Hagler. Joey Giardello I give a hell of a shot against Hagler.
Hagler-LaMotta? Hey, I'd pay a lot of money to see that one. Really,
the only guy I'm certain that Hagler couldn't beat is Robinson. And
[Charley Burley], maybe he beats Hagler, too."

In search of a clue, more than a dozen veteran boxing observers were
asked where they rate Hagler among history's great middleweights. Most
placed him among the top five, one rated him the best ever and a few
didn't even rate him in the their top ten.

NICK BECK, Boxing historian and boxing film archivist: "I wouldn't put
Hagler in my top 10. I can think of five guys right now who I'm sure
would beat Hagler-Robinson, (Tony) Zale, Jake LaMotta, Monzon,
(Marcel) Cerdan . . . my feeling is Hagler is overrated. A lot of
people rate him way up there since the Hearns fight. But my feeling on
that is that Hagler knocked out a guy who'd panicked and punched
himself out. Really, I've never been real high on Hagler since that
draw he had with (Vito) Antufermo and I thought he looked very
ordinary against (Roberto) Duran." Thanks nick!!

BERT SUGAR, boxing writer: "I wrote a book called `Boxing's 100
Greatest,' in which I rated the 100 greatest boxers on a
pound-for-pound scale. I rated Hagler 74th. The middleweights I rated
ahead of him were Robinson (No. 1), Greb (3rd), Walker (7th), Ketchel
(21st), Cerdan (34th), LaMotta (43rd), Monzon (51st), Tiger Flowers
(54th), Charley Burley (64th) and Zale (70th). Hagler isn't close to
Robinson in pure ability. Robinson was seamless. Unfortunately for
Hagler, he's a champion in an era of weak middleweights and that's not
his fault."

ROY McHUGH, retired boxing writer: "Robinson, of course, is No. 1. I
never saw Greb but a lot of old timers used to tell me he would've
beaten Robinson. I've seen films of Mickey Walker* and I don't think I
can rate Hagler over him. Monzon was awfully good, I can't separate
Hagler from Monzon. And it's hard for me to imagine Hagler hurting
LaMotta. Cerdan-Hagler, that's an even fight.
"Hagler probably beats Zale. Maybe Teddy Yarosz, a great boxer from
the 1930s, beats Hagler. He had three close fights with Billy Conn.
Charley Burley was a middleweight in the 1930s who was so good he had
to fight heavyweights to get fights."

BILLY CONN, former light-heavyweight champion: "Are you kidding?
Hagler? He doesn't make the top 10 if you're talking about guys like
Mickey Walker* and Fred Apostoli."
* Greb victim

[Illustration]
DRAWING: Should Marvin Hagler be ranked with Jake LaMotta, Sugar Ray
Robinson and Carlos Monzon?, MICHAEL HALL / Los Angeles Times



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[BoxMuham]

Nice to see another Greb fan around here. I always assumed 100% of
boxing fans were huge Harry Greb fans.
There certainly is the 1/10th of 1% of uber pussy boxing tarts who's
wet dreams about Greb are so shocking to their shrinks that they cower in the
corners of RSB headsquashed every time they dangle their toes out.

It's like Harry Greb had stolen their daughters... Heh heh
heh.

BoxMahatma

[Robert Phillips]

Post by BoxMuham
Nice to see another Greb fan around here. I always assumed 100% of
boxing fans were huge Harry Greb fans.

Why...on earth...would you assume something that silly?


Pie

[SuperCalo]

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by BoxMuham
Nice to see another Greb fan around here. I always assumed 100% of
boxing fans were huge Harry Greb fans.

Why...on earth...would you assume something that silly?

because everyone whos seen many of grebs fights has to be a fan, its obvious

[iggy07450]

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by BoxMuham
Nice to see another Greb fan around here. I always assumed 100% of
boxing fans were huge Harry Greb fans.

Why...on earth...would you assume something that silly?
Pie

As I said on an earlier post defending Harry Greb is an honor.

I remember talking to Jake Lamotta about Harry. How many fights did
Greb have??
asked this great fighter. 300 I replied. With that he let out a sound
of DEEP PAIN like OOOGH!!! But words cant really describe the sound,
ya had to be there.

And speaking of Jake there was in 1946 a twenty year after the death
of H.G. article in the Pitt paps wherein Harry Keck wrote among other
things ....and what a "picnic" he would have against today's
middleweight lot mentioning Zale,Graziano,Lamotta ect.... and you
better believe that goes for Hagler too!

[SuperCalo]

Post by iggy07450

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by BoxMuham
Nice to see another Greb fan around here. I always assumed 100% of
boxing fans were huge Harry Greb fans.

Why...on earth...would you assume something that silly?
Pie

As I said on an earlier post defending Harry Greb is an honor.
I remember talking to Jake Lamotta about Harry. How many fights did
Greb have??
asked this great fighter. 300 I replied. With that he let out a sound
of DEEP PAIN like OOOGH!!!

yes considering over 250 of those were hobos whose loss record far
outweighed their wins

[Robert Phillips]

Post by iggy07450

Post by Robert Phillips
Why...on earth...would you assume something that silly?
Pie

As I said on an earlier post defending Harry Greb is an honor.

What..on earth...does any of this have to do with what I asked BoxM?


Pie

[BoxMuham]

From: Robert Phillips
What..on earth...does any of this have to do with what I asked BoxM?

You serious? You implying a lot of boxing fans are complete dumbasses
who don't hold Harry Greb in very high regard?

I think you're wrong. Unless you're talking about the
Hooters-frequenting, pull-tabbers out in the boonies who "like" boxing only
because of the brutality and obviously don't follow it. Or the drunken,
lonely, sad squatters who peep into RSB every now and then to get lynched
again.

BoxMuham

[Robert Phillips]

Post by BoxMuham

From: Robert Phillips
What..on earth...does any of this have to do with what I asked BoxM?

You serious? You implying a lot of boxing fans are complete dumbasses
who don't hold Harry Greb in very high regard?

No, I'm implying - or, rather, stating outright - that a lot of boxing
fans aren't "huge Harry Greb fans." The difference is not whether or
not they've seen him fight (as per your old argument with Loki.) The
point is the difference between acknowledging that Greb is an all-time
great and actually having the sort of affection that "huge fan" implies.

I'm willing to say that Greb was an all-time great middleweight. Why on
earth should I feel obligated to say I'm a "huge fan" of him, though?
To me, those are two different things. I think it's extremely
presumptious to assume that people should be fans of any particular guy,
just because he's great.


Pie

[BoxMuham]

From: Robert Phillips
I think it's extremely
presumptious to assume that people should be fans of any particular guy,
just because he's great.

I think the vast majority of boxing fans are fans of Ali, Louis, Ray
Robinson, Greb and tens of others of great fighters.

You must hang out in very different boxing circles than do I, Mnsr.
Pie.

BoxMuham

[Robert Phillips]

Post by BoxMuham

From: Robert Phillips
I think it's extremely
presumptious to assume that people should be fans of any particular guy,
just because he's great.

I think the vast majority of boxing fans are fans of Ali, Louis, Ray
Robinson, Greb and tens of others of great fighters.

I think the vast majority of boxing fans define being a "fan" of any
particular boxer quite differently than you do.

Post by BoxMuham
You must hang out in very different boxing circles than do I, Mnsr.
Pie.

I think the vast majority of boxing fans must hang out in very different
boxing circles than do you.


Pie

[Loki]

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by BoxMuham

From: Robert Phillips
I think it's extremely
presumptious to assume that people should be fans of any particular guy,
just because he's great.

I think the vast majority of boxing fans are fans of Ali, Louis, Ray
Robinson, Greb and tens of others of great fighters.

I think the vast majority of boxing fans define being a "fan" of any
particular boxer quite differently than you do.

Post by BoxMuham
You must hang out in very different boxing circles than do I, Mnsr.
Pie.

I think the vast majority of boxing fans must hang out in very different
boxing circles than do you.

When addressing box, you can assume that the very different circle
that the majority of boxing fans hang out in are the circles in which
people actually watch fights instead of just read about them.


Loki

[Loki]

Post by BoxMuham

From: Robert Phillips
I think it's extremely
presumptious to assume that people should be fans of any particular guy,
just because he's great.

I think the vast majority of boxing fans are fans of Ali, Louis, Ray
Robinson, Greb and tens of others of great fighters.

Larry Holmes was a great fighter, and also incredibly boring. Earnie
Shavers was a fair fighter and exciting. As such, it is easy to
understand how a person can appreciate the greatness of a fighter who
they are not a fan of and vice versa.

Meanwhile, only a complete moron would suggest that they were a fan of
a fighter they never saw. But, of course we already knew that.


Loki

[BoxMuham]

Post by iggy07450
As I said on an earlier post defending Harry Greb is an honor.

Heh heh heh. Greb, like any great fighter, needs no "defending."

Post by iggy07450
And speaking of Jake there was in 1946 a twenty year after the death
of H.G. article in the Pitt paps wherein Harry Keck wrote among other
things ....and what a "picnic" he would have against today's
middleweight lot mentioning Zale,Graziano,Lamotta ect.... and you
better believe that goes for Hagler too!

Carlos Escopeta Monzon is my favorite Middleweight. Unbeaten for 13
long years... Unbeaten over 81 bouts.
I would take peak Monzon over the great Marvelous one, anyday.
Greb? He's a bit of a wildcard. May have had the style to beat Hagler,
though, given how the aged, rusty Ray Leonard clowned Hagler by even being
competitive.

BoxMuham

[Mike Haught]

Post by SkippyPB

Post by iggy07450
"Record holder of the fastball, at 107.9 Miles Per Hour, Bob Feller is
84 years old"

Sorry, but that is not correct. According to Guiness Book of Records,
the greatest reliably recorded speed at which a baseball has been
pitched is 100.9 mph by Lynn Nolan Ryan (California Angels) at Anaheim
Stadium in California on August 20, 1974.

I did a bit of 'net searching for the articles I recall reading that espoused
the theory that the Feller estimates were reasonably accurate. No luck so far.
IIRC, one was a Sports Illustrated article and the other in Inside Sports.

One I did find is that there are lots of variables and arguments on speed
calculation accuracy even up through today. Measurements have been taken at
varying distances from where the pitch has left the pitcher's hand (immediately
after, 20 feet, mid point to plate and immediately before plate). Some tests
have not accurately simulated mound/baseball field conditions. Radar guns often
measure a speed that is 5 mph or so above actual speed.

So, on a quick glance, it seems that nearly ALL measurments of pitchers'
throwing speed have been called into question. Even with the latest, neato,
electronic gizmomatics that utilize the latest training and nutrition methods of
the 21st century.

-mwh

[michel]

Post by Mike Haught
I did a bit of 'net searching for the articles I recall reading that espoused
the theory that the Feller estimates were reasonably accurate. No luck so far.
IIRC, one was a Sports Illustrated article and the other in Inside Sports.

Mike, no problem, but good of you to try! I've also at times done net
searching for stuff I knew existed and came up with nothing. Perhaps we
should enlist the assistance of some grade school kid.

Post by Mike Haught
One I did find is that there are lots of variables and arguments on speed
calculation accuracy even up through today. Measurements have been taken at
varying distances from where the pitch has left the pitcher's hand (immediately
after, 20 feet, mid point to plate and immediately before plate). Some tests
have not accurately simulated mound/baseball field conditions. Radar guns often
measure a speed that is 5 mph or so above actual speed.
So, on a quick glance, it seems that nearly ALL measurments of pitchers'
throwing speed have been called into question. Even with the latest, neato,
electronic gizmomatics that utilize the latest training and nutrition methods of
the 21st century.

I've once read a claim that a radar gun clocked a tree as going above the
speed limit; I assume that no ticket was issued. I also remember one person
claiming that his broken-down motorcycle could hit 130 mph until it was
pointed out that his speedometer was busted...

But I do believe that when proper methods are used technology will get it
correct.

[Mike Haught]

Post by Mike Haught

Post by Mike Haught
I did a bit of 'net searching for the articles I recall reading that

espoused

Post by Mike Haught
the theory that the Feller estimates were reasonably accurate. No luck so

far.

Post by Mike Haught
IIRC, one was a Sports Illustrated article and the other in Inside Sports.

Mike, no problem, but good of you to try! I've also at times done net
searching for stuff I knew existed and came up with nothing. Perhaps we
should enlist the assistance of some grade school kid.

I'll look when I have time. But most of my 'net time is a few quick hits during
the day. Not good for research.

Post by Mike Haught

Post by Mike Haught
One I did find is that there are lots of variables and arguments on speed
calculation accuracy even up through today. Measurements have been taken

at

Post by Mike Haught
varying distances from where the pitch has left the pitcher's hand

(immediately

Post by Mike Haught
after, 20 feet, mid point to plate and immediately before plate). Some

tests

Post by Mike Haught
have not accurately simulated mound/baseball field conditions. Radar guns

often

Post by Mike Haught
measure a speed that is 5 mph or so above actual speed.
So, on a quick glance, it seems that nearly ALL measurments of pitchers'
throwing speed have been called into question. Even with the latest,

neato,

Post by Mike Haught
electronic gizmomatics that utilize the latest training and nutrition

methods of

Post by Mike Haught
the 21st century.

I've once read a claim that a radar gun clocked a tree as going above the
speed limit; I assume that no ticket was issued. I also remember one person
claiming that his broken-down motorcycle could hit 130 mph until it was
pointed out that his speedometer was busted...

I should have been clearer on the radar gun bit. That was *calibrated* radar
guns. In other words, calibrated and tested just prior to the measurement of
the pitches. There's a reason most cops won't give you a ticket unless you're
going at least 10 mph over the speed limit.

Post by Mike Haught
But I do believe that when proper methods are used technology will get it
correct.

I agree with that. But scientists pick apart, disprove and reprove theories
routinely. Heck, many of the same scientists claiming we're now deep into
global warming were telling us 25-30 years ago that we were going into an ice
age.

By my recollection, the claim was that the 100+ MPH pitch from Feller was
supposed to be accurate within less than 5 mph. That's as good as radar guns it
seems.

-mwh

[michel]

Post by Mike Haught

Post by Mike Haught

Post by Mike Haught
I did a bit of 'net searching for the articles I recall reading that

espoused

Post by Mike Haught
the theory that the Feller estimates were reasonably accurate. No luck so

far.

Post by Mike Haught
IIRC, one was a Sports Illustrated article and the other in Inside Sports.

Mike, no problem, but good of you to try! I've also at times done net
searching for stuff I knew existed and came up with nothing. Perhaps we
should enlist the assistance of some grade school kid.

I'll look when I have time. But most of my 'net time is a few quick hits during
the day. Not good for research.

Post by Mike Haught

Post by Mike Haught
One I did find is that there are lots of variables and arguments on speed
calculation accuracy even up through today. Measurements have been taken

at

Post by Mike Haught
varying distances from where the pitch has left the pitcher's hand

(immediately

Post by Mike Haught
after, 20 feet, mid point to plate and immediately before plate). Some

tests

Post by Mike Haught
have not accurately simulated mound/baseball field conditions. Radar guns

often

Post by Mike Haught
measure a speed that is 5 mph or so above actual speed.
So, on a quick glance, it seems that nearly ALL measurments of pitchers'
throwing speed have been called into question. Even with the latest,

neato,

Post by Mike Haught
electronic gizmomatics that utilize the latest training and nutrition

methods of

Post by Mike Haught
the 21st century.

I've once read a claim that a radar gun clocked a tree as going above the
speed limit; I assume that no ticket was issued. I also remember one person
claiming that his broken-down motorcycle could hit 130 mph until it was
pointed out that his speedometer was busted...

I should have been clearer on the radar gun bit. That was *calibrated* radar
guns. In other words, calibrated and tested just prior to the measurement of
the pitches. There's a reason most cops won't give you a ticket unless you're
going at least 10 mph over the speed limit.

Post by Mike Haught
But I do believe that when proper methods are used technology will get it
correct.

I agree with that. But scientists pick apart, disprove and reprove theories
routinely. Heck, many of the same scientists claiming we're now deep into
global warming were telling us 25-30 years ago that we were going into an ice
age.
By my recollection, the claim was that the 100+ MPH pitch from Feller was
supposed to be accurate within less than 5 mph. That's as good as radar guns it
seems.

I'm no expert on radar guns, but I'd think that we were talking about
quality equipment versus cheap equipment. If we are capable of measuring a
100 meters sprint within 1/100th second, I'm sure that we can measure speed.

I wonder how accurate stop watches were at the time? Also since, we know
that movies had n frames per second all we really needed to do was film him
pitching and see how far the ball travels.

This is why I'm very suspicious over the claim; had it been legit he would
have been happy to have it measured.

[Mike Haught]

Post by Mike Haught

Post by Mike Haught
By my recollection, the claim was that the 100+ MPH pitch from Feller was
supposed to be accurate within less than 5 mph. That's as good as radar

guns it

Post by Mike Haught
seems.

I'm no expert on radar guns, but I'd think that we were talking about
quality equipment versus cheap equipment. If we are capable of measuring a
100 meters sprint within 1/100th second, I'm sure that we can measure speed.

I think the point is, accurate relative to the equipment commonly used. In
baseball, they usually use the JUGS radar guns. I think we all know that there
has to be stuff out there to measure the speed of anything to the smallest
degree. It looks as though the only time they used what was "state of the art"
at the time was in the '40s with the photoelectric cells in the trailer.

Post by Mike Haught
I wonder how accurate stop watches were at the time? Also since, we know
that movies had n frames per second all we really needed to do was film him
pitching and see how far the ball travels.

I don't see any reason why timing a film of him pitching shouldn't work within a
reasonable tolerance.

Post by Mike Haught
This is why I'm very suspicious over the claim; had it been legit he would
have been happy to have it measured.

It could very well be that the reported speed was not accurate. I did find it
very interesting though that the numbers we take as gospel today are reported to
be off by 5 mph or so to the high side of reality. I guess that may be why the
media and agents like the numbers so well today.

-mwh

[michel]

Post by Mike Haught

Post by michel
I wonder how accurate stop watches were at the time? Also since, we know
that movies had n frames per second all we really needed to do was film him
pitching and see how far the ball travels.

I don't see any reason why timing a film of him pitching shouldn't work within a
reasonable tolerance.

We agree? This is not right! Paging Robert Phillips!

[Robert Phillips]

Post by michel
We agree? This is not right! Paging Robert Phillips!

Even that is fraught with minute variabilities, however. Researchers
into the JFK assassination (most notably, Josiah Thompson in his _6
Seconds in Dallas_) have tried over the years to use this technique to
determine the sequence of events in Dealey Plaza, using the Zapruder
film. Knowing theoretically how fast the camera filmed, they've tried
to use that to determine when the shots were fired, etc. (If there are
X frames per second, this indicates what could and could not have
happened between such-and-such frames, and if two events appear to be Y
number of frames apart, this means they happened this many seconds apart
in real life, and so on.) Other researchers have tested cameras
identical to Zapruder's and found minute differences, which would
translate into radically different measurements if used to calculate
external events. Some cameras in fact produced more frames per second
and some fewer. From this they conclude that using such methods is
rather unsatisfactory and that therefore, many of Thompson's conclusions
are better described as possibilities.
I would expect that similar reservations are appropriate in trying to
use old films to time a fastball. When you're talking about that kind
of ball speed, and the difference between (for example) 98mph and
101mph, and that short a time, it doesn't take much variation to alter
the results one way or the other.


Pie

[michel]

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by michel
We agree? This is not right! Paging Robert Phillips!

Even that is fraught with minute variabilities, however. Researchers
into the JFK assassination (most notably, Josiah Thompson in his _6
Seconds in Dallas_) have tried over the years to use this technique to
determine the sequence of events in Dealey Plaza, using the Zapruder
film. Knowing theoretically how fast the camera filmed, they've tried
to use that to determine when the shots were fired, etc. (If there are
X frames per second, this indicates what could and could not have
happened between such-and-such frames, and if two events appear to be Y
number of frames apart, this means they happened this many seconds apart
in real life, and so on.) Other researchers have tested cameras
identical to Zapruder's and found minute differences, which would
translate into radically different measurements if used to calculate
external events. Some cameras in fact produced more frames per second
and some fewer. From this they conclude that using such methods is
rather unsatisfactory and that therefore, many of Thompson's conclusions
are better described as possibilities.
I would expect that similar reservations are appropriate in trying to
use old films to time a fastball. When you're talking about that kind
of ball speed, and the difference between (for example) 98mph and
101mph, and that short a time, it doesn't take much variation to alter
the results one way or the other.

Hurray! I knew that you could find a way to bring dissension back to its
rightful place in this thread! Well done!

[Robert Phillips]

Post by michel
Hurray! I knew that you could find a way to bring dissension back to its
rightful place in this thread! Well done!

My work here is done.


Pie

[Mike Haught]

Post by michel

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by michel
We agree? This is not right! Paging Robert Phillips!

Even that is fraught with minute variabilities, however. Researchers
into the JFK assassination (most notably, Josiah Thompson in his _6
Seconds in Dallas_) have tried over the years to use this technique to
determine the sequence of events in Dealey Plaza, using the Zapruder
film. Knowing theoretically how fast the camera filmed, they've tried
to use that to determine when the shots were fired, etc. (If there are
X frames per second, this indicates what could and could not have
happened between such-and-such frames, and if two events appear to be Y
number of frames apart, this means they happened this many seconds apart
in real life, and so on.) Other researchers have tested cameras
identical to Zapruder's and found minute differences, which would
translate into radically different measurements if used to calculate
external events. Some cameras in fact produced more frames per second
and some fewer. From this they conclude that using such methods is
rather unsatisfactory and that therefore, many of Thompson's conclusions
are better described as possibilities.
I would expect that similar reservations are appropriate in trying to
use old films to time a fastball. When you're talking about that kind
of ball speed, and the difference between (for example) 98mph and
101mph, and that short a time, it doesn't take much variation to alter
the results one way or the other.

Hurray! I knew that you could find a way to bring dissension back to its
rightful place in this thread! Well done!

Regarding timing a baseball pitch and 3-4 gunshots from a film. You're talking
something going over 2000 feet per second (a rifle bullet) versus 60-80 feet per
second (a baseball pitch). The bullet is invisible to the eye and the baseball
can be seen. Not a fair comparison.

-mwh

[Mike Haught]

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by Mike Haught

Post by michel
I wonder how accurate stop watches were at the time? Also since, we know
that movies had n frames per second all we really needed to do was film

him

Post by Mike Haught

Post by michel
pitching and see how far the ball travels.

I don't see any reason why timing a film of him pitching shouldn't work

within a

Post by Mike Haught
reasonable tolerance.

We agree? This is not right! Paging Robert Phillips!

Heh-heh. Why do I feel like Bruce Willis and you just said, "somebody better go
wake up the Gimp!" ;-)

-mwh

[michel]

Post by Mike Haught

Post by michel
We agree? This is not right! Paging Robert Phillips!

Heh-heh. Why do I feel like Bruce Willis and you just said, "somebody better go
wake up the Gimp!" ;-)

C'mon, play nice!

[Robert Phillips]

Post by michel
C'mon, play nice!

I feel left out. *pout* Someone want to explain that one to me? I
figure, if I'm being insulted, I might as well understand it...Evidently
this is a movie I didn't see...


Pie

[Robert Phillips]

Post by Mike Haught
So, on a quick glance, it seems that nearly ALL measurments of pitchers'
throwing speed have been called into question. Even with the latest, neato,
electronic gizmomatics that utilize the latest training and nutrition
methods of the 21st century.

Well, I guess that proves that Bob Feller DID throw 104mph at Griffith.
Or 107.9. It proves that he threw at one or the other.


Pie

[Mike Haught]

In article <KY1mb.30010$***@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Robert Phillips
says...

Post by Robert Phillips

Post by Mike Haught
So, on a quick glance, it seems that nearly ALL measurments of pitchers'
throwing speed have been called into question. Even with the latest, neato,
electronic gizmomatics that utilize the latest training and nutrition
methods of the 21st century.

Well, I guess that proves that Bob Feller DID throw 104mph at Griffith.
Or 107.9. It proves that he threw at one or the other.

No, it didn't. But you knew that. AND you knew it was more than what you threw
out in about 1000 words of scoff and ridicule. But, I'm sure you also know that
your students want to rent you out as Ben Stein in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"
for parties.

-mwh