v2 G.O.A.T Round 1 Group 3

by MtotheC Wed 09 Jan 2013, 8:23 pm

First topic message reminder :

Yesterday’s group pitted four sporting greats from the worlds of Tennis, Cycling, Athletics and American Football against each other and after a close battle between Bjorn Borg and Eddy Merckx that ebbed and flowed all day Borg finally proved victorious taking the group with 26 votes to Merckx 24. Both progress into round 2 with Kershee and Joe Montana exiting the competition at the first stage.

Today’s group see football, boxing, tennis and cricket compete for your votes.

We have just the one article today championing one of the four entrants, so please feel free to add your comments below to assist your chosen participant.

Please vote for the competitor you believe has achieved the most in sport and should progress into the next round.

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

Donald Bradman- Cricket- Championed by Fists of fury

Australia
Test record: 6,996 runs in 80 innings at an average of 99.94 (29 centuries)

It is a rare phenomenon indeed where an individual can be undisputedly and universally acknowledged as the finest to have ever participated in a sport. It is rarer still for that individual to be recognised as the greatest there ever will be, despite seemingly no human being beyond Mystic Meg and the recently unmasked Eric Bristow possessing the gift of foresight.

For Pele, there is Maradona. For Nicklaus, there is Woods. For ‘The Don’, there is no rival. He stands alone.

Such are the statistics of Donald George Bradman. Plying his trade throughout the 1930’s and 40’s in the famous ‘baggy green’ of Australia, Bradman compiled a record almost twice as formidable as anyone else in the history of Test cricket. In a sport harking back to 1877, that is an astonishing feat. Bradman’s final Test average of 99.94 grows all the more impressive when you consider that the widely recognised barometer for a modern batsman attaining greatness is, in comparison, a mere 50. For a sportsman to be so far afield of his predecessors, contemporaries and successors is surely unique.

Perhaps indicative of the supremacy asserted almost every time The Don walked to the crease, former Australia captain Bill Woodfull proclaimed Bradman to be “worth three batsmen to Australia.” Where a team scoring 300 in one day is classed as operating at a fairly brisk pace, Bradman once single handedly made 309 on the first day of a Test against England at Headingley. Such dominance of bat over ball was unusually rare in the age of uncovered pitches, and remains so in today’s comparatively batsman friendly era.

Despite being the holder of records that will likely never be challenged in anger, let alone broken, statistics are but one facet of what makes a great sportsman. It often takes a truly inspirational individual to transcend the sport within which they participate. Much as Muhammad Ali transcended the sport of boxing, Don Bradman transcended cricket. Bradman emerged during a period of great economic hardship in Australia, and through the sheer force of his on-field performances it is said gave happiness and hope to a populace in the midst of depression.

You can't tell youngsters today of the attraction of the fellow. I mean, business used to stop in the town when Bradman was playing and likely to go in - all the offices closed, the shops closed; everybody went up to see him play. – England bowler Bill Bowes, 1983

Bradman would go on to exhibit a further trait of any world class sportsman: success in the face of adversity. After scoring an extraordinary 974 runs at an average of 139.14 in the 1930 Ashes tour of England, Bradman was infamously targeted by hostile and aggressive ‘Bodyline’ bowling during the 1932-33 return series in Australia – a theory designed with the sole intention of taking Bradman’s wicket, whereby the English fast bowlers would deliberately target the body of the batsman with a packed leg-side cordon of fielders lying in wait – The Don was almost rendered mortal with a series average of 56.57 (still a world class average by anyone’s standards). It was his own controversial tactic of combating bodyline by backing away and hitting the ball in an unorthodox manner in to the vacant off-side that won Bradman plaudits for attempting to find a solution to Bodyline.

It should be noted that, despite the whole of Australia being in uproar over the “vicious and unsporting” tactics employed by the English captain Douglas Jardine, and despite his own misgivings, Bradman conducted himself with dignity throughout and fought the onslaught in the way he knew best – by scoring runs. ‘Bodyline’, or ‘fast leg theory’ as it was also known, would later be outlawed.

Somewhat ironically, and perhaps unfortunately, the great Don Bradman is as much remembered for his final innings than the unsurpassed genius that had carved a path of destruction through the cricketing world wielding but a plank of willow in the preceding years. Striding to the crease at The Oval in 1948, Bradman required a mere 4 runs from his final Test innings to ensure an overall perfect Test average of 100. Whether through the emotion stirred in The Don through the adulation of the English crowd and opponents as he walked out that day (as much cheers of relief that his utter dominion over England’s bowlers was nearing an end, perhaps?), or the cricketing Gods inflicting a cruel twist of fate as if to reclaim the immortality they had lent him, Bradman was bowled for a duck by Warwickshire leg-spinner Eric Hollies, thus ending his career with that infamous average of 99.94 – a now magical figure in its own right. It will never be bettered.

Next to Mr. Winston Churchill, he was the most celebrated man in England during the summer of 1948. His appearances throughout the country were like one continuous farewell matinée. A miracle has been removed from among us. So must ancient Italy have felt when she heard of the death of Hannibal – cricket writer R.C. Robertson-Glasgow upon Bradman’s retirement, 1949

Sir Donald Bradman died in February of 2001 aged 92. It would have come as a surprise to many that he failed to get out of the 90’s. There are numerous others with a rightful claim to being the greatest sportsman that ever lived, but in Bradman there has surely never been another so superior to their peers. A genius, an icon and a gentleman; The Don satisfies all of the criteria.

Sir Donald George Bradman was, without any question, the greatest phenomenon in the history of cricket, indeed in the history of all ball games. – Wisden Almanack"

by Stella Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:19 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:
Mike Selig wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:

Well how many bowlers did he face as it seemed England were the only team Australia played! 37 out of the 52 Tests against England! Shall I mock him?

A career spanning 17 years so I think he'll have faced quite a few different bowlers...
Also, quite a few matches against other nations where he did sort of ok... (in fact his record against England was slightly less good than overall)

Given Navratilova's spans over 30 years suggests who clearly has the greater longevity and different opponents.

Too many assumptions have been made on this thread about tennis in the 70's/80's which is quite frankly poor.

She wasn't at the top for 30 years though.

by Diggers Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:19 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:
Diggers wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
Diggers wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
emancipator wrote:Martina heralded a brave new world in womens tennis. Her overall legacy and contribution to the development of the sport is far greater than the Williams' sisters, and her on-court achievements dwarf those of BJK.

She was the first female player to become super fit in the pursuit of excellence. She left no stone unturned, meticulously managing her diet, training methods, including working out in the gym. She was incredibly fit and strong. She set the model for super athletes in tennis and her advice was actively sought by contemporaries such as Ivan Lendl.

She is, along with Steffi Graf, the most dominant female athlete in history. Throughout the eighties she was virtually untouchable and only age and the emergence of another legend ousted her from the top spot.

The dedication, focus and talent required to be that successful for that long is remarkeable. She gets my vote.

Much as Bradman's record is outstanding, I cannot honestly place the same degree of levity on a fringe sport played almost a hundred years ago. I see Martina as a greater athlete by any definition of the term. At her peak she was probably faster, fitter and more durable than The Don. Hell she could probably kick his butt in a fight!

Bradman's figures were undoubtedly greatly inflated by the era and competition. He basically played against the same people over and over again and accumulated ridiculous stats on that basis.

Bradman was a huge fish in a small pond.

Martina was a huge fish in an ocean.

emancipator

Superbly written

And Navratilova didnt play against the same players over and over....lets take a look at how many times she faced Evert for a start. Were there really more professional women tennis players taking the game seriously than cricketers doing the same during Bradmans era, I seriously doubt it.
The very fact that its pointed out that Navratilova was the first woman in tennis to take physical conditioning really seriously should speak volumes about the talent pool that she was facing surely ?

Right so she played Evert in every round of a Slam/WTA tour event?

She played her nearly a 100 times, quite a regular opponent wouldnt you say? Do you think Bradman faced the same bowler every time ?
See you havent commented on the fact that part of the reason Navratilova was so successful is that she took conditioning seriously, unlike the vast majority of her opponents.

Well how many bowlers did he face as it seemed England were the only team Australia played! 37 out of the 52 Tests against England! Shall I mock him?

As this is 'Fact' please can you provide the links to players who said a lack of professionalism was the reason for their lack of success.

If you want to find links to information why not go and find them yourselves, its not my job. Im basing my opinion on watching Navratilova and the people she played throughout her career. If you think that the likes of Betty Stove were supreme athletes then that up to you.
Of course it may just be a conincidence that Navratilova started to dominate when she bothered to get herself into decent shape and blast the rest off court, personally I dont think so though.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:22 pm

mystiroakey wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:"The very fact that its pointed out that Navratilova was the first woman in tennis to take physical conditioning really seriously should speak volumes about the talent pool that she was facing surely ?"

Sold on that one.. The perfect retort and imbecable reasoning

We could say the same about Bradman though - were the bowlers super-fit in those days, capable of steaming in relentlessly. Did they practice catching as rigourously as now, have videos to watch batsmans' techniques to spot flaws etc.
Ans surely one aspect of greatness is to be one step ahead of the competition - to be the first to do something that sets you apart?

aye you could and you could say the same about many.. But when you consider bradmans average... This is no nomral average. It beggars belief is what it does!!

Never said it didn't thumbsup

by Guest Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:22 pm

Diggers wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
Diggers wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
Diggers wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
emancipator wrote:Martina heralded a brave new world in womens tennis. Her overall legacy and contribution to the development of the sport is far greater than the Williams' sisters, and her on-court achievements dwarf those of BJK.

She was the first female player to become super fit in the pursuit of excellence. She left no stone unturned, meticulously managing her diet, training methods, including working out in the gym. She was incredibly fit and strong. She set the model for super athletes in tennis and her advice was actively sought by contemporaries such as Ivan Lendl.

She is, along with Steffi Graf, the most dominant female athlete in history. Throughout the eighties she was virtually untouchable and only age and the emergence of another legend ousted her from the top spot.

The dedication, focus and talent required to be that successful for that long is remarkeable. She gets my vote.

Much as Bradman's record is outstanding, I cannot honestly place the same degree of levity on a fringe sport played almost a hundred years ago. I see Martina as a greater athlete by any definition of the term. At her peak she was probably faster, fitter and more durable than The Don. Hell she could probably kick his butt in a fight!

Bradman's figures were undoubtedly greatly inflated by the era and competition. He basically played against the same people over and over again and accumulated ridiculous stats on that basis.

Bradman was a huge fish in a small pond.

Martina was a huge fish in an ocean.

emancipator

Superbly written

And Navratilova didnt play against the same players over and over....lets take a look at how many times she faced Evert for a start. Were there really more professional women tennis players taking the game seriously than cricketers doing the same during Bradmans era, I seriously doubt it.
The very fact that its pointed out that Navratilova was the first woman in tennis to take physical conditioning really seriously should speak volumes about the talent pool that she was facing surely ?

Right so she played Evert in every round of a Slam/WTA tour event?

She played her nearly a 100 times, quite a regular opponent wouldnt you say? Do you think Bradman faced the same bowler every time ?
See you havent commented on the fact that part of the reason Navratilova was so successful is that she took conditioning seriously, unlike the vast majority of her opponents.

Well how many bowlers did he face as it seemed England were the only team Australia played! 37 out of the 52 Tests against England! Shall I mock him?

As this is 'Fact' please can you provide the links to players who said a lack of professionalism was the reason for their lack of success.

If you want to find links to information why not go and find them yourselves, its not my job. Im basing my opinion on watching Navratilova and the people she played throughout her career. If you think that the likes of Betty Stove were supreme athletes then that up to you.
Of course it may just be a conincidence that Navratilova started to dominate when she bothered to get herself into decent shape and blast the rest off court, personally I dont think so though.

You quoted it as fact. Why should I research your lazy assumptions? It is clear you never watched Navratilova throughout her career like the same can be said on Bradman.

As far as I am concerned Navratilova is streets ahead of Bradman.

by **Fists of Fury** Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:24 pm

A bit extreme, LK. And most probably incorrect, I might add.

by Diggers Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:29 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:
Diggers wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
Diggers wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
Diggers wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
emancipator wrote:Martina heralded a brave new world in womens tennis. Her overall legacy and contribution to the development of the sport is far greater than the Williams' sisters, and her on-court achievements dwarf those of BJK.

She was the first female player to become super fit in the pursuit of excellence. She left no stone unturned, meticulously managing her diet, training methods, including working out in the gym. She was incredibly fit and strong. She set the model for super athletes in tennis and her advice was actively sought by contemporaries such as Ivan Lendl.

She is, along with Steffi Graf, the most dominant female athlete in history. Throughout the eighties she was virtually untouchable and only age and the emergence of another legend ousted her from the top spot.

The dedication, focus and talent required to be that successful for that long is remarkeable. She gets my vote.

Much as Bradman's record is outstanding, I cannot honestly place the same degree of levity on a fringe sport played almost a hundred years ago. I see Martina as a greater athlete by any definition of the term. At her peak she was probably faster, fitter and more durable than The Don. Hell she could probably kick his butt in a fight!

Bradman's figures were undoubtedly greatly inflated by the era and competition. He basically played against the same people over and over again and accumulated ridiculous stats on that basis.

Bradman was a huge fish in a small pond.

Martina was a huge fish in an ocean.

emancipator

Superbly written

And Navratilova didnt play against the same players over and over....lets take a look at how many times she faced Evert for a start. Were there really more professional women tennis players taking the game seriously than cricketers doing the same during Bradmans era, I seriously doubt it.
The very fact that its pointed out that Navratilova was the first woman in tennis to take physical conditioning really seriously should speak volumes about the talent pool that she was facing surely ?

Right so she played Evert in every round of a Slam/WTA tour event?

She played her nearly a 100 times, quite a regular opponent wouldnt you say? Do you think Bradman faced the same bowler every time ?
See you havent commented on the fact that part of the reason Navratilova was so successful is that she took conditioning seriously, unlike the vast majority of her opponents.

Well how many bowlers did he face as it seemed England were the only team Australia played! 37 out of the 52 Tests against England! Shall I mock him?

As this is 'Fact' please can you provide the links to players who said a lack of professionalism was the reason for their lack of success.

If you want to find links to information why not go and find them yourselves, its not my job. Im basing my opinion on watching Navratilova and the people she played throughout her career. If you think that the likes of Betty Stove were supreme athletes then that up to you.
Of course it may just be a conincidence that Navratilova started to dominate when she bothered to get herself into decent shape and blast the rest off court, personally I dont think so though.

You quoted it as fact. Why should I research your lazy assumptions? It is clear you never watched Navratilova throughout her career like the same can be said on Bradman.

As far as I am concerned Navratilova is streets ahead of Bradman.

Im 45 and grew up in a house where Wimbledon was always on, I remember watching Navratilova from a very early age and have watched her play countless times, I remember the fat version who I always wanted to win as she was the underdog, I remember the superfit vesrion who I was far less keen on and I remember her later career. You keep talking about people making assumptions about the 70's era which is increbibly arrogant, my opinion (to which Im entitled) comes from watching tennis for the best part of 40 years.

by Guest Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:30 pm

Not really Fists.

I never saw Bradman play. But by the same token I am not going to dismiss his accomplishments or achievements just because I am not interested in Cricket. His peers and all cricket professionals highlight how great he was.

Many tennis pro's past and present credit Navratilova as one the greats of tennis. Some have the opinion of the greatest and others don't. Botham himself said Sobers was up with the Don. It is opinion. I rate Navratilova highly. I won't just dismiss Bradman and the standard of cricket to promote an opinion.

by Stella Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:33 pm

I wonder if Sobers will be in the 64?

Should be.

by Diggers Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:34 pm

Who on here has dismissed Navratilova LK2, she was an all time great, my crime in your eyes is to place here slightly behind Graf, for the reasons Ive given, in the grand scheme of things.
Hence she would be second to Bradman for me on this list, it doesnt mean I dont rate what she did but in my mind there are caveats, as there are for all candidates no doubt including Bradman, but I feel Bradmans case is the stronger.
So wind in your know it all, everyone else doesnt have a clue attitude.

by Guest Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:35 pm

Diggers wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
Diggers wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
Diggers wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
Diggers wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
emancipator wrote:Martina heralded a brave new world in womens tennis. Her overall legacy and contribution to the development of the sport is far greater than the Williams' sisters, and her on-court achievements dwarf those of BJK.

She was the first female player to become super fit in the pursuit of excellence. She left no stone unturned, meticulously managing her diet, training methods, including working out in the gym. She was incredibly fit and strong. She set the model for super athletes in tennis and her advice was actively sought by contemporaries such as Ivan Lendl.

She is, along with Steffi Graf, the most dominant female athlete in history. Throughout the eighties she was virtually untouchable and only age and the emergence of another legend ousted her from the top spot.

The dedication, focus and talent required to be that successful for that long is remarkeable. She gets my vote.

Much as Bradman's record is outstanding, I cannot honestly place the same degree of levity on a fringe sport played almost a hundred years ago. I see Martina as a greater athlete by any definition of the term. At her peak she was probably faster, fitter and more durable than The Don. Hell she could probably kick his butt in a fight!

Bradman's figures were undoubtedly greatly inflated by the era and competition. He basically played against the same people over and over again and accumulated ridiculous stats on that basis.

Bradman was a huge fish in a small pond.

Martina was a huge fish in an ocean.

emancipator

Superbly written

And Navratilova didnt play against the same players over and over....lets take a look at how many times she faced Evert for a start. Were there really more professional women tennis players taking the game seriously than cricketers doing the same during Bradmans era, I seriously doubt it.
The very fact that its pointed out that Navratilova was the first woman in tennis to take physical conditioning really seriously should speak volumes about the talent pool that she was facing surely ?

Right so she played Evert in every round of a Slam/WTA tour event?

She played her nearly a 100 times, quite a regular opponent wouldnt you say? Do you think Bradman faced the same bowler every time ?
See you havent commented on the fact that part of the reason Navratilova was so successful is that she took conditioning seriously, unlike the vast majority of her opponents.

Well how many bowlers did he face as it seemed England were the only team Australia played! 37 out of the 52 Tests against England! Shall I mock him?

As this is 'Fact' please can you provide the links to players who said a lack of professionalism was the reason for their lack of success.

If you want to find links to information why not go and find them yourselves, its not my job. Im basing my opinion on watching Navratilova and the people she played throughout her career. If you think that the likes of Betty Stove were supreme athletes then that up to you.
Of course it may just be a conincidence that Navratilova started to dominate when she bothered to get herself into decent shape and blast the rest off court, personally I dont think so though.

You quoted it as fact. Why should I research your lazy assumptions? It is clear you never watched Navratilova throughout her career like the same can be said on Bradman.

As far as I am concerned Navratilova is streets ahead of Bradman.

Im 45 and grew up in a house where Wimbledon was always on, I remember watching Navratilova from a very early age and have watched her play countless times, I remember the fat version who I always wanted to win as she was the underdog, I remember the superfit vesrion who I was far less keen on and I remember her later career. You keep talking about people making assumptions about the 70's era which is increbibly arrogant, my opinion (to which Im entitled) comes from watching tennis for the best part of 40 years.

So speak of arrogance like the one you show by claiming a field of professional athletes didn't apply the same effort as Navratilova.

Pot and Kettle me thinks.

by mystiroakey Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:35 pm

legend fella you allways play the (i am a true fan) card..

you then suggested that Martina is streets ahead of bradman yet in the next post you say you dont dismiss his accomplishments.. Come on dude you just did!!!!

anyway peace to all.

But we need a balanced outlook on this and the best thing about followers over true fans is that sometimes we can look into stuff on a slightly less biased front! Diggers is not dismissing her acheivments at all. What he is doing is making some very valid points as to why she may have come from a less than competitive era than todays stars. Yes we can also argue that against Bradman as well...

by Guest Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:36 pm

Diggers wrote:Who on here has dismissed Navratilova LK2, she was an all time great, my crime in your eyes is to place here slightly behind Graf, for the reasons Ive given, in the grand scheme of things.
Hence she would be second to Bradman for me on this list, it doesnt mean I dont rate what she did but in my mind there are caveats, as there are for all candidates no doubt including Bradman, but I feel Bradmans case is the stronger.
So wind in your know it all, everyone else doesnt have a clue attitude.

Right so by saying 'she only faced Evert' and the field 'didn't have depth' isn't dismissing the talent that was?

Don't urine on my shoes and tell me it's raining!

by Imperial Ghosty Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:38 pm

It will come as no surprise who I've voted for here.

by Guest Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:39 pm

mystiroakey wrote:legend fella you allways play the (i am a true fan) card..

you then suggested that Martina is streets ahead of bradman yet in the next post you say you dont dismiss his accomplishments.. Come on dude you just did!!!!

anyway peace to all.

But we need a balanced outlook on this and the best thing about followers over true fans is that sometimes we can look into stuff on a slightly less biased front! Diggers is not dismissing her acheivments at all. What he is doing is making some very valid points as to why she may have come from a less than competitive era than todays stars. Yes we can also argue that against Bradman as well...

How is it dismissive chavvy?

by mystiroakey Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:40 pm

you want a reply- use my name thumbsup

by Diggers Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:40 pm

Of course what I actually said was that Grafs field had more depth than Navratilovas...which is very different...and that Navratilova also faced the same opponents multple times in the way that Bradman would have faced the same opponents several times.
But hey, lets not let the facts get in the way of you making a yet another crap point.

by **Fists of Fury** Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:41 pm

LK, that is my point exactly. Nothing should be dismissed - both were undoubtedly great, as many of the candidates listed here were (if not all).

I can confirm that Sobers is in the 64, Stella.

by Guest Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:42 pm

Like how crap your points have been on tennis

by Stella Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:43 pm

Fists of Fury wrote:LK, that is my point exactly. Nothing should be dismissed - both were undoubtedly great, as many of the candidates listed here were (if not all).

I can confirm that Sobers is in the 64, Stella.

Cheers.

by Diggers Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:46 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:Like how crap your points have been on tennis

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

by Guest Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:48 pm

Diggers wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Like how crap your points have been on tennis

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Yah I know the tennis world because I watch it 2 weeks a year Rolling Eyes

by super_realist Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:50 pm

Give it a break lads, for heavens sake, even a WUM like me is getting bored.

by **superflyweight** Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:52 pm

I have Greb as second only to Robinson in my list of all time great fighters. He, Ezzard Charles and Henry Armstrong, are the only fighters who could even realistically be placed ahead of Robinson. Greb's resume is simply the best in boxing history - the fact that there is no footage of him (bar him mucking about with a speed ball and also sparring jokingly with Philadlephia Jack O'Brien) means that it's difficult to place him ahead of Robinson (saying that, we have no footage of Robinson at his welterweight peak so a certain leap of faith is required in unequivocally placing him at number 1).

I've written an article previously highlighting Greb's achievments in 1922 alone. He fought 9 times (which was infrequent, to say the least, by Harry's usual standards), winning all of his fights against an incredible standard of opposition considering it was such a short space of time. He fought and beat top five ATG light heavyweight and future heavyweight champion, Gene Tunney (taking his American light heavyweight title) as well as beating another top ten ATG light heavyweight in Tommy Loughran. Added to that he also beat Tommy Gibbons who, the following year would take the great Jack Dempsey 15 rounds. He then beat another light heavy contender in Chuck Wiggins. Filling out his record for that year he also beat limited but genuine heavyweights in Hugh Walker (x2), Al Roberts and Al Benedict and notched up a victory against perhaps the dirtiest fighter of all time, Captain Bob Roper. With the exception of the Benedict fight (in which Greb gave away almost 40lbs to to the 210lb, Benedict) Greb managed this while weighing no more than 170lbs.

In summary, Greb beat three bigger fighters of genuine quality in Tunney, Loughran and Gibbons and he gave up significant physical advantages to those fighters which didn't quite match up to that quality and took on a real wildcard opponent in Roper (whom, by all accounts, was a headbutting lunatic).

Henry Armstrong and his golden year of 1938 probably just edge Greb's 1922 (albeit Armostrong did, understandably, have a couple of gimmes in his 14 fights that year) but all the same, Greb's achievements that year are almost without equal and offer a window into the quality of his resume.

Despite my love for Greb, I'm going to have to go for The Don who is head and shoulders above any other batsman. A horrible draw for the Human Windmill.

by Diggers Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:52 pm

Again of course I never actually said that did I. How much tennis from the other slams do you think was shown on TV back in the 70's ? I watched everything that was on, if sport was on we watched it. You should try watching a few other things, it might help you have a more rounded view.
But somehow I doubt it, think its all a little bit me me me with you isn't it.

by Guest Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:54 pm

Diggers wrote:Again of course I never actually said that did I. How much tennis from the other slams do you think was shown on TV back in the 70's ? I watched everything that was on, if sport was on we watched it. You should try watching a few other things, it might help you have a more rounded view.
But somehow I doubt it, think its all a little bit me me me with you isn't it.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

by Diggers Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:56 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:
Diggers wrote:Again of course I never actually said that did I. How much tennis from the other slams do you think was shown on TV back in the 70's ? I watched everything that was on, if sport was on we watched it. You should try watching a few other things, it might help you have a more rounded view.
But somehow I doubt it, think its all a little bit me me me with you isn't it.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Well at least you have manged to quote something Ive actually written correctly, well done you. Big improvement.

by **Fists of Fury** Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:58 pm

superflyweight wrote:I have Greb as second only to Robinson in my list of all time great fighters. He, Ezzard Charles and Henry Armstrong, are the only fighters who could even realistically be placed ahead of Robinson. Greb's resume is simply the best in boxing history - the fact that there is no footage of him (bar him mucking about with a speed ball and also sparring jokingly with Philadlephia Jack O'Brien) means that it's difficult to place him ahead of Robinson (saying that, we have no footage of Robinson at his welterweight peak so a certain leap of faith is required in unequivocally placing him at number 1).

I've written an article previously highlighting Greb's achievments in 1922 alone. He fought 9 times (which was infrequent, to say the least, by Harry's usual standards), winning all of his fights against an incredible standard of opposition considering it was such a short space of time. He fought and beat top five ATG light heavyweight and future heavyweight champion, Gene Tunney (taking his American light heavyweight title) as well as beating another top ten ATG light heavyweight in Tommy Loughran. Added to that he also beat Tommy Gibbons who, the following year would take the great Jack Dempsey 15 rounds. He then beat another light heavy contender in Chuck Wiggins. Filling out his record for that year he also beat limited but genuine heavyweights in Hugh Walker (x2), Al Roberts and Al Benedict and notched up a victory against perhaps the dirtiest fighter of all time, Captain Bob Roper. With the exception of the Benedict fight (in which Greb gave away almost 40lbs to to the 210lb, Benedict) Greb managed this while weighing no more than 170lbs.

In summary, Greb beat three bigger fighters of genuine quality in Tunney, Loughran and Gibbons and he gave up significant physical advantages to those fighters which didn't quite match up to that quality and took on a real wildcard opponent in Roper (whom, by all accounts, was a headbutting lunatic).

Henry Armstrong and his golden year of 1938 probably just edge Greb's 1922 (albeit Armostrong did, understandably, have a couple of gimmes in his 14 fights that year) but all the same, Greb's achievements that year are almost without equal and offer a window into the quality of his resume.

Despite my love for Greb, I'm going to have to go for The Don who is head and shoulders above any other batsman. A horrible draw for the Human Windmill.

Wonderful post, superfly.

It is indeed a horror of a draw for Greb, though a challenge he would have relished, no doubt.

by Guest Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:58 pm

Diggers wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
Diggers wrote:Again of course I never actually said that did I. How much tennis from the other slams do you think was shown on TV back in the 70's ? I watched everything that was on, if sport was on we watched it. You should try watching a few other things, it might help you have a more rounded view.
But somehow I doubt it, think its all a little bit me me me with you isn't it.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Well at least you have manged to quote something Ive actually written correctly, well done you. Big improvement.

Well thats the first fact you have gotten correct today! Keep it up.

by Diggers Wed 09 Jan 2013, 11:58 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:
Diggers wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
Diggers wrote:Again of course I never actually said that did I. How much tennis from the other slams do you think was shown on TV back in the 70's ? I watched everything that was on, if sport was on we watched it. You should try watching a few other things, it might help you have a more rounded view.
But somehow I doubt it, think its all a little bit me me me with you isn't it.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Well at least you have manged to quote something Ive actually written correctly, well done you. Big improvement.

Well thats the first fact you have gotten correct today! Keep it up.

Still makes me one up on you.

by **superflyweight** Thu 10 Jan 2013, 12:00 am

A little bit more on Greb from the Boxing forum's sadly absent Jimmy Stuart:

I did write a few months back on how I thought Greb was a candidate for one of the most dominant sportsman in history. As between March 1919 and the end of 1922 he was beaten just once, by Tommy Gibbons, a loss that was brutally avenged.

He fought in in excess of 100 times during this period and the level of competition is unmatched by any fighter in any 3 year period of the sport's history. Greb beat:

Jack Dillon,Mike McTigue,Soldier Bartfield,Gunboat Smith,Battling Levinksy,Billy Miske,Bill Brennan,Willie Meehan,Gene Tunney,Tommy Gibbons,Jeff Smith,Kid Norfolk,Jack Renault,Mike McTigue,Tommy Loughran,Billy Shade.

It's also worth noting that Greb beat every future Hall of Fame fighter that he ever fought and also every Heavyweight he ever fought (whilst weighing little more than a middleweight).

by Guest Thu 10 Jan 2013, 12:00 am

Diggers wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
Diggers wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
Diggers wrote:Again of course I never actually said that did I. How much tennis from the other slams do you think was shown on TV back in the 70's ? I watched everything that was on, if sport was on we watched it. You should try watching a few other things, it might help you have a more rounded view.
But somehow I doubt it, think its all a little bit me me me with you isn't it.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Well at least you have manged to quote something Ive actually written correctly, well done you. Big improvement.

Well thats the first fact you have gotten correct today! Keep it up.

Still makes me one up on you.

by Dr Gregory House MD Thu 10 Jan 2013, 12:04 am

I am far from the most knowledgeable boxing fan to champion a guy like Greb but this is an article written by Beer which will at least give him some representation.

Harry Greb, World Middleweight Boxing Champion 1923-1926, was the ever in your face nightmare, the supreme swarming style fighter. His Cyber Boxing Zone bio notes that "Greb was called “The Human Windmill” due to the constant flurries of punches he threw as well as the fast pace he kept throughout his fights." He had unending stamina, and he kept coming and you could not stop him. He had great hand speed and an iron chin. He was a whirlwind in action from the moment the opening bell rang. He could wear down any opponent given enough rounds. He sapped the energy out of his foes and battered them mercilessly from all directions. He was a ruthless master of infighting and was not adverse to using dirty tactics. Greb stayed in shaped by fighting often averaging about 22 fights a year, and in 1919 fought 45 times. At his peak he weighed between 158 and 165 pounds at 5 ft. 8in., and he often fought men who outweighed him by as much as 40 to 80 pounds. Many consider Greb as the greatest middleweight champion ever.

Historian Eric Jorgensen stated, “Greb may have been the greatest fighter, pound-for-pound, who ever lived. Certainly, he was among the top 2 or 3. He combined the speed of Ray Robinson, the durability of Jim Jeffries, the stamina of Henry Armstrong, and the unbridled ferocity of Stanley Ketchel with a will to win unsurpassed in the annals of sport. At his peak, he was unbeatable, defeating virtually every middleweight, light heavyweight and heavyweight of his generation. A great, great fighter.”

Greb’s record is virtually unbelievable. How many fighters can claim to have a record like that of Harry Greb? He defeated 18 men who held, had held, or would hold world championships, and this at a time when there were only 8 divisions in boxing and one champion in each division. The 5 middleweight champions that Greb defeated were Mike O’Dowd, George Chip, Al McCoy, Mickey Walker, Tiger Flowers and Johnny Wilson from whom he won the title. He also defeated 4 middleweight title claimants Eddie McGoorty, Frank Mantell, Jeff Smith and Bryan Downey. Greb defeated 7 light heavyweight world champions, Mike McTigue, Jack Dillon, Battling Levinsky, Tommy Loughran, Jimmy Slattery and Maxie Rosenbloom and one future world heavyweight champion, Gene Tunney whom he fought five times. Count ‘em! 5+4+7+1=18 champions who lost to Greb. Remarkable!

To really understand the era one should know that because of the “No Decision” rules that prevailed at the time the champions were not always the best fighters, there were many uncrowned champions during this period. There were so many great fighters that Greb met and defeated more first tier boxers than any other champion in history. He beat Mike Gibbons, considered by many ring historians among the top 10 all time middleweights. He beat George "Ko" Brown who twice went 20 rounds with the legendary Les Darcy. He defeated master boxer Tommy Gibbons, a light heavyweight and a truly clever mobile fighter who could feint, jab, move and do it all. He won a narrow verdict over Kid Norfolk who Jack Dempsey was accused of drawing the color line against. He beat Charlie Weinert who went on to beat heavyweight slugger Luis Firpo in a No Decision match. He also defeated heavyweights like Bill "Ko" Brennan who fought Jack Dempsey for the world title. He decisively beat Brennan in every one of their meetings to the point where it can be argued that he didn't lose a single round. Greb annihilated former "white heavyweight champion" Ed Gunboat Smith knocking him out in the first round. Greb decisioned Billy Miske who a year later would fight Dempsey for the heavyweight title. Greb beat Willie Meehan who once won a 4-round decision over Dempsey. Greb also beat several of Dempsey's favorite sparring partners like Larry Williams and Chief Clay Turner. Reigning light heavyweight champion Georges Carpentier avoided Greb like the plague. Tex Rickard was very eager to match Greb and Carpentier and even offered Carpentier a huge purse to meet Greb for the light heavyweight championship but he refused.

The question of Harry Greb's greatness cannot be disputed by the unbiased observer. His record is impeccable. The argument that one cannot know how good Greb was because there are no available films of him (except a training video) hold to an untenable argument. Historians and collectors of vintage films understand Greb's greatness based on his record and the many existing films of his opposition. There are films of Mike Gibbons, Tommy Gibbons, Tommy Loughran, Jimmy Slattery, Mickey Walker, Bill Brennan and Gene Tunney, all outstanding fighters whom Greb bested. One can see how good these fighters were and know that Greb defeated them. Further there are the newspaper accounts, with some of the bigger fights featuring round by round descriptions of the action in the ring.

Whenever great fighters of his era discussed Greb they mentioned three outstanding qualities that qualify him as the greatest swarming fighter of history. First of these was his great speed. Second of these was the relentless pace he set by the sheer volume of punches that he threw. And lastly was his impregnable chin, which is an essential ingredient to the successful swarming fighter.

Heavyweight champion Jack Dempsey said that Greb was “The fastest fighter I ever saw. Hell. Greb is faster than (lightweight champion) Benny Leonard.” In 1920 Greb, who was in training for Billy Miske, sparred Dempsey a few rounds. The sparring sessions were so good that thousands of fans showed up just to watch. According to eyewitnesses Greb “slapped the crouching heavyweight champion around, and bounced away before Dempsey could do more than co ck a punch.” Jack Kearns, Dempsey’s manager, ran Greb out of camp. There was much talk of a Dempsey-Greb match for the heavyweight championship, but it never came off. It seems Jack Kearns was unwilling to take the chance.

Fighting Greb was like fighting a man with eight arms. “He was never in one spot for more than half a second,” said Gene Tunney, “All my punches were aimed and timed properly but they always wound up hitting empty air. He'd jump in and out, slamming me with a left and whirling me around with his right or the other way around. My arms were plastered with leather and although I jabbed, hooked and crossed, it was like fighting an octopus.”

Greb would swarm over his opponents with his blazing fast hands while throwing punches from all angles. Veteran fight manager Dan Morgan said, “He threw so many punches that the breeze from his misses gave opponents pneumonia. He tossed leather from all directions in fusillades, barrages, salvo’s, and volleys. Naturally being so fast and throwing so many punches he was not a knocker-outer. To shoot a real shock punch a fighter must get set, be more or less stationary for a fraction of a second. Greb was never still in the ring, so most of his knockouts were of the TKO variety.”

Greb threw so many punches, from so many angles and for so many hits that he would have drove today’s “punch stat” counters crazy. One of his opponent’s Pat Walsh said after their fight, “I thought somebody had opened up the ceiling and dumped a carload of boxing gloves on me.”

Harry had the proven tough chin needed to absorb the heavy punch of much larger men. In around 300 professional fights, which included dozens of bouts against heavyweights, he was stopped only twice, once in his first year of fighting, and once when he broke his forearm throwing a punch at Kid Graves.

Greb’s most famous victory is his win against Gene Tunney for the American light heavyweight title. Greb handed Tunney the only official defeat of his career in their first meeting. The May 24, 1922 NY Times reported, “Greb, a human perpetual motion machine if there ever was one received the decision of the judges Tommy Shortem and Eddie Hurley and Referee Billy McPartland.” The Times reported, “Tunney tried with every ounce of strength and every trick of the trade to offset the speed and remarkable ability of his rival. But the defending champion could find no defense for the rain of blows which met him at every turn.”

Grantland Rice, one of the top sportswriters of the time wrote, “Harry handled Gene like a butcher hammering a Swiss steak. How Gene survived 15 rounds I will never know.” Tunney himself said, “Greb gave me a terrible whipping. My jaw was swollen from the right temple down the cheek, along the chin and part way up the other side. The referee, the ring itself, was full of my blood. If boxing was afflicted with the commission doctors that we have now, the first fight probably would have been stopped and no one would have heard of me today.”

Greb and Tunney fought 4 more times and they were all good competitive closely contested fights and one must remember that Tunney was the naturally bigger fighter in all of these contests. Their second fight was highly controversial. Tunney won the decision in their rematch which many called the worst decision in New York history. Some sportswriters at the time declared that it called for an investigation. William Muldoon, NY State Athletic Commissioner, said in the Feb 24, 1923 NY Times “The verdict was unjust” and “(Muldoon) declares that Pittsburgh boxer (Greb) should have received decision.”

According to historian Steve Compton Gene Tunney won the the rubbermatch fair and square. The fourth bout in Cleveland was cast for Greb by 2 of 3 Cleveland papers with the third calling it a draw, and the fifth bout went to Tunney.

One of Greb’s greatest fights was his victory over welterweight and future middleweight champion Mickey Walker at the Polo Grounds in New York in 1925. Walker, himself an all time pound for pound great said in Peter Heller’s In This Corner, “Harry Greb was the greatest fighter I ever fought. He was one of the greatest that ever stepped in the ring.” The July 3, NY Times reported, “Greb retained his world middleweight title when he battered his way to the decision…in as savage and furious a ring encounter as either boxer has ever experienced.” The Times continued, “Walker left the ring badly used up. He had a split lip, a bruised and battered nose, and a cut under his right eye which was puffed and almost closed. Greb was unmarked, although he absorbed punishing blows to the body through every round.” The entire bout was fought at an extremely fast pace. Walker started off well in the early rounds but by the 6th Greb was firmly in charge. There was seesaw action in the mid to late rounds. The champion finished strongly taking the final "championship" rounds, nearly knocking Walker out in the 14th.

What is even more amazing is the fact that Greb fought most of these great fights while blind in one eye. He suffered a detached retina after being thumbed in his 1921 fight against Kid Norfolk. For five years he fought half blind.

When he finally lost the title to Tiger Flowers the split decision was a controversial one. The rematch was even more controversial. When Joe Humphreys announced Flowers as the winner by split decision with the judges, but not the referee, voting for him, the fans stormed the ring, littering it with bottles, hats, paper and everything they could find to throw in protest. Jim Crowley, the referee, walked over to Greb saying “Tough, Harry, a tough one to lose. It was your fight.” Gene Tunney who watched the affair said, “Harry won by a substantial margin. It was an unjust decision.” William Muldoon also said Greb had won, adding, “but the decision will stand. If we (The New York Athletic Commission) reversed it, the Negro people might think they were being discriminated against.”

Two months later Greb died. He was injured in an automobile accident and complained of dizziness and breathing difficulty. He would later die on the operating table as he tried to get his nose repaired so he could breathe better.

Harry Greb was the ultimate aggressive swarming style fighter, only Henry Armstrong can compare to him in terms of the volumes of punches he threw and the killing pace that he set. Not even Armstrong can compare to Greb in terms of his speed, maneuverability and durability. Greb’s perpetual motion fighting made him as dominant as any fighter who ever lived and his awesome record is virtually unmatched in the annals of boxing history.

by **Fists of Fury** Thu 10 Jan 2013, 12:06 am

Thanks for posting that, Dr Greg.

Good to see Greb getting some recognition.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Thu 10 Jan 2013, 12:10 am

Bradman. Hands down

by Dr Gregory House MD Thu 10 Jan 2013, 12:12 am

No problem Fists, all credit to Beer though and I hope he dosn't mind me reposting his work, I have read about Greb many times on the boxing board and he sounds like a real contender for the GOAT in boxing, this is a place where cricket has a definative advantage over a sport like boxing, in that statistics and averages can be drawn back almost to the begining in cricket, where as Greb is let down by the fact that eye witness reports and future exploits of some oposition are the only comfermation we have of his greatness.

by Shelsey93 Thu 10 Jan 2013, 12:37 am

Stella wrote:I wonder if Sobers will be in the 64?

Should be.

I believe he should too. (Certainly he must have more of a case than Gavin Hastings, and if American Football can have 2 or more representatives, hopefully cricket can too). But I fear he won't be.

by Hoggy_Bear Thu 10 Jan 2013, 12:41 am

Shelsey93 wrote:
Stella wrote:I wonder if Sobers will be in the 64?

Should be.

I believe he should too. (Certainly he must have more of a case than Gavin Hastings, and if American Football can have 2 or more representatives, hopefully cricket can too). But I fear he won't be.

How about W.G. Grace?

by super_realist Thu 10 Jan 2013, 12:41 am

I've a feeling that a more deserved person who might be from a less fancied sport will certainly be overlooked.
Cricket may be quite popular amongst some, but can you imagine such a vociferous defence of someone from say a minority sport like baseball where they have undoubted GOATS too.
Is Bradman's support more due to their liking of Cricket than Bradmans actual merit, especially given the time period to which it relates.
I mean would anyone be championing the cause of a Port Vale, Tranmere or Bolton player from 1938 with a similar level of ahievement. Doubt it, too far in the past, and so I feel Bradman is the same.

by Statto00 Thu 10 Jan 2013, 12:41 am

Shelsey93 wrote:
Stella wrote:I wonder if Sobers will be in the 64?

Should be.

I believe he should too. (Certainly he must have more of a case than Gavin Hastings, and if American Football can have 2 or more representatives, hopefully cricket can too). But I fear he won't be.

It's already been confirmed he's in... Rolling Eyes

by Dr Gregory House MD Thu 10 Jan 2013, 12:45 am

super_realist wrote:I've a feeling that a more deserved person who might be from a less fancied sport will certainly be overlooked.
Cricket may be quite popular amongst some, but can you imagine such a vociferous defence of someone from say a minority sport like baseball where they have undoubted GOATS too.
Is Bradman's support more due to their liking of Cricket than Bradmans actual merit, especially given the time period to which it relates.
I mean would anyone be championing the cause of a Port Vale, Tranmere or Bolton player from 1938 with a similar level of ahievement. Doubt it, too far in the past, and so I feel Bradman is the same.

As a sailor I'm hoping Ben Ainslie...sorry Sir Ben Ainslie will crop up at some point so I can champion him. Then watch him get slaughtered.

by super_realist Thu 10 Jan 2013, 12:46 am

Part of Cricket and Rugby's problem is the lack of genuinely meaningful games.
Tests are pretty worthless and not much more than glorified friendlies.

by Stella Thu 10 Jan 2013, 12:48 am

Cricketers that should be in are Bradman, Sobers, Grace.

by guildfordbat Thu 10 Jan 2013, 12:49 am

Superfly and Dr Gregory - some great punches being thrown. clap

I'm sure both Harry Greb and his greatest supporter are looking down with a smile. Miss you so much.

by Hoggy_Bear Thu 10 Jan 2013, 12:49 am

super_realist wrote:Is Bradman's support more due to their liking of Cricket than Bradmans actual merit, especially given the time period to which it relates.
I mean would anyone be championing the cause of a Port Vale, Tranmere or Bolton player from 1938 with a similar level of ahievement. Doubt it, too far in the past, and so I feel Bradman is the same.

So where would you put the cut-off line?
1930s?
40s?
50s?
60s?

Is Babe Ruth too long ago to deserve consideration?
Joe Louis?
Pele?

by Stella Thu 10 Jan 2013, 12:50 am

super_realist wrote:I've a feeling that a more deserved person who might be from a less fancied sport will certainly be overlooked.
Cricket may be quite popular amongst some, but can you imagine such a vociferous defence of someone from say a minority sport like baseball where they have undoubted GOATS too.
Is Bradman's support more due to their liking of Cricket than Bradmans actual merit, especially given the time period to which it relates.
I mean would anyone be championing the cause of a Port Vale, Tranmere or Bolton player from 1938 with a similar level of ahievement. Doubt it, too far in the past, and so I feel Bradman is the same.

They would have played for England and gained the same level, so yes, of course we would.

by Diggers Thu 10 Jan 2013, 12:52 am

Statto00 wrote:
Shelsey93 wrote:
Stella wrote:I wonder if Sobers will be in the 64?

Should be.

I believe he should too. (Certainly he must have more of a case than Gavin Hastings, and if American Football can have 2 or more representatives, hopefully cricket can too). But I fear he won't be.
It's already been confirmed he's in...

I guess that means someone like Kallis wont be, even though in a later era Kallis has very comparable career stats and over a greater period of time.

by super_realist Thu 10 Jan 2013, 12:52 am

Stella, that's what I'm asking. I don't think a football fan, golf fan, tennis fan etc would be looking so far back as I think they realise the sport has moved on dramatically and most often a completely different game now.

Is the game of cricket now, not completely different from Bradmans era, therefore are we really comparing the same game, and so doubtless a GOAT as Bradman was, does he belong in a poll where by some distance he's going to be from an era which other sports fans consider as pretty obsolete.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Thu 10 Jan 2013, 12:54 am

Bradman's achievements are all the more incredible considering how much more difficult batting was in his era compared to more recent times. It's truly dumbfounding

by Hoggy_Bear Thu 10 Jan 2013, 12:58 am

super_realist wrote:Stella, that's what I'm asking. I don't think a football fan, golf fan, tennis fan etc would be looking so far back as I think they realise the sport has moved on dramatically and most often a completely different game now.

So, again, where do you draw the line?
Has football not moved on dramatically from the 1950s and 60s when Pele played?
Would you, therefore, argue that Pele is not worthy of consideration?
Has boxing not moved on dramatically from the days of Harry Greb?
Why are you not making the same points about his candidature?

by super_realist Thu 10 Jan 2013, 12:59 am

Olly wrote:Bradman's achievements are all the more incredible considering how much more difficult batting was in his era compared to more recent times. It's truly dumbfounding

Was it though.
Were bowlers/fielders as good. Was there as much variation in bowling methods, could a bowler bowl as quickly with as much pace/spin.

We'll probably never know, but calling it dumbfounding is taking it a little far, it's just hitting a bit of leather with a bat.

How would Fred Perry do in the modern era? That's the kind of question I'm raising with Bradman, are his achievements that great when they come from such a gentle era?

Where would I draw the line? Probably when sport in general became more professional. Mid to late 60's?

by Sponsored content