Robinson or Greb?

[Ambling Alp]

Thought this may be fun. Both of these guys are frequently mentioned as the best ever. Even, if you don't think either are the best, who was the better of the two?

They both had phenomenal careers. Compating them requires looking at a lot of information. They didn't fight in the same era, so obviously there is no head-to-head matchups or common opponents to consider.

However, if you break down quality of wins (and the quantity of those wins), and their losses, it gets very interesting.

Greb's most impressive win was over Tunney and he gave up about 12 pounds. He offically went 1-2 vs Tunney, and 1-3-1 if you count "newspaper decisions" in two of their fights that were no-decisions.

For Robinson, it was probably beating LaMotta when he was vastly outweighed. He was 5-1 vs LaMotta, and twice beat LaMotta ( a middleweight) when he was under the welterweight limit.

Tunney was better than LaMotta. On the other hand, Robinson had a better record vs LaMotta than Greb did against Tunney.

As for other major wins, Greb beat Walker, Loughran, and Tommy Gibbons. He also beat Johnny Wilson, who an underrated middleweight champion, and Bill Brennan who was a heavyweight contender.

Robinson, had major over Gavilan (twice), Fullmer, Basilio, Angott three times. Robinson had a bit of a weight advantage against Angott who really a lighthweight while Robinson was a welterweight at the time. However, he also beat Angott when they were both 136 and 1/2. This maybe his most underrated win. Other notable wins were over Olsen (three times), Turpin, Graziano and Zivic (twice). Robinson also beat a past his best though still very good Armstrong.

Both Greb and Robinson beat several solid contenders during their careers. Robinson does seem to have the edge here. However, Greb also had several newspaper decsions against quality opponents such as Tommy and Mike Gibbons, Rosenbloom, Dillion, Levisnky, Loughran, Norfolk, McTigue and heavyweight contender Billy Miske. Some he beat multiple times.

Greb did have some losses very early in career. After he was a season pro, he had very few despite having so many fights and fighting such quality opposition. Besides Tunney, He lost a 10-round decision to Loughran had a draw with Loughran, was disqualified against Norfolk, and lost to Tiger Flowers after he started having serious eye problems. That is not much when you consider he almost 300 fights.

Robinson had 19 losses, most when he was past his best. At one time, he was 128-1-2, with only loss to LaMotta. He lost the famous fight with Maxim for the lightheavyweight title. Really, he had no embarrassing losses considering his and quality of opponents he later lost to. He did lose to turpin and contdners Tiger Jones, though he was rusty after a 3 year-layoff. He over 35 in all of his other losses.

Just thought it would be interesting to have a good discussion regarding these two. It certainly is not a no-brainer.

[dempseyfire]

I think if you are just comparing resumes, Greb wins hands down. More Hall of Fame fighters, beat them more times, and beat a wider range of elite fighters across weight class (big welters all the way to heavyweight)

[SUGARRAYSMELEE]

Definitely Robinson. I think a better question would be Robinson or Benny Leonard. Although, I'd still pick Robinson, Leonard had the style of a modern fighter, he didn't look so primitive and crude like most of the old timers.

[Ezzard]

Greb does have the better record (Langford's might just be even better) but Robinson's has the gold standard and we have footage of him. For this reason I have to go with Robinson who was simply a master of boxing in almost any style chose fight in.

Loughran is only a tiny bit below Tunney. I believe Gene won their encounter when Loughran was a little inexperienced and that it was a controversial decision. I might be wrong. Klompton would know for sure.

Obviously La Motta and Turpin were great wins for Robinson but Gavilan is probably the grestest fighter Robinson beat.

[King Carlos]

To be fair, your post was little more than a boxrec breakdown of their records. No real insight as to the manner of the fights/performances/decisions, etc. Greb's series with Tunney was more than likely further in his favor than vice versa, for example, regardless of the official records. Similar to Griffith/Rodriguez in that sense.

Anyways, based on what they achieved it's virtually impossible to rate Robinson above Greb, but based on other variables like overall skills, etc. I could see the argument.

[Ambling Alp]

Well I didn't go into greater detail without making this very extensive. They had almost 500 fights between them and dozens of significant
fights.
The Greb-Tunney series was not in Greb's favor. Tunney won 2 decisions, Greb only 1. There is not a lot of dispute as to whether the decisions were fair. As for the no-decisions in their 4th and 5th fights, yes the 4th fight was disputed. some thought Greb, won, some Tunney, some thought it was a daw. This is usually considered a newspaper decision draw. As for the 5th fight,There is no dispute at all, Tunney won handily. Even if you count the no-decision fights and give the 4th fight in Greb's favor, Greb still loses 3-2. (This is not that anyone else Greb's size would have done better.)

It's certainly not impossible to rate Robinson ahead of Greb based on what they achieved. It's very close. A lot depends on how much weight you give to no-decision's, which of course are not official. Greb had more significant newspaper decisons than he did significant official decisions.

If you throw them out completely, then Robinson has the edge.
If you give equal weight to no-decisions as to official decisons, then I agree Greb has the edge.

However, if you come down somewhere in the middle regarding no-decisions, then it's very close.

[King Carlos]

The Greb-Tunney series was not in Greb's favor. Tunney won 2 decisions, Greb only 1. There is not a lot of dispute as to whether the decisions were fair. As for the no-decisions in their 4th and 5th fights, yes the 4th fight was disputed. some thought Greb, won, some Tunney, some thought it was a daw. This is usually considered a newspaper decision draw. As for the 5th fight,There is no dispute at all, Tunney won handily. Even if you count the no-decision fights and give the 4th fight in Greb's favor, Greb still loses 3-2. (This is not that anyone else Greb's size would have done better.)

Yes, actually there is a lot of dispute as to whether the decisions were fair. For instance, in the second fight Greb won about 3/4 of the Newspaper decisions from various different sources, and the fight is regarded as one of the biggest robberies in New York history by many. Greb more than likely should've won the first two bouts, with the next two being relatively even, Tunney winning the fifth just as decisively over an increasingly deteriorated Greb as Greb had done to Tunney in the first meeting.

It's certainly not impossible to rate Robinson ahead of Greb based on what they achieved. It's very close. A lot depends on how much weight you give to no-decision's, which of course are not official. Greb had more significant newspaper decisons than he did significant official decisions.

Why wouldn't you put weight into Newspaper decisions, provided you've actually researched any possible funny business? It was the Newspaper era. Are we just supposed to write off all of those fights as exhibitions when they clearly weren't?

[Ambling Alp]

1. I have read about all of their fights. I have not heard about 3/4 of newspapers reporting that Greb deserved to win. I have always heard that their 2nd fight was close but there many people who thought Tunney did deserve the win.

2. As far as newspaper decisions go, I agree that they were not ( at least usually) treated as mere exhibitions by the fighters. But do both fighters go all out every time? Tunney and Greb probably did against each other, but not all fighters all of the time. I can see where people would not want to count them all.
-The mere fact that they are not official is enough for some people.
-What exactly constitutes a newspaper decision? Does the only report (that we know of) from one paper in one fight count as much as 20 papers covering another fight?
-There may be one paper saying so and so won. However, there may be other papers that said the other guy won and we don't even know about that.
-We hear that one or more newspapers said so and so won. Well, what do we really know about the writer who wrote the article? He may be biased toward one fighter or simply not that knowledgeable.

I personally come down in the middle. For example, if two fighter only fought once and fighter A won a newspaper decison (as far as we know anyway) I give him the edge head to head wise. However, if they fought a rematch, and this time there was an official decision and fighter B won, I would say fighter B has the head-to-head advantage.

With, Greb, he had so many fights with n-decisons it amkes rating him more diificult. It is a close call regarding him and Robinson.