Greb did hold the American LHW title. I guess Klompton's point is that he didn't win the world title but since he took the American title away from none other than Gene Tunney that's good enough for me.klompton wrote:Greb at LHW beat: Jack Dillon twice, Maxie Rosenbloom once, Jimmy Slattery once, Battling Levinsky everytime they fought which was something like six times, Tommy Loughran evertime except a draw and loss both of which were controversial, Gene Tunney twice not including the second fight which was called by many the worst decision in New York history, Billy Miske, Tommy Gibbons, Mike McTigue twice, etc. Guys who had large offers to fight him and looked the other way were: Paul Berlenbach, Jack Delaney, George Carpentier, and Battling Siki among others. So do the math. Id say thats a great resume at LHW and the only reason some refuse to rate him at there is because he held a title at MW, ignoring the fact that he would have held one at LHW as well had he been given the opportunity to fight for it. I dont understand the refusal by some to only rate fighters in one division when the crossed divisional lines during their career frequently and clearly showed they were great in one or more. Its even more ridiculous when so many choose to rate Loughran above him despite Greb being clearly the better fighter and proving it in the ring.
Best Light Heavys
-
sharkeysboy
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 107
- Joined: 23 Aug 2005, 16:52
Its debateable whether or not Lougran and Rosenbloom had reached their primes but if you want to throw that card in then you might as well say Greb was past his prime when he fought both men. The simple fact is that Greb beat both men convincingly and not when they were amateurs or even just starting out. Both men had more fights, than most fighters EVER have today and both men faced more contenders than most fighters ever will today, PRIOR to fighting Greb so they werent exactly wet behind the ears as your post implies.
You also try to illustrate his great years by saying he beat Slattery and McTigue during this period among others. Yet you ignore your own argument when you ignore the fact that McTigue was older than Methusalah when Tommy beat him and Slattery was a drunk who had basically ruined his own once bright future. In short both men were not prime examples of themselves, as they were when Greb beat them and did so handily YEARS earlier than Tommy did.
You say look at his opponents more closely before dismissing them (I didnt dismiss, quite the opposite) so lets look at the Loughran who faced Greb:
When Loughran first faced Greb he had already fought 44 bouts that we know of. Some of the men he faced were contenders Jimmy Darcy, Bryan Downey, Mike McTigue who was a year and a day away from the LHW title, and tough well respected journeyman fighters like Fay Keiser, Len Rowlends, Young Fisher, Frank Carbone, and Jackie Clarke among others. He hadnt lost a decision yet and Greb would be the first man to outpoint him. By the second time he fought Greb Loughran had given Tunney a hard battle, fought top contender Lou Bogash, and taken on Pal Reed. He then lost back to back decisions to Greb. Move on to the next time and he had added middleweight claiment Jeff Smith (twice), champion Mike McTigue (twice), and top St. Paul LHW Jimmy Delaney to his resume. He then beat Greb on a disputed decision in Boston for his only win over Greb. Move on to the next time they fought and Tommy had beaten top British middleweight champions Ted Moore and Roland Todd before losing to Greb yet again. Move on yet again and Loughran had added former champ Johnny Wilson, future champ Jack Delaney, and top contenders Ad Stone, Charlie Nashert, and Young Stribling to his resume before a controversial draw with Greb in Loughrans hometown.
As an aside I also dont consider Loughrans win over Braddock that impressive. If you watch that fight you will see that Braddock looks like an baboon with two left feet. He gives an absolutely horrible display for a title challenger. Some of this may be a credit to Loughran but its obvious from the film that Braddock wasnt exactly willie pep for boxing or jack dempsey for slugging.
You also try to illustrate his great years by saying he beat Slattery and McTigue during this period among others. Yet you ignore your own argument when you ignore the fact that McTigue was older than Methusalah when Tommy beat him and Slattery was a drunk who had basically ruined his own once bright future. In short both men were not prime examples of themselves, as they were when Greb beat them and did so handily YEARS earlier than Tommy did.
You say look at his opponents more closely before dismissing them (I didnt dismiss, quite the opposite) so lets look at the Loughran who faced Greb:
When Loughran first faced Greb he had already fought 44 bouts that we know of. Some of the men he faced were contenders Jimmy Darcy, Bryan Downey, Mike McTigue who was a year and a day away from the LHW title, and tough well respected journeyman fighters like Fay Keiser, Len Rowlends, Young Fisher, Frank Carbone, and Jackie Clarke among others. He hadnt lost a decision yet and Greb would be the first man to outpoint him. By the second time he fought Greb Loughran had given Tunney a hard battle, fought top contender Lou Bogash, and taken on Pal Reed. He then lost back to back decisions to Greb. Move on to the next time and he had added middleweight claiment Jeff Smith (twice), champion Mike McTigue (twice), and top St. Paul LHW Jimmy Delaney to his resume. He then beat Greb on a disputed decision in Boston for his only win over Greb. Move on to the next time they fought and Tommy had beaten top British middleweight champions Ted Moore and Roland Todd before losing to Greb yet again. Move on yet again and Loughran had added former champ Johnny Wilson, future champ Jack Delaney, and top contenders Ad Stone, Charlie Nashert, and Young Stribling to his resume before a controversial draw with Greb in Loughrans hometown.
As an aside I also dont consider Loughrans win over Braddock that impressive. If you watch that fight you will see that Braddock looks like an baboon with two left feet. He gives an absolutely horrible display for a title challenger. Some of this may be a credit to Loughran but its obvious from the film that Braddock wasnt exactly willie pep for boxing or jack dempsey for slugging.
greb was certainly in his prime in 23.loughran at that time was a little inconsistent.at 21 he was still learning his trade.regardless of whether he had had more fights than now.what does that mean?absolutely nothing.
look at loughran from about 26 to 30.this was when the man was at his peak.
the question was how can you rate tommy higher considering greb beat him.i hope i have explained it.imo and lets face it all time lists are very subjective a peak loughran with all the extra experience and skill acquired,not to mention strength would decision greb.he became and this is without doubt a much better fighter later on.
i've enjoyed debating this guys and although i know we don't agree i hope you can at least see where i'm coming from,as i can with yourselves.i now have harry in my top 15.
look at loughran from about 26 to 30.this was when the man was at his peak.
the question was how can you rate tommy higher considering greb beat him.i hope i have explained it.imo and lets face it all time lists are very subjective a peak loughran with all the extra experience and skill acquired,not to mention strength would decision greb.he became and this is without doubt a much better fighter later on.
i've enjoyed debating this guys and although i know we don't agree i hope you can at least see where i'm coming from,as i can with yourselves.i now have harry in my top 15.
Greb in 1923 was absolutely not in his prime. For at least a couple of years his fans and hometown press had noted that he was not the same fighter. He had slowed noticeably and his punching was less accurate (probably due to his loss of the sight in one eye and as a result the loss of his depth perception.). Johnny Wilson only agreed to fight Greb for the championship because he, like most others, felt Greb was fading fast. Had Greb been in his prime Wilson would have continued ducking him as he had for the past two years.
well to be honest m8 i don't think we'll agree on this.everyone according to you who beat greb did so when he was past his best.you are happy to use that argument for losses to flowers etc.but i can't say loughran was a long way from peaking.you also dismiss the braddock win.i bet you wouldn't be so quick to do so if harry had done it.
in your eyes harry can do no wrong.loughran isn't even one of my favourite fighters.he doesn't have to be for me to know that the version greb beat was a long way short of the fighter he became.peak v peak i rank tommy higher at light heavy.
in your eyes harry can do no wrong.loughran isn't even one of my favourite fighters.he doesn't have to be for me to know that the version greb beat was a long way short of the fighter he became.peak v peak i rank tommy higher at light heavy.
I was unaware that Greb had lost sight in one eye Since that is a plight of mine in life I can speak to that. The fact that he could compete at all is flat out beyond belief. I have had this condition since birth so I can compensate fairly easily as I have memorized what size a ball will be at a certain distance and can be minimaily competent in ball based sports.
However for those who have not had the condition all there lives it is another matter. It is discombobulationg beyond belief. Put a patch over one eye and attempt to function for one day. Then report back to me how your life went that day. Tell me if you think you could compete in chess much less boxing on that day. Granted after weeks or months you would be better able to cope but not competively in any serious athletic competition with the exception of track events.
This by the way for some of my most ardent critics is why I have to rely on humor and color commentary for boxing because I'm not able to tweeze out the subtle nuances of fast boxing exchanges. So I often hit the slow mo feature after the fight to determine what happened. Out of respect for better observers I rarely comment on the more crtitical clinical boxing exchange matters. But when I do you can bet I have observed it in slow mo quite often before speaking up.
Question looking at Grebs record as I often do, when did he lose vision in one eye? It appears he may have kept on winning even after the fact. If so take him up a notch or two (if thats even possible since some have at #1) on the all time great list if he accomplished that feat over even fair competition.
However for those who have not had the condition all there lives it is another matter. It is discombobulationg beyond belief. Put a patch over one eye and attempt to function for one day. Then report back to me how your life went that day. Tell me if you think you could compete in chess much less boxing on that day. Granted after weeks or months you would be better able to cope but not competively in any serious athletic competition with the exception of track events.
This by the way for some of my most ardent critics is why I have to rely on humor and color commentary for boxing because I'm not able to tweeze out the subtle nuances of fast boxing exchanges. So I often hit the slow mo feature after the fight to determine what happened. Out of respect for better observers I rarely comment on the more crtitical clinical boxing exchange matters. But when I do you can bet I have observed it in slow mo quite often before speaking up.
Question looking at Grebs record as I often do, when did he lose vision in one eye? It appears he may have kept on winning even after the fact. If so take him up a notch or two (if thats even possible since some have at #1) on the all time great list if he accomplished that feat over even fair competition.
It amazes me that some people refuse to believe that in a sport which depends on a timing and judgement of distance that the loss of an eye is a handicap.
Greb suffered a detached retina in 1921.
As for Slattery, unless Im mistaken Greb was the first to beat him and the only legimately worldclass fighter he defeated between that time and his bout with Loughran was Rosenbloom who by your reckoning was still wet behind the ears and certainly not in his prime. So tit for tat eh? I strongly disagree that a Slattery who spent most of his time looking at the world through the bottom of a bottle of booze was a better Slattery than the one Greb faced. With subsequent losses to Berlenbach, Stribling, and inexplicably Carpenter Slatterys reputation had slipped beyond repair and he was no longer the golden boy that he once had been. By the time he fought and lost to Loughran fans had learned not to get overly excited by his once promising potential. Just look at photos of him when he fought Greb and then compare him to the Slattery of a few years later. The difference is beyone belief. Not only does he not look like the same person but the difference is that of the difference between a 20 year old and 40 year old. Its remarkable but such was the toll that his rampant alcoholism had taken.
Greb suffered a detached retina in 1921.
As for Slattery, unless Im mistaken Greb was the first to beat him and the only legimately worldclass fighter he defeated between that time and his bout with Loughran was Rosenbloom who by your reckoning was still wet behind the ears and certainly not in his prime. So tit for tat eh? I strongly disagree that a Slattery who spent most of his time looking at the world through the bottom of a bottle of booze was a better Slattery than the one Greb faced. With subsequent losses to Berlenbach, Stribling, and inexplicably Carpenter Slatterys reputation had slipped beyond repair and he was no longer the golden boy that he once had been. By the time he fought and lost to Loughran fans had learned not to get overly excited by his once promising potential. Just look at photos of him when he fought Greb and then compare him to the Slattery of a few years later. The difference is beyone belief. Not only does he not look like the same person but the difference is that of the difference between a 20 year old and 40 year old. Its remarkable but such was the toll that his rampant alcoholism had taken.
at the end of the day klompton you said that greb had clearly proved to be a better fighter than loughran.i gave you my reasons as to why tommy was no way near his prime.and yet he stll managed to win a duke with harry.now if i am wrong it should be easy for you to disprove my reasoning.it cannot be done because i am right in saying loughran was not the finished article.give me grebs prime years and i'll tell you why in 23 he was still in his prime.
slattery was still fighting 6 rounders when he came up against greb and had been beaten by a journeyman.he had no chance of winning this fight.also the wins greb had over loughran and rosenbloom are noteworthy.he still beat good fighters,i just pointed out that they were a fair few years away from their primes.
at the end of the day you've said nothing about loughran significently improving as a fighter.it is nothing to do with playing that card.if harry had beat a prime loughran we wouldn't be going back and forth like this.now i ask you to PROVE IT.
slattery was still fighting 6 rounders when he came up against greb and had been beaten by a journeyman.he had no chance of winning this fight.also the wins greb had over loughran and rosenbloom are noteworthy.he still beat good fighters,i just pointed out that they were a fair few years away from their primes.
at the end of the day you've said nothing about loughran significently improving as a fighter.it is nothing to do with playing that card.if harry had beat a prime loughran we wouldn't be going back and forth like this.now i ask you to PROVE IT.
-
Randineous
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 41
- Joined: 10 Sep 2005, 10:53
Every time I see Rosenbloom & Slattery mentioned together, I'm reminded of this rather interesting story, which was featured in the May 2003 issue of The Ring;
'Just before their second fight, in Slattery's upstate New York territory, Rosenbloom told his manager to bet a thousand dollars on his opponent. The manager told him that he could beat Slattery. "Sure I can lick him," Rosenbloom replied, "but you know we ain't going to get the duke in this town. So why let the judges' votes go to waste?"
The bout was a tame affair. Rosenbloom held back to try to cover the bet, and Slattery didn't force the action. In a clinch, Rosenbloom tried to encourage his foe, telling him to throw punches. "I ain't doing any punching, Max," Slattery replied. "I made a pretty good bet on you."
Slattery won the fight, and Rosenbloom won his bet. Rosenbloom tried to repeat the feat before a later meeting, betting on Slattery when he found out the bout was going to be refereed by a man who had voted in Slattery's favor in an earlier fight between the two. Rosenbloom gave less than his best, but won a decision based on the refree's vote. The referee later explained that he had felt bad about the earlier decision.'
'Just before their second fight, in Slattery's upstate New York territory, Rosenbloom told his manager to bet a thousand dollars on his opponent. The manager told him that he could beat Slattery. "Sure I can lick him," Rosenbloom replied, "but you know we ain't going to get the duke in this town. So why let the judges' votes go to waste?"
The bout was a tame affair. Rosenbloom held back to try to cover the bet, and Slattery didn't force the action. In a clinch, Rosenbloom tried to encourage his foe, telling him to throw punches. "I ain't doing any punching, Max," Slattery replied. "I made a pretty good bet on you."
Slattery won the fight, and Rosenbloom won his bet. Rosenbloom tried to repeat the feat before a later meeting, betting on Slattery when he found out the bout was going to be refereed by a man who had voted in Slattery's favor in an earlier fight between the two. Rosenbloom gave less than his best, but won a decision based on the refree's vote. The referee later explained that he had felt bad about the earlier decision.'
i've only just noticed this reply.i said they were good fighters only.i added them to the big names he also defended against.as far as i know loughran ran out of suitable competition.do you know of anyone he ducked?he beat everyone worthy of a shot and moved on to the heavies.theone wrote:Slattery,Mctigue and Lomski? Victories over these good but nowhere near great fighters cant be used to demonstrate loughrans supiriority to Greb.
greb would have beat them worst than Loughgran did.
now you yourself have admitted that tommy had not yet peaked when beaten in the series by greb.now tommy won one of them,so how far fetched is it to say prime loughran wins on points?
I think Ive already illustrated more than once that if you wish to stick to the argument that Loughran wasnt in his prime then one could easily say Greb wasnt either and yet he still won the majority of bouts with Loughran. As for conclusively proving one way or the other, you didnt and you cant because its an opinion, just like I didnt and I cant. I just happen to disagree with your rating of Loughran higher than Greb at LHW, especially when you consider that anyone you can note at LHW that Loughan beat (or even lost to) during what you think was his prime would lose to Greb in the opinion of most in a head to head mythical matchup.
As for Slattery fighting six rounders, so what? It was a different era. He was a main event fighter. Greb fought six rounders for years. Inclduing one with Slattery(!) This wasnt the television era. In those days main event fighters didnt have to fight 10 and 15 rounders to get a main event.
As for Slattery fighting six rounders, so what? It was a different era. He was a main event fighter. Greb fought six rounders for years. Inclduing one with Slattery(!) This wasnt the television era. In those days main event fighters didnt have to fight 10 and 15 rounders to get a main event.
well i think theres more than enough evidence to suggest loughran was better in 27 than in 23.apart from the losses to greb and tunney(if it was just these 2 you would have a case)he lost to the likes of mctigue,bogash,smith,delaney and stone up until 25.from 26 onwards however he was able to beat these guys and other very good fighters.his run between 26 and 30 which i consider to be his prime(probably 27-30 but he was getting there)consisted of nothing but wins against top opposition,the same type he had been losing against when still developing.the only loss occurred in 29 against heavyweight jack sharkey.
you can plainly see the difference in form.
if you say greb was slightly past his best,i say his results and the fights he was taking matched if not surpassed anything in his career.
regardless of whether you rank harry higher than tommy you should still be able to see that loughran improved later in his career.the fact that you can't shows that you have a closed mind on the subject regardless of what evidence is presented.
as a footnote your reasoning that because greb beat loughran he had proved superior therefore should be ranked higher is utter nonsence.by your own argument you should have flowers ahead of greb at middle.i bet you don't though do you?i think your list is something like this:
number 1 middle..........greb
number 1 LH................greb
number 1 p4p..............greb
maybe even heavy as well.
you can plainly see the difference in form.
if you say greb was slightly past his best,i say his results and the fights he was taking matched if not surpassed anything in his career.
regardless of whether you rank harry higher than tommy you should still be able to see that loughran improved later in his career.the fact that you can't shows that you have a closed mind on the subject regardless of what evidence is presented.
as a footnote your reasoning that because greb beat loughran he had proved superior therefore should be ranked higher is utter nonsence.by your own argument you should have flowers ahead of greb at middle.i bet you don't though do you?i think your list is something like this:
number 1 middle..........greb
number 1 LH................greb
number 1 p4p..............greb
maybe even heavy as well.
-
sharkeysboy
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 107
- Joined: 23 Aug 2005, 16:52
Klompton - What dates do you think were Greb's prime? It seems that it's very easy to manipulate "prime" data when argueing for the greatness of a fighter. I'm sure we've all talked to people who are obsessed with Mike Tyson's prime as if it suddenly ended five minutes before the Buster Douglas fight, therefore the prime Tyson was invincible. I really do know Tysonites who believe that. So anyway, what was Greb's prime in your opinion?
i would say its very easy to manipulate prime dates.but in this case you can plainly see that the fighters loughran was losing to up until 25 he was getting the better of from 26 onwards.his level of opposition didn't drop but his results drastically improved.this showed that tommy had improved as he matured.
now i'm not asking anyone to change their mind as to how they rank fighters but i have asked for acknowledgment that loughran improved.the evidence is plain to see.you don't have to agree with me in ranking loughran higher but you should be at least able to see my reasoning.
now i'm not asking anyone to change their mind as to how they rank fighters but i have asked for acknowledgment that loughran improved.the evidence is plain to see.you don't have to agree with me in ranking loughran higher but you should be at least able to see my reasoning.
I would say that Greb's prime started sometime in 1918 and ended in 1921 when he lost the site in his eye. It was after this that reorts become increasingly easy to find where Greb is mentioned as being slower, or his judgemnent of distance is off, or his defense is not as good, etc. etc. By 1923 the rate of his decline had really increased notibly, set on a downward spiral by the death of his wife and several other personal problems all in the span of a few months. The only person I can think of who really, conclusively beat Greb in his prime was Tommy Gibbons in their second fight. Some might argue that Greb's prime started as early as 1917 but I disagree with this as I feel this year and the early part of 1918 really show him developing from a regional club fighter to a worldclass talent. He was still getting a lot seasoning in many of those fights win/lose/or draw.
"apart from the losses to greb and tunney(if it was just these 2 you would have a case)he lost to the likes of mctigue,bogash,smith,delaney and stone up until 25.from 26 onwards however he was able to beat these guys"
I said it before when you brought this up and Ill say it again, this totally ignores the fact that by 1926 these guys where either past their primes or fast fading. Loughran may have beaten Greb over and over after 1926 but this doesnt mean he beats a prime Greb.
No I dont have Flowers ahead of Greb. Because in a head to head prime matchup I dont think Flowers beats Greb. Just like I dont think Loughran beats Greb in a prime to prime matchup.
For your information my list looks like this:
LHW Langford
MW Greb
All-Time 1. Langford
2. Greb
"apart from the losses to greb and tunney(if it was just these 2 you would have a case)he lost to the likes of mctigue,bogash,smith,delaney and stone up until 25.from 26 onwards however he was able to beat these guys"
I said it before when you brought this up and Ill say it again, this totally ignores the fact that by 1926 these guys where either past their primes or fast fading. Loughran may have beaten Greb over and over after 1926 but this doesnt mean he beats a prime Greb.
No I dont have Flowers ahead of Greb. Because in a head to head prime matchup I dont think Flowers beats Greb. Just like I dont think Loughran beats Greb in a prime to prime matchup.
For your information my list looks like this:
LHW Langford
MW Greb
All-Time 1. Langford
2. Greb
yeah i wasn't too far away though was i?
so i presume his prime runs from after o'dowd gave him a boxing lesson in early 18,which surely if greb had performed better would have put pressure on mike defending the middleweight crown until 21 and the fight with kid norfolk.
as you're happy to go on about gift decisions didn't harry get a couple of them at this time when gaining draws when seemingly outpointed?
also apart from gibbons i would say that the level of competition faced within this period falls way short of the competetion faced later.surely not everyone was ducking him?
you don't rate flowers ahead of greb because he didn't beat a prime greb.
i don't rate greb ahead of loughran because he didn't beat a prime loughran.theres some logic there somewhere.
so i presume his prime runs from after o'dowd gave him a boxing lesson in early 18,which surely if greb had performed better would have put pressure on mike defending the middleweight crown until 21 and the fight with kid norfolk.
as you're happy to go on about gift decisions didn't harry get a couple of them at this time when gaining draws when seemingly outpointed?
also apart from gibbons i would say that the level of competition faced within this period falls way short of the competetion faced later.surely not everyone was ducking him?
you don't rate flowers ahead of greb because he didn't beat a prime greb.
i don't rate greb ahead of loughran because he didn't beat a prime loughran.theres some logic there somewhere.
Dalek, there was absolutely no doubt in any ones mind even back then that Greb was past his best when he fought flowers. Who was in who's prime when Greb fought lougran could be debated from here to doomsday, but what cant be debated was that Greb beat better fighters than Lougran. I cant really see how this could be debated.
O'Dowd gave Greb a boxing lesson? Based on what? I have every paper published in the twenty cities covering that fight and they are split down the middle as to who won. All papers say the fight was close due in no small part to Greb making the unheard of (for him) low weight of 155 in his anxiousness to make it a championship fight. You should research these fights and fighters before you go popping off nonsense.dalek wrote:yeah i wasn't too far away though was i?
so i presume his prime runs from after o'dowd gave him a boxing lesson in early 18,which surely if greb had performed better would have put pressure on mike defending the middleweight crown until 21 and the fight with kid norfolk.
as you're happy to go on about gift decisions didn't harry get a couple of them at this time when gaining draws when seemingly outpointed?
also apart from gibbons i would say that the level of competition faced within this period falls way short of the competetion faced later.surely not everyone was ducking him?
you don't rate flowers ahead of greb because he didn't beat a prime greb.
i don't rate greb ahead of loughran because he didn't beat a prime loughran.theres some logic there somewhere.
What draws did he get where he was seemingly outpointed during the period I listed? Lets hear you quote from your sources as well...
I dont know what the Norfolk comment is supposed to mean by you but the newspaper decisions for the first Norfolk fight were split down the middle as well. Even the referee admitted that had he been able to render a decision he would have given it to Greb.
Jack Dillon, Mike McTigue (in his prime not the old man Loughran outpointed), Soldier Bartfield, Bob Moha, Eddie McGoorty, Battling Levinsky, Miske, Houck, Bill Brennan, Mike and Tommy Gibbons, Jeff Smith (prime not the old man Loughran was beating), among others. Those names werent as good as anyone he was facing from 1923 to his death? Do tell
Nobody was ducking him? Wilson was banned from fighting in most states for two years because he refused to defend against Greb, George Carpentier was offered several massive purses which paled only compared to his purse in the Dempsey fight but couldnt be induced. Levinsky who could never beat Greb in any of their matches would not put his title on the line in a decision match. Dempsey didnt want any during this time despite being offered purses which exceded anything he had made prior. I think that speaks volumes right there.
As for O'Dowd, who happens to be another of my favorites, he did defend his championship. Title defenses came in the form of decision AND no-decision matches. The idea that Ring Magazine had purported for years that ND bouts were not title defenses is simply wrong. If a KO occured the title changed hands. Its as simple as that. Add to this that O'Dowd spent more than a year in the military during 1918/1919 which inhibited his ability to defend. Its to his credit that his first defense came againt Greb and when he returned from the military he went on a nice little tour and added several quality names to his resume not the least of which was Mike Gibbons whom he defended his title against, in a no-decision bout.
i meant by reference to the norfolk fight that this appears to be where he picked up his eye damage thats all.the fact that he was competing with these bigger men is remarkable.now as your such a big greb fan and i have only an interest in the past i would say you know more on his career than myself,however the fighters you list don't compare to tunney,flowers and walker do they?i think the draw with smith was controversial.however i'm not trying to pick holes in grebs career,i've said before he beat lots of great fighters.he is an all time great.i just happen to have his prime different to you.i consider he was still in his prime when he fought loughran in 23. the only reason you can't admit that loughran improved later on is because you think it weakens your argument.i'd have more respect for you if you just admitted it and said but i believe greb still wins.as for the one you yourself agreed tommy wasn't in his prime.even if greb was slightly past it and lets face the results and competition faced don't show this then he would still be favoured to know too much for a young fighter like loughran.