So when Robinson didn't fight someone good, we have the criticism that he avoided them. You don't buy this yourself, yet you bring it up?klompton wrote:Ambling Alp II wrote:I wiill just say that I disagree with much of this and leave it at that. I think Robinson's resume is better but you are entitled to your opinon.klompton wrote:
No he beat him three times. Just because one of those victories was a No Decision and the other was an absolutely criminal robbery in which an overwhelmingly vast amount of ringside reports thought Greb won handily doesnt change the fact that in a series of five fights Tunney did not have the upper hand. Period. End of story. Its a nice fairytale story that Greb bloodied and battered the handsome all american who learned from his mistakes and came back to win every time out the next four times but thats new york publicist bullshit and not anywhere near the truth. The fact is that Greb beat the holy hell out of Tunney in their first fight, beat him convincingly again in their second to the point some said it was comparable to the first (these are Tunney's hometown papers saying this btw), lost a close decision in the third, won the fourth (in which Tunney refused to make weight and dictated the location of the fight and tried to dictate the rules under which it was held and influence the officiating (just like he had done in their previous two fights), and finally won his only really convincing win over Greb in their last fight when Greb was well faded and Tunney showed up with the largest weight advantage of any of their fights and Greb showed up with a broken rib.
If you think every different account disagrees who won a certain fight then you really havent done much research into this era. Most accounts are fairly consistent and the great think about Greb, the remarkable thing, is just how consistent the reports are on his utter domination of his opponents to the point where the reports become monotonous to read.
The point about Greb's weight is that he was hardly huge compared to Robinson. Could he weigh heavy? Yes. But citing 171 as his weight one time is hardly indicative of what his best weight was. You could easily cite his weight of 155 against ODowd on a same day weigh in as well or the fact that for the majority of his career 158 was the MW limit and he made it comfortably. Regardless, you cant argue that Robinson was the best MW and then say "he wasnt as good at MW because he was naturally smaller". Either you judge him in that division or you dont. If he struggled against big strong MWs (which he did: Turpin, Fullmer, LaMotta, etc) then hes going to struggle against a big strong middleweight who just so happened to be blazingly fast, incredibly durable, and had unlimited stamina. Simple as that. Then match up their resumes and Greb's resume wins out every time. Period. He may not have the titles but keep in mind that the only reason he doesnt is because from 1917 until 1923 champions in three divisions ducked him. That cant be said about Robinson.
Id love to hear the argument. He had less fights, less fights/wins against HOFers, less success moving up in weight, and Greb was able to accomplish all of that in half the time. You also have the criticism of Robinson that he avoided certain fighters (which I dont buy, at least not out of fear) whereas Greb accomplished what he did while being ducked by some of the biggest names/champions of his era from MW to HW had he not been avoided by guys like Carpentier, Berlenbach, Delaney, etc his record would look even more stellar than it already does.
On the other hand when Greb didn't fight someone good, it was because they avoided him. Good to know.
