Was Harry Greb Great?

[oogiebe]

A poster in CS is pressing the notion that we don't know that Greb was one of the greatest boxers of all-time without video evidence. The poster goes further in stating that Greb wouldn't beat today's top fighters.

Greb beat 14 o 15 HOF'ers he faced including being the only man to beat Gene Tunney. Let's hear from our resident boxing experts as to why we know Greb is one of the greatest pound for pound fighters of all time! Much thanks!

[gilgamesh]

Was Babe Ruth good at the Bat in Baseball? Do people propose that he couldn't score a Homerun to save his life in the modern era?

[oogiebe]

Was Babe Ruth good at the Bat in Baseball? Do people propose that he couldn't score a Homerun to save his life in the modern era?

I find that posters 'arguments' silly at best. I'm just looking for opinions and thoughts on Greb from our bretheren.

[gilgamesh]

Was Babe Ruth good at the Bat in Baseball? Do people propose that he couldn't score a Homerun to save his life in the modern era?

I find that posters 'arguments' silly at best. I'm just looking for opinions and thoughts on Greb from our bretheren.

Alright let's see.

He's the only guy that ever defeated Gene Tunney, A feat which 67 other opponents including Jack Dempsey twice, failed to accomplish.

He beat the great Mickey Walker, impressive in and of itself. Even more impressive when you factor in that he beat the well regarded, and completely different style of Maxie Rosenbloom a mere 2 weeks later.

He beat Jimmy Slattery when Slats was 48-1 coming in, about 2 weeks after beating the great Tiger Flowers in a close bout.

He beat the great Tommy Loughran twice in the same month in January 1923. Once in a 10 rounder, once in a 15 rounder, and he also managed to beat guys named Bob Roper and Billy Shade that same month. That's right I said month.

He beat Tommy Gibbons (one of only 4 men to do so officially in a 61 bout career)

All told he has 259 wins Newspaper decisions and all included, 107-8-3 with 48 KO's officially. And apparently 142 victories unofficially.

170 or so of his these had come BEFORE these great feats I mentioned at the top.

So yeah...he was pretty great.

I mean I could go on, but do I really need to? Let's give someone else a chance

[oogiebe]

Understand I'm just magnifying that poster's 'issues.' Plus, Greb deserves the accolades I expect here.

[goose 5]

Is video evidence necessary to judge a fighter ? If not, to what extent does it, at least, help?

[oogiebe]

Is video evidence necessary to judge a fighter ? If not, to what extent does it, at least, help?

Apparently, this poster in question loves to be a contrarian. Loves to try to make himself appear superior. Can you guess who it is? LOL!

For me, the handing down from generation to generation of historical data is part of the answer. Also the resume and achievements.

[goose 5]

On the one hand the guy is saying we don't know Greb is one of the greatest without video evidence but how can he also say Greb wouldn't beat today's top men ? I suspect he is looking at films of Tunney and Walker and comparing them to modern guys and trying to gauge Greb by saying Walker and Tunney wouldn't be so terrific today.

[oogiebe]

On the one hand the guy is saying we don't know Greb is one of the greatest without video evidence but how can he also say Greb wouldn't beat today's top men ? I suspect he is looking at films of Tunney and Walker and comparing them to modern guys and trying to gauge Greb by saying Walker and Tunney wouldn't be so terrific today.

I asked him if we should accept that Napoleon was a great military commander, as there is no video evidence.

[goose 5]

Max Kellerman, Roy Jones and Mike Tyson believe that each generation of fighters is better than previous generations. The great historian Mike Silver argues in favor of a golden age of boxing that roughly comprised the years 1925- 1955. Jimmy Jacobs and Nat Fleischer debated the merits of pre 1920's boxers; Jacobs was critical and Fleischer was a proponent of the old-timers(early 20th century).

[revpickles]

I'd say so Sancho, Strange this topics just come up because I've been reading about him a lot lately, I was Looking into Tiger Flowers history and Greb came up again.

The fellas record speaks for its self!

Good shout.

[Chuck1052]

Harry Greb has one of the greatest boxing records in history, maybe the greatest. His record stands up even under very close examination. As a result, Greb was one of the greatest boxers ever, maybe the greatest. It is that simple.

- Chuck Johnston

[Tony1244]

Yes.

The contrarian had an interesting point that sports that can be measured such as a mile run or swimming; those records have all been broken. Of course, boxing can't be measured like that.

Evolution has it's place, but so does discipline and toughness. There are more distractions now, therefore less Harry Grebs.

[oogiebe]

I'm wondering if that poster will put his two cents in here.

[margaret thatcher]

I'm wondering if that poster will put his two cents in here.

Invite him in bruh

[oogiebe]

I'm wondering if that poster will put his two cents in here.

Invite him in bruh

He won't be able to help himself. He'll be around shortly.

[Ambling Alp II]

As for the video evidence, we can use some common sense. He beat several quality opponents who we do have video evidence of.

Imagine if there was a fighter today who have not seen yet, but who beat several guys that you seen and know are great. You would know he had to be great.

[chrisjs1985]

The other day on youtube, I saw a video and it was about Mayweather reacting to Spence saying he could have beaten him. You can always tell the casuals or opinionated (but not not researched) newbies and they are in there saying "T.B.E", and if anyone says he's not they are attacked. One of them said "no fighter ever beat more world champions or hall of famers than T.B.E", I pointed out that half of that statement was skewed because of the proliferation of "world titles", half was factually 100% inaccurate as the likes of Robinson, Armstrong, McLarnin, Charles, Louis beat more than Mayweather. The clowns only response was "All that B.S you wrote shows you old media and you had the nerve to bring up Harry Greb", as to totally dismiss him.

Unfortunately, this type of "fan" is all too common now and it's also a media issue. It is the age where we have to be able to see the fighter on youtube or he has to have no losses and if you can't go to boxrec and recognize every opponent he can't be that good. I see a lot of times they argue that since you haven't seen footage of him fighting then he can't be any good which is hilarious. Does that mean the Civil War didn't happen? The problem is that that caliber of fan is not willing to read a book. It has to be a Wikipedia snapshot and immediate footage and it's usually perpetrated by Mayweather fans who started watching Boxing in the last few years and started following Mayweather because he was famous as the media told you he was the best. This is the type of fan who'd rather read a boring article about Mayweather's shoe collection for the 100th time than actually pick up a book and try to educate themselves about a fighter they know nothing but have a strong opinion and they'll act like their opinion is better.

Greb is objectively great. His resume is arguably the strongest ever. You can read Compton, Toledo, Paxton and there's plenty of fighters who faced him and reports written who were in the ring with him or ringside watching him. There is plenty of film of opponents that proves they are great too.

[prewarboxing]

The other day on youtube, I saw a video and it was about Mayweather reacting to Spence saying he could have beaten him. You can always tell the casuals or opinionated (but not not researched) newbies and they are in there saying "T.B.E", and if anyone says he's not they are attacked. One of them said "no fighter ever beat more world champions or hall of famers than T.B.E", I pointed out that half of that statement was skewed because of the proliferation of "world titles", half was factually 100% inaccurate as the likes of Robinson, Armstrong, McLarnin, Charles, Louis beat more than Mayweather. The clowns only response was "All that B.S you wrote shows you old media and you had the nerve to bring up Harry Greb", as to totally dismiss him.

Unfortunately, this type of "fan" is all too common now and it's also a media issue. It is the age where we have to be able to see the fighter on youtube or he has to have no losses and if you can't go to boxrec and recognize every opponent he can't be that good. I see a lot of times they argue that since you haven't seen footage of him fighting then he can't be any good which is hilarious. Does that mean the Civil War didn't happen? The problem is that that caliber of fan is not willing to read a book. It has to be a Wikipedia snapshot and immediate footage and it's usually perpetrated by Mayweather fans who started watching Boxing in the last few years and started following Mayweather because he was famous as the media told you he was the best. This is the type of fan who'd rather read a boring article about Mayweather's shoe collection for the 100th time than actually pick up a book and try to educate themselves about a fighter they know nothing but have a strong opinion and they'll act like their opinion is better.

Greb is objectionably great. His resume is arguably the strongest ever. You can read Compton, Toledo, Paxton and there's plenty of fighters who faced him and reports written who were in the ring with him or ringside watching him. There is plenty of film of opponents that proves they are great too.

I love this post. Absolutely bang on the money.

Well said

Miles Templeton

[oogiebe]

The other day on youtube, I saw a video and it was about Mayweather reacting to Spence saying he could have beaten him. You can always tell the casuals or opinionated (but not not researched) newbies and they are in there saying "T.B.E", and if anyone says he's not they are attacked. One of them said "no fighter ever beat more world champions or hall of famers than T.B.E", I pointed out that half of that statement was skewed because of the proliferation of "world titles", half was factually 100% inaccurate as the likes of Robinson, Armstrong, McLarnin, Charles, Louis beat more than Mayweather. The clowns only response was "All that B.S you wrote shows you old media and you had the nerve to bring up Harry Greb", as to totally dismiss him.

Unfortunately, this type of "fan" is all too common now and it's also a media issue. It is the age where we have to be able to see the fighter on youtube or he has to have no losses and if you can't go to boxrec and recognize every opponent he can't be that good. I see a lot of times they argue that since you haven't seen footage of him fighting then he can't be any good which is hilarious. Does that mean the Civil War didn't happen? The problem is that that caliber of fan is not willing to read a book. It has to be a Wikipedia snapshot and immediate footage and it's usually perpetrated by Mayweather fans who started watching Boxing in the last few years and started following Mayweather because he was famous as the media told you he was the best. This is the type of fan who'd rather read a boring article about Mayweather's shoe collection for the 100th time than actually pick up a book and try to educate themselves about a fighter they know nothing but have a strong opinion and they'll act like their opinion is better.

Greb is objectively great. His resume is arguably the strongest ever. You can read Compton, Toledo, Paxton and there's plenty of fighters who faced him and reports written who were in the ring with him or ringside watching him. There is plenty of film of opponents that proves they are great too.

I think most of us concur with this post and may have made similar points before, but not as elequently or thoroughly. Thanks!

EDIT: I'll add to your point about multi-divisional title holders. Armstrong is clearly the greatest multi-divisional champ ever given the lack of JR and Super divisions and the large weight differential he held simultaneously and defended. I've often seen Henry disregarded on the forum by "know nothings."

[chrisjs1985]

The other day on youtube, I saw a video and it was about Mayweather reacting to Spence saying he could have beaten him. You can always tell the casuals or opinionated (but not not researched) newbies and they are in there saying "T.B.E", and if anyone says he's not they are attacked. One of them said "no fighter ever beat more world champions or hall of famers than T.B.E", I pointed out that half of that statement was skewed because of the proliferation of "world titles", half was factually 100% inaccurate as the likes of Robinson, Armstrong, McLarnin, Charles, Louis beat more than Mayweather. The clowns only response was "All that B.S you wrote shows you old media and you had the nerve to bring up Harry Greb", as to totally dismiss him.

Unfortunately, this type of "fan" is all too common now and it's also a media issue. It is the age where we have to be able to see the fighter on youtube or he has to have no losses and if you can't go to boxrec and recognize every opponent he can't be that good. I see a lot of times they argue that since you haven't seen footage of him fighting then he can't be any good which is hilarious. Does that mean the Civil War didn't happen? The problem is that that caliber of fan is not willing to read a book. It has to be a Wikipedia snapshot and immediate footage and it's usually perpetrated by Mayweather fans who started watching Boxing in the last few years and started following Mayweather because he was famous as the media told you he was the best. This is the type of fan who'd rather read a boring article about Mayweather's shoe collection for the 100th time than actually pick up a book and try to educate themselves about a fighter they know nothing but have a strong opinion and they'll act like their opinion is better.

Greb is objectively great. His resume is arguably the strongest ever. You can read Compton, Toledo, Paxton and there's plenty of fighters who faced him and reports written who were in the ring with him or ringside watching him. There is plenty of film of opponents that proves they are great too.

I think most of us concur with this post and may have made similar points before, but not as elequently or thoroughly. Thanks!

EDIT: I'll add to your point about multi-divisional title holders. Armstrong is clearly the greatest multi-divisional champ ever given the lack of JR and Super divisions and the large weight differential he held simultaneously and defended. I've often seen Henry disregarded on the forum by "know nothings."

The way I explain to these fanboy simpletons is that there is 2 or 3 WBA champions, one IBF, one WBO, at least one WBC so generally between 4-7 champs and 17 divisions so roughly 100 "world champions" and roughly 20-30 titles are vacated every year as fighters navigate their ways to an easy stat stuffing additional title. I was attacked by Canelo fanboys for suggesting Armstrong's accomplishment was superior to Canelo's. They either don't understand context or refuse to listen to reason. I just say, in Greb's day there was 8 divisions and 8 world champions so if he beat just one champion it's the equivalent of roughly 10 in today's game or you can just say if you aren't undisputed today then you're not as much as a "champion". I blame the promoters and the networks for making it this way, I think The Ring, about 20 years ago were doing good about trying to snuff them out but ended up losing and then bending their own rules and now we are closing to recognizing the IBO title than we are of losing a title. I blame these newbies for buying into this because these days more and more people are boxer fans not not boxing fans.

[margaret thatcher]

Armstrong is a consenus top p4p atg who most fans regard incredibly well, seems like a bit of a love heree for taking extreme minority opinions and overly applying them. Any fighter of that much note you will find some people who massively underrate them, whether they boxed 40 years or 4 years ago . Even this thread is a response to 1 single particular poster

[oogiebe]

Armstrong is a consenus top p4p atg who most fans regard incredibly well, seems like a bit of a love heree for taking extreme minority opinions and overly applying them. Any fighter of that much note you will find some people who massively underrate them, whether they boxed 40 years or 4 years ago . Even this thread is a response to 1 single particular poster

No. The distinction to another poster is to ensure the opinion questioned isn't identified as my own. In addition, while it is a minority opinion on Armstrong, I've seen his prowness as a fighter besmirched often, which doesn't mean the majority of the time. The causation of this thread is that we are seeing more than one poster make the same statements on questioning the 'old timers' greatness. Thanks for your contribution.

[oogiebe]

Terrific posts on this thread. Thanks to all! Chris in particular.

[margaret thatcher]

Armstrong is a consenus top p4p atg who most fans regard incredibly well, seems like a bit of a love heree for taking extreme minority opinions and overly applying them. Any fighter of that much note you will find some people who massively underrate them, whether they boxed 40 years or 4 years ago . Even this thread is a response to 1 single particular poster

No. The distinction to another poster is to ensure the opinion questioned isn't identified as my own. In addition, while it is a minority opinion on Armstrong, I've seen his prowness as a fighter besmirched often, which doesn't mean the majority of the time. The causation of this thread is that we are seeing more than one poster make the same statements on questioning the 'old timers' greatness. Thanks for your contribution.

Lol, he was obviously the reason, he's the entire start of the thread and you've never posted a Greb thread till now after your 'convo' with him i believe. You even mention him again and ask if he'll make an apperance

It's a common thing really, people exaggerate minority opinions like they are wide spread. Woe is Henry Armstong, no one rates the poor guy