Was Harry Greb Great?

[oogiebe]

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. It's a common thing really, people exaggerate. Woe is Henry Armstong, no one rates the poor guy

Nope. Don't change the tone of the thread to suit your needs Jam. Let's keep the flow going. You're not always right. Surprise!

[margaret thatcher]

I'm not at all, I'm responding to something that's been brought up. I think the vast majority of boxing fans hugely rate someone like Henry Armstrong and that a misleading narrative is being used. You can find negativity about any famous fighter.

[oogiebe]

I'm not at all, I'm responding to something that's been brought up. I think the vast majority of boxing fans hugely rate someone like Henry Armstrong and that a misleading narrative is being used

[oogiebe]

I'm not at all, I'm responding to something that's been brought up. I think the vast majority of boxing fans hugely rate someone like Henry Armstrong and that a misleading narrative is being used. You can find negativity about any famous fighter.

Read Chris' post and see how he has also seen that sort of opinion before. Don't pretend you haven't seen a challenge to the greatness of the old timers in much the same way as discussed.

[margaret thatcher]

You can find someone challenging pretty much any great, whether old timer or not. I've seen some people say that Floyd Mayweather should have 5 losses and that he ducked everyone. It comes with being at that level and being a famous fighter.

Armstrong is easily a consensus p4p atg, highly highly highly rated by the vast majority. No reason to inflate the importance or quantity of the misguided extreme minority opinions

[oogiebe]

You can find someone challenging pretty much any great, whether old timer or not. I've seen some people say that Floyd Mayweather should have 5 losses and that he ducked everyone. It comes with being at that level.

Armstrong is easily a consensus p4p atg, highly highly highly rated by the vast majority

This goes beyond Greb. As I posted before it's about the old timers. The Greb discussion in the CS gave me the idea for this thread and it applies to many old time greats. Tell me...how do you rate the old timers whom you've never seen or rarely seen? Is it enough for you to hear boxing historians discuss them? Or what their records show? Add to the conversation rather than changing it please.

[margaret thatcher]

I'm adding to the conversation. It all follows what comments that have been made previously, and I don't believe you have thread police status anyway Fact is, if you have a famous fighter, they are going to attract a lot of comment, and even if a tiny proportion of that is negative, you will see it occasionally. It's not an old timer only thing and not something to be concerned about really. Armstrong is massively rated overall.

I think, if you have never seen a fighter, but you have seen several fighters he beat, then you should be able to make judgements from that. There is footage of Greb opponents out there and we know he beat quality fighters. The problem would be greater in cases where you are almost totally seperated from any footage.

[oogiebe]

I'm adding to the conversation. It all follows what comments that have been made previously, and I don't believe you have thread police status anyway Fact is, if you have a famous fighter, they are going to attract a lot of comment, and even if a tiny proportion of that is negative, you will see it occasionally. It's not an old timer only thing and not something to be concerned about really

I think, if you have never seen a fighter, but you have seen several fighters he beat, then you should be able to make judgements from that. There is footage of Greb opponents out there and we know he beat quality fighters. The problem would be greater in cases where you are almost totally seperated from any footage.

LMFAO! Looks who's the thread police!!!!! The rest of your post is terrific. ROTFL!

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

In a nutshell he is saying the sparring video of greb makes him look poor compared to todays fighters and being great 100 years ago doesnt necessarily mean hed be great now.

It isnt that outrageous of an opinion. Hes just so insufferable arguing it he makes it seem dumb.

[margaret thatcher]

I'm adding to the conversation. It all follows what comments that have been made previously, and I don't believe you have thread police status anyway Fact is, if you have a famous fighter, they are going to attract a lot of comment, and even if a tiny proportion of that is negative, you will see it occasionally. It's not an old timer only thing and not something to be concerned about really

I think, if you have never seen a fighter, but you have seen several fighters he beat, then you should be able to make judgements from that. There is footage of Greb opponents out there and we know he beat quality fighters. The problem would be greater in cases where you are almost totally seperated from any footage.

LMFAO! Looks who's the thread police!!!!! The rest of your post is terrific. ROTFL!

People are free to argue whatever they'd like on the thread, I ain't requesting otherwise

[oogiebe]

In a nutshell he is saying the sparring video of greb makes him look poor compared to todays fighters and being great 100 years ago doesnt necessarily mean hed be great now.

It isnt that outrageous of an opinion. Hes just so insufferable arguing it he makes it seem dumb.

I don't think he was only going by that sparring vid. He can't be that stupid. And it goes beyond that particular poster. I've seen posters accused of 'recency' as well as the other way around when rating the all time best. Most of us have our prejudices (me with Lewis; Monzon; Olivares for instance). But this notion of not being able to judge a fighter's greatness without having seen them fight is just beyond dumb. And other posters have made similar arguments.

PS: Yes...he's insufferable.

[oogiebe]

LMFAO! Looks who's the thread police!!!!! The rest of your post is terrific. ROTFL!

People are free to argue whatever they'd like on the thread, I ain't requesting otherwise

Ah so you are the thread police! LMFAO!

[margaret thatcher]

People are free to argue whatever they'd like on the thread, I ain't requesting otherwise

Ah so you are the thread police! LMFAO!

Nah, the thread police would request, 'please, move along sir'

[oogiebe]

Ah so you are the thread police! LMFAO!

Nah, the thread police would request, 'please, move along sir'

Please move along sir.

[margaret thatcher]

[oogiebe]

You knew I was gonna do that.

[goose 5]

For which of Greb's opponents does the most footage exist ?

[gilgamesh]

For which of Greb's opponents does the most footage exist ?

Just guessing, but I would imagine either Tunney or Mickey Walker

[klompton]

Greb beat more hall of famers than anyone in the hall of fame. He beat more hall of famers more often than anyone in the hall of fame. We have quite a lot of footage on many of those hall of famers he beat and can see quite clearly how special they were and from that infer how special someone would have to be to run that gauntlet. Those are facts that footage wont change. Even if Greb looked like a rank amateur beating Tunney it wouldnt change the fact that he beat him. What would footage change? The only thing it could possibly change is if we got footage of all of his fights and he got gift decisions in all of them. What is the likelihood of that? Are we going to get footage of him beating Tunney, he looks amateurish, and then say he wouldnt beat the smaller, weaker, less hard hitting but similar in style Monzon? I would find that argument a dubious proposition at best. Would we find footage of him beating Walker but looking awkward doing it and say that he wouldnt beat the smaller, weaker, less hard hitting Basilio? Again, hardly. You might find you dont like his style or that his style isnt what you expected but you could never argue with the results he achieved with that style.

[The Great John L]

Greb beat more hall of famers than anyone in the hall of fame. He beat more hall of famers more often than anyone in the hall of fame. We have quite a lot of footage on many of those hall of famers he beat and can see quite clearly how special they were and from that infer how special someone would have to be to run that gauntlet. Those are facts that footage wont change. Even if Greb looked like a rank amateur beating Tunney it wouldnt change the fact that he beat him. What would footage change? The only thing it could possibly change is if we got footage of all of his fights and he got gift decisions in all of them. What is the likelihood of that? Are we going to get footage of him beating Tunney, he looks amateurish, and then say he wouldnt beat the smaller, weaker, less hard hitting but similar in style Monzon? I would find that argument a dubious proposition at best. Would we find footage of him beating Walker but looking awkward doing it and say that he wouldnt beat the smaller, weaker, less hard hitting Basilio? Again, hardly. You might find you dont like his style or that his style isnt what you expected but you could never argue with the results he achieved with that style.

Well put sir.

[cfang]

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

[cfang]

If we had footage of greb hed be exactly what we expected. His nickname alone tells you what to expect.

In the history of boxing, nobody had a better record. Nobody fought more great fighters, more often and with more success. He ticks every box for pugilistic greatness. #1 p4p of all time for me.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Greb beat more hall of famers than anyone in the hall of fame. He beat more hall of famers more often than anyone in the hall of fame. We have quite a lot of footage on many of those hall of famers he beat and can see quite clearly how special they were and from that infer how special someone would have to be to run that gauntlet. Those are facts that footage wont change. Even if Greb looked like a rank amateur beating Tunney it wouldnt change the fact that he beat him. What would footage change? The only thing it could possibly change is if we got footage of all of his fights and he got gift decisions in all of them. What is the likelihood of that? Are we going to get footage of him beating Tunney, he looks amateurish, and then say he wouldnt beat the smaller, weaker, less hard hitting but similar in style Monzon? I would find that argument a dubious proposition at best. Would we find footage of him beating Walker but looking awkward doing it and say that he wouldnt beat the smaller, weaker, less hard hitting Basilio? Again, hardly. You might find you dont like his style or that his style isnt what you expected but you could never argue with the results he achieved with that style.

- Git thee thy knave to gird thee loins for battle in defense of thy champion.

Let it be known in advance you may cede victory at no loss to thou or thy champion's reputation.

Sam Langford

Weep thee softly...

[BoxBuzz]

Yes Harry was great......

He is A great mystery

A boxer with unequaled "mystique".

Because he has absolutely no visual record combined with an absolutely spectacular written record, he will never be fully vetted. Seeing a fighter's performance brings reality to the equation. His legacy is mythical, based on the unseen. He will remain mythical as a result. Marciano had "perfection" that 49 and 0 record propelled him to legendary nearly "Paul Bunyun" proportions. ....Greb's "unseen" dynamic has done the same for him.

But as we have come to learn via films, Marciano had vulnerabilities which his written record does little to reveal. The films show his "near misses" and his shortcomings. None of which take away from his "greatness". But his perfect record makes him out to be more than he is, for those who just look at the numbers on his win/loss sheet. Greb's lack of visual record affords the same rush to assumptions lacking the ability to be visually assessed.

Greb was as great as you can imagine him to be. Perhaps Hercules and Samson also fall into this category, not to mention "Gronk" and "Neanderthal Ned". The latter fighters who's histories are completely lost to the passing of the centuries (save the channeling efforts of great psychics.)

I am not saying he was anything less than great. But that the context of his greatness can never be quantified for many of us.

[Alex]

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.

I’ve heard this evolution argument a lot, but it’s completely nullified for me by the fact there were far, far more active pros in the early 20th century than there are today.

If the overall number of people engaged in a sport is far higher then the quality of those who are at the very top must also be higher. A bigger talent pool will produce more top talent.

When boxing was a sport of the masses, a huge proportion of athletically gifted young men were engaged in it. Nowadays, I believe many would-be boxing greats are lost to other sports.

That’s not to say that there are no top modern fighters who could have competed with the best in the world of the 1920s, 30s, 40s and 50s. There are great men still coming through in the modern era, just not as many of them, and they perhaps would not have been world champions had they been around in earlier eras.

Another factor that counts in the favour of the old-timers is that boxers learn fighting by fighting - and moreover by fighting opponents of a good standard.

The modern obsession with protecting a prospect’s ‘0’ means they are all too often given soft touches to pad their records early on.

In earlier times, losing occasionally - even for the very best - was the norm, and boxers profited from those losses and learnt and improved by facing a higher quality of opponent, with little or no mollycoddling.

And then there’s fight frequency. The old-time guys were fighting far more often, which must have accelerated the learning curve.