Was Harry Greb Great?

[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.

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.

Seldom do I read 8 or so paragraphs and agree with every word, but this is one of those times.

It's ludicrous to believe that NFL, NBA, and MLB salaries and a lack of gyms aren't a factor. I'm nearing 60, from a white middle class background and even we boxed at day camp. I know as a fact that doesn't exist anymore.

[oogiebe]

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.

Terrific post. Well done mate!

[dookus]

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.

great post, and I've been banging on about these points for a long time.

[Ambling Alp II]

I think that was a great post as well.
Protecting the "0" in particular has been a negative for more than one reason.
As fans we obviously we don't see as many good fights because of this.

but also it has hurt fighter's development. It used to be a fighter coming up would fight other prospects. Obviously they both could not have a perfect record after that. However, both fighters would learn things and learn to be tough. The loser's career would not significantly derailed.
You also used to have a lot more fights where a fringe contender or a slightly past it former contender would fight a prospect. These were fights where the prospect was taking a real risk.
If you look at old timers record and at one time he was say 22-3, he might be good, because he lost to tough competition. . A guy like that now is probably a stiff.

We also used to have contenders fighting contenders. With 1 or only 2 champions, you could not just bide your time until you got a shot at one of the four champs.

Look at a the top 10 in some weight divisions in recent time. You often have several undefeated fighters who have not fought anyone. We really have little idea who is the best. We go by who beat weak opponents easier, because it's all we have to go by.
In any sport, it helps to go against decent competition both ass you are learning and when you are at your peak. If you are never challenged , you don't get reach your potential.

[mattdonnellon]

excellent post!

[BoxBuzz]

I agree with that post as well.

But it does leave a "mystery".

IF you take someone from Harry's time and transport him to today I think there are two "loose cannon" factors or questions that may be somewhat mitigating to the excellent point made.

1. Has nutrition science made a difference in a fighters potential strength/cardio?

2.Has there been any serious improvement in training methods that would nullify the "quantity of fights" point being made here?


I don't know the answers, but it's food for thought.

And IF Harry grew up in this day and age he would of course have the advantage of both, and there would be nothing to discuss. BUT.....if he stepped out of the turbo charged time machine.....and signed to fight Canelo next week, he would not have the luxury of either. BUT....at long last we would finally have some video fight footage of this fella.

[Ghost Town Ghost]

1. Has nutrition science made a difference in a fighters potential strength/cardio?

2.Has there been any serious improvement in training methods that would nullify the "quantity of fights" point being made here?

Good questions. When I watch older fights as compared to today, I tend to see more energy, faster pace, higher work rate, less gassing, longer (15 rd) fights, etc, in addition to tremendously higher skill level.

[BoxBuzz]

1. Has nutrition science made a difference in a fighters potential strength/cardio?

2.Has there been any serious improvement in training methods that would nullify the "quantity of fights" point being made here?

Good questions. When I watch older fights as compared to today, I tend to see more energy, faster pace, higher work rate, less gassing, longer (15 rd) fights, etc, in addition to tremendously higher skill level.

Older? Such as Gronk vs Neanderthal Ned? Or Sullivan vs Corbett? Louis vs Conn? Or Ali vs Foreman? Older means different things to different people.

[Ghost Town Ghost]

The 50's, lets say.

[Alex]

I agree with that post as well.

But it does leave a "mystery".

IF you take someone from Harry's time and transport him to today I think there are two "loose cannon" factors or questions that may be somewhat mitigating to the excellent point made.

1. Has nutrition science made a difference in a fighters potential strength/cardio?

2.Has there been any serious improvement in training methods that would nullify the "quantity of fights" point being made here?


I don't know the answers, but it's food for thought.

And IF Harry grew up in this day and age he would of course have the advantage of both, and there would be nothing to discuss. BUT.....if he stepped out of the turbo charged time machine.....and signed to fight Canelo next week, he would not have the luxury of either. BUT....at long last we would finally have some video fight footage of this fella.

Points well worth considering.

Unquestionably we have a far better understanding of nutrition today than they had in Greb’s day, but I wonder how much impact this really has when placed alongside the other factors we’ve mentioned.

As another poster has said, footage of fighters from Greb’s era (check out footage of Ted Kid Lewis, for example, still brimming with energy in the late rounds of a 15 or 20-rounder) suggests they were in excellent condition.

On the subject of training methods, I don’t see any evidence of a radical improvement in these for boxers - they seem to be fundamentally the same (roadwork, sparring, groundwork, skipping, heavy bag, speed ball, use of medicine balls, etc).

And it could be argued that the old-timers - who did more sparring and also got themselves into condition for fights by having regular fights - were ahead of their modern counterparts in this area.

[TeepToTheJunk]

With wins over more individual Hall of Famers than anyone in boxing history (15) and a mind-melting 49 fights just against Hall of Famers (going 33-12-4) Greb has one of the premier resumes of all time. Averaging roughly 23 fights a year in his 14-year career it's not unreasonable to consider him a top 3 all time with or without footage. To give a sense of the magnitude of his career he boxed 499 rounds against Hall of Famers alone. Some today would question his technical proficiency but even in his day he wasn't known for technical proficiency he was known for extreme volume stamina and toughness which prevailed over many experienced and technical greats, even often fighting with a size disadvantage.

One of the P4P ATG.

[BoxBuzz]

Rosenbloom went on the record a lot....he was an incessant gabber. Did he go on the record regarding Greb? I'd love to read his take.

[Bundana]

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.

I'm surprised to read, that modern boxers often pad their records early on with soft touches. I thought it was the the old-timers, who did that! I mean, if you're going to have 100+ (some times between 200 and 300!) fights before calling it a day, there's plenty of time to start with some easy ones, before getting down to serious business.

As far as today is concerned, it seems that many of the champions are now retiring with less than 50 pro fights under their belt... so they don't really have time to go through a long string of no-hopers, before stepping up in class.

[Cap]

Greb had a great record. He must have been a huge marquee attraction. Makes you wonder then, considering how many fights he had with big name opponents, why there isn't one single film around of him. Either he wanted too much money for film rights or he didn't show up to full advantage on film.

[provallone]

Great thread, wonder though, if anyone mentioned that Greb was blind in one eye much of his career , and was going blind in the other one when he lost to Tiger Flowers.

Shortly after, Greb died from the Ether used in an operation trying to save his eyesight.

Ironically Tiger Flowers also died the same way.


Heard a great story about Greb and Mickey Walker, who fought for Grebs title . After the fight, the boys ran into each other at a speakeasy. Remember , this is the time of the roaring twenties, prohibition, and lively times. One thing led to another , and the boys wound up outside for round 16. Greb won the 15 round decision at the Polo Grounds in New York, but Walker scored a one punch knockout while Greb was still taking off his jacket in some alley off Broadway.

[oogiebe]

Great thread, wonder though, if anyone mentioned that Greb was blind in one eye much of his career , and was going blind in the other one when he lost to Tiger Flowers.

Shortly after, Greb died from the Ether used in an operation trying to save his eyesight.

Ironically Tiger Flowers also died the same way.


Heard a great story about Greb and Mickey Walker, who fought for Grebs title . After the fight, the boys ran into each other at a speakeasy. Remember , this is the time of the roaring twenties, prohibition, and lively times. One thing led to another , and the boys wound up outside for round 16. Greb won the 15 round decision at the Polo Grounds in New York, but Walker scored a one punch knockout while Greb was still taking off his jacket in some alley off Broadway.

LOL! That is a great story!

[elmersalsa]

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!

Great fighter. No doubt.

[pound per pound]

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

Only if the fighters opposition was poor, which is not the case for Greb.

[Cap]

I've read post-fight reports that mention he was warned by the ref during a fight to stop punching with open gloves. Did any of his opponents ever describe his fighting style? Sounds a bit like Aaron Pryor in his prime.

[Wee Tommy]

Great thread, wonder though, if anyone mentioned that Greb was blind in one eye much of his career , and was going blind in the other one when he lost to Tiger Flowers.

Shortly after, Greb died from the Ether used in an operation trying to save his eyesight.

Ironically Tiger Flowers also died the same way.


Heard a great story about Greb and Mickey Walker, who fought for Grebs title . After the fight, the boys ran into each other at a speakeasy. Remember , this is the time of the roaring twenties, prohibition, and lively times. One thing led to another , and the boys wound up outside for round 16. Greb won the 15 round decision at the Polo Grounds in New York, but Walker scored a one punch knockout while Greb was still taking off his jacket in some alley off Broadway.

[AntonioMartin]

I've read post-fight reports that mention he was warned by the ref during a fight to stop punching with open gloves. Did any of his opponents ever describe his fighting style? Sounds a bit like Aaron Pryor in his prime.

Pryor minus the power...

[AntonioMartin]

He beat Gene Tunney...nough said.