BoxRec

Boilermaker wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

yancey wrote:Just a simple question....I know very little about either fighter. Have not read the thread.

Which one would be considered the cleaner fighter? (or maybe I should say less dirty )

I think it was Harry Greb that somebody said, "Harry will butt you, thumb you, hit you low . . . but he never bitches when you do it back to him." (Might have been Marciano . . .)

But I've never read of Fitzsimmons ever being accused of doing anything dirty.

Those comments about Greb being dirty seem pretty far fetched. I would like to see someone try to substantiate these claims.

And Fitz was once said by some to have coated his wraps in plaster of paris against Jeffries. that is pretty dirty, if you ask me (not that there is much evidence of it).

Ask Klompton, but I don't think Greb was above giving an opponent and elbow or going below the belt from time-to-time. (And, again, the quote might have been about Rocky, but I think it was Greb. I know it was one of them)

Regarding that plaster of paris claim, it was made years after the fact by Jeffries and is unsubstantiated. After the fight, Jeffries complained that Fitz used too much hand wrapping and tape. But his complaints about Plaster of Paris and collodion (another substance he claimed that Fitz used), were made years after the fact and, I believe, after Fitz's death. Would Fitz's hand wraps be permitted today? Probably not. But there were no rules on hand wraps in 1902. Hard to say he "cheated" when there was no rule governing it. I don't ever recall read about Fitz fouling anyone in a fight.

Boilermaker wrote:

King Carlos wrote:Certainly sounds like a tall tale the way he told it.

If i recall correctly, Klompton (and i am pretty sure quite a few others) has some pretty strong evidence that Greb was placed in a different location at this time. But i wouldnt mind hearing it again so i can look it into it, if anyone can post any info that helps dispel or prove the myth. For the record, if forced to make a guess, i would say that it didnt take place.

Mickey's story is ridiculous. In most versions he meets up with Greb with a girl on his arm. In reality Mickey got a pretty bad beating in the Greb fight. After the fight he met up with his (Mickey's) wife (that little fact is always forgotten in Mickey's story) and Doc Kearns (who had been banned from the fight) and they took Mickey to Polyclinic Hospital to have his cuts stitched up. Afterwards he was taken back to his hotel room where his sparring partners and wife spent all night applying ice packs to him. Mickey was in no condition to go out partying all night much less get into a street fight with a bigger guy who had already kicked the shit out of him a few hours earlier. Never mind that it would have been totally out of character for Greb to grab Mickey by the neck and pick a fight with him.

Could it have happened at a different time?

Why would Greb not challenge the story? That's a real question by the way, not an argument. If it isn't true what reason would Greb have had for not saying this is a lie?

It's a great story that I wish was true.

Ezzard wrote:Could it have happened at a different time?

Why would Greb not challenge the story? That's a real question by the way, not an argument. If it isn't true what reason would Greb have had for not saying this is a lie?

It's a great story that I wish was true.

From reading The Fearless Harry Greb, it seems Greb was a media manipulator and favoured giving himself bad or dubious publicity, such as perpetuating the myth he was a lax trainer and heavy drinker. Maybe he would have refuted the story if he had lived into retirement.

DaveBoyMorrison wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Could it have happened at a different time?

Why would Greb not challenge the story? That's a real question by the way, not an argument. If it isn't true what reason would Greb have had for not saying this is a lie?

It's a great story that I wish was true.

From reading The Fearless Harry Greb, it seems Greb was a media manipulator and favoured giving himself bad or dubious publicity, such as perpetuating the myth he was a lax trainer and heavy drinker. Maybe he would have refuted the story if he had lived into retirement.

Neither of these a really true.

Greb didnt challenge the story because there was no story until after Greb died. Long after. This is never even mentioned anywhere near Greb's lifetime.

klompton wrote:

DaveBoyMorrison wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Could it have happened at a different time?

Why would Greb not challenge the story? That's a real question by the way, not an argument. If it isn't true what reason would Greb have had for not saying this is a lie?

It's a great story that I wish was true.

From reading The Fearless Harry Greb, it seems Greb was a media manipulator and favoured giving himself bad or dubious publicity, such as perpetuating the myth he was a lax trainer and heavy drinker. Maybe he would have refuted the story if he had lived into retirement.

Neither of these a really true.

Greb didnt challenge the story because there was no story until after Greb died. Long after. This is never even mentioned anywhere near Greb's lifetime.

When did the story come out? Was it Walker himself who perpetuated it? Also can you clarify which part of my post are you saying is untrue?

Greb was not really a media manipulator, not any more than most other boxers. Guys like Jock Malone and Mike Gibbons were far more adept at working the press and even carried typewriters around with them to bang out press releases on. Greb also did not enjoy the poor publicity he got which was usually coming out of New York. He resented this treatment and felt it was unfair. In his last interview before he died he gave a long diatribe about how his image was distorted by the press and how he had been unfairly treated. Its one of the crimes against his legacy today because much of the Greb myth is really a perpetuation of the negative press he recieved in the unfriendly but powerful New York press. If indeed he went out of his way to give the impression he was a lax trainer it was more about influencing gambling odds than it was about influencing the press or reveling in a bad boy reputation.

The Walker story started in the 1930s. Im not sure if it was Walker who started it or an imaginative newspaper man but Walker sure ran with it and the story changed every time he told it. Sometimes he won it, sometimes he lost it, sometimes it happened, sometimes it didnt, sometimes he started it, sometimes Greb did, sometimes they had women with them, sometimes they didnt, etc etc. I think Walker understood it was a good bit of blarney, people enjoyed hearing it so he kept telling it.

raylawpc wrote:

Boilermaker wrote:

raylawpc wrote: I think it was Harry Greb that somebody said, "Harry will butt you, thumb you, hit you low . . . but he never bitches when you do it back to him." (Might have been Marciano . . .)

But I've never read of Fitzsimmons ever being accused of doing anything dirty.

Those comments about Greb being dirty seem pretty far fetched. I would like to see someone try to substantiate these claims.

And Fitz was once said by some to have coated his wraps in plaster of paris against Jeffries. that is pretty dirty, if you ask me (not that there is much evidence of it).

Ask Klompton, but I don't think Greb was above giving an opponent and elbow or going below the belt from time-to-time. (And, again, the quote might have been about Rocky, but I think it was Greb. I know it was one of them)



Regarding that plaster of paris claim, it was made years after the fact by Jeffries and is unsubstantiated. After the fight, Jeffries complained that Fitz used too much hand wrapping and tape. But his complaints about Plaster of Paris and collodion (another substance he claimed that Fitz used), were made years after the fact and, I believe, after Fitz's death. Would Fitz's hand wraps be permitted today? Probably not. But there were no rules on hand wraps in 1902. Hard to say he "cheated" when there was no rule governing it. I don't ever recall read about Fitz fouling anyone in a fight.

I cant think of any claims of Fitzsimmons cheating either, although Choynski makes some claims to cheating in their bout where he mentions a long count and from memory the police intervening too early, but i am pretty sure he removes Fitzsimmons himself from blame even though he says he was robbed.

It might also be remembered that Fitz fought under a much tougher and anything goes free for all set of rules. I think it is Klompton who makes mention in another thread that the rules had regressed and were a lot less tolerant towards the end of Grebs career.

it was more about influencing gambling odds than it was about influencing the press or reveling in a bad boy reputation.


Yes thats what I had understood, I admire him for it as it must have been tough making a living as a boxer back then.



The Walker story started in the 1930s. Im not sure if it was Walker who started it or an imaginative newspaper man but Walker sure ran with it and the story changed every time he told it. Sometimes he won it, sometimes he lost it, sometimes it happened, sometimes it didnt, sometimes he started it, sometimes Greb did, sometimes they had women with them, sometimes they didnt, etc etc. I think Walker understood it was a good bit of blarney, people enjoyed hearing it so he kept telling it.[/quote]



Thanks for the info.

As i work through the comparison of top opponents, the next guys on the list are Mickey Walker vs Tom Sharkey. Should be an interesting comparison here. Anyone want to consider the respective performances here?

I'm very concerned that Greb will be discovered to be "media manufactured" a result of a "writer's conspiracy" with nothing (such as film) to hold these writers accountable, they could have rode the "Harry Greb" plot off into any number of fantasy paths. Let's face it, no one could actually accomplish what Greb's record portrays. There's something surreal going on here. These writers were often seen drinking in smokey bars sharing stories, and yukking it up. The setting was perfectly suited for such a conspiracy to find safe harbor and thrive.

No one has done (since the arrival of film) what Harry supposedly accomplished. That's rather suspicious don't you think?

I wish granberry were here to sort this out for us.

Anyone from the east coast out there?

Thats pretty funny considering the sportswriters you are referring to spent years trashing Greb and it was only after a lot of diligent research and the stories of a vocal few that Greb started getting anywhere near the respect he always deserved. No, there was no conspiracy. I find it funny when people think that there is this secret cadre of Greb devotees that has squirrelled away all the film that can be found of him and then blitzed the internet, book, magazines etc with propoganda to boost his reputation. What would be the motivation?

klompton wrote:Thats pretty funny considering the sportswriters you are referring to spent years trashing Greb and it was only after a lot of diligent research and the stories of a vocal few that Greb started getting anywhere near the respect he always deserved. No, there was no conspiracy. I find it funny when people think that there is this secret cadre of Greb devotees that has squirrelled away all the film that can be found of him and then blitzed the internet, book, magazines etc with propoganda to boost his reputation. What would be the motivation?

You really expected our Buzz to have even the slightest awareness that was the case?

Hey, I help make your case for you by my ignorance....and then you diss me.

klompton wrote:Thats pretty funny considering the sportswriters you are referring to spent years trashing Greb and it was only after a lot of diligent research and the stories of a vocal few that Greb started getting anywhere near the respect he always deserved. No, there was no conspiracy. I find it funny when people think that there is this secret cadre of Greb devotees that has squirrelled away all the film that can be found of him and then blitzed the internet, book, magazines etc with propoganda to boost his reputation. What would be the motivation?

none. Or you would have likely discovered and reported on it.

Itd make for interesting reading ;;-)

klompton wrote:Itd make for interesting reading ;;-)

Klompy, what do you make of the fact that in his own time, and for a long time thereafter, virtually no news paper reports seemed to place greb in the same class as Fitzsimmons. It seems to be really more as the internet grew and people had the chance to really think about and look into Greb's career that Greb seemed to take the leap from very good fighter (a position the likes of Gibbons, Steele, etc seemed to enjoy among the majority) to the elite of the elite.

Do you think it is solely because of media manipulation or is it a case of what he did in fighting and winning so regularly (which was more the norm back then) as opposed to now being more appreciated in modern times. It certainly seems that no one who saw both fighters thought Greb was the better was it solely that he wasnt really liked by reporters of his time?

The same thing was a perpetual hallmark of Ezzard Charles' career, Boiler...anyone willing to dispute his greatness?

He was certainly greater than Fitzsimmons, no doubt about that. Ezzard is in Harry's class.

The internet had had a big impact. But all the Boxing history books and encyclopaedias always rated Greb and Charles as two of the best. The internet, and boxrec, allow for people to very quickly cross-reference records, accomplishments etc… This has allowed for Greb, Langford and Charles to really get the plaudits their records deserve.

Fitzsimmons was always up there too.

Boilermaker wrote:

klompton wrote:Itd make for interesting reading ;;-)

Klompy, what do you make of the fact that in his own time, and for a long time thereafter, virtually no news paper reports seemed to place greb in the same class as Fitzsimmons. It seems to be really more as the internet grew and people had the chance to really think about and look into Greb's career that Greb seemed to take the leap from very good fighter (a position the likes of Gibbons, Steele, etc seemed to enjoy among the majority) to the elite of the elite.

Do you think it is solely because of media manipulation or is it a case of what he did in fighting and winning so regularly (which was more the norm back then) as opposed to now being more appreciated in modern times. It certainly seems that no one who saw both fighters thought Greb was the better was it solely that he wasnt really liked by reporters of his time?

On the one hand I dont necessarily agree that most papers werent giving Greb all time great status. Back in those days the power of newspapers was a lot less centralized. Where nowadays you have a very few national news outlets, back then each outlet was a lot more localized and most of those outlets, literally hundreds, had experts. Now, factor in that Greb was fighting all over the place for 13 years, and not just in Las Vegas, or New York, or LA in front of televisions audiences, and what you get is a few guys in detroit who have seen him fight a couple of times, a few guys in cleveland who have seen him fight a few times, a bunch of guys in New York who have seen him fight a few times, Boston, Philly, Oakland, Dallas, Wichita, Chicago, South Bend, and on and on and on. You dont get a complete picture of his greatness until you add it all together and that simply wasnt possible for literally decades after he died. Another factor is that while you had guys in the Ohio, Penn, and Western NY markets who had seen Greb fight a lot (and those guys pretty much all considered him an all time great even during his life) you had the much more vocal, and powerful NY boxing writers who were always eyeing outsiders as provincials and resented anyone who would come into New York and take a championship away. Those guys had it out for Greb from day one, literally, and then when factor in that he hated them with a passion you can see why a lot of those guys spent years assassinating his character. Pile on to that the fact that after they had outlived their usefullness as newspapermen they became contributers at places like Ring Magazine and you literally have a couple of generations of very wide spread boxing writing by a relative minority, who hated Greb. When you start reading accounts of his fights outside of New York (and particularly when he was in his prime, before he lost the sight of his eye, stopped training as much etc) and its really a revelation what people have to say about him. It wasnt universal of course but when you fight 300 fights in 13 years you are going to have an off night in one of your stop offs and that writer may take you to task despite the fact that its one of 300.

klompton wrote:

Boilermaker wrote:

klompton wrote:Itd make for interesting reading ;;-)

Klompy, what do you make of the fact that in his own time, and for a long time thereafter, virtually no news paper reports seemed to place greb in the same class as Fitzsimmons. It seems to be really more as the internet grew and people had the chance to really think about and look into Greb's career that Greb seemed to take the leap from very good fighter (a position the likes of Gibbons, Steele, etc seemed to enjoy among the majority) to the elite of the elite.

Do you think it is solely because of media manipulation or is it a case of what he did in fighting and winning so regularly (which was more the norm back then) as opposed to now being more appreciated in modern times. It certainly seems that no one who saw both fighters thought Greb was the better was it solely that he wasnt really liked by reporters of his time?

On the one hand I dont necessarily agree that most papers werent giving Greb all time great status. Back in those days the power of newspapers was a lot less centralized. Where nowadays you have a very few national news outlets, back then each outlet was a lot more localized and most of those outlets, literally hundreds, had experts. Now, factor in that Greb was fighting all over the place for 13 years, and not just in Las Vegas, or New York, or LA in front of televisions audiences, and what you get is a few guys in detroit who have seen him fight a couple of times, a few guys in cleveland who have seen him fight a few times, a bunch of guys in New York who have seen him fight a few times, Boston, Philly, Oakland, Dallas, Wichita, Chicago, South Bend, and on and on and on. You dont get a complete picture of his greatness until you add it all together and that simply wasnt possible for literally decades after he died. Another factor is that while you had guys in the Ohio, Penn, and Western NY markets who had seen Greb fight a lot (and those guys pretty much all considered him an all time great even during his life) you had the much more vocal, and powerful NY boxing writers who were always eyeing outsiders as provincials and resented anyone who would come into New York and take a championship away. Those guys had it out for Greb from day one, literally, and then when factor in that he hated them with a passion you can see why a lot of those guys spent years assassinating his character. Pile on to that the fact that after they had outlived their usefullness as newspapermen they became contributers at places like Ring Magazine and you literally have a couple of generations of very wide spread boxing writing by a relative minority, who hated Greb. When you start reading accounts of his fights outside of New York (and particularly when he was in his prime, before he lost the sight of his eye, stopped training as much etc) and its really a revelation what people have to say about him. It wasnt universal of course but when you fight 300 fights in 13 years you are going to have an off night in one of your stop offs and that writer may take you to task despite the fact that its one of 300.

I understand and agree with most of what you are saying here.

I guess the point i was making though is that nowadays, Greb is considered a virtual lock in the all time top 10 fighters ever. Realistically he is usually top 5 and often he is number one on many reasonable lists. But, when he was fighting, i have never seen an article that compares him favourably to Bob Fitzsimmons, (at least no one who lived through both reigns).

I think the other thing is that (at least in the early days) it was Mike Gibbons (and Darcy of course) who was considered the pound for pound great middleweight. You alluded to this on another thread. But how do you think the general opinion was of Greb and Mike at the time and in the short period after their retirement. Their was no dominance of one over the other. Do you think that the consensus was pretty split between who was the better fighter of the two, or do you say that Greb was considered quite a bit better than Mike Gibbons?

I wonder what this troll will have conjured up in this miserable thread in 2016. Any guesses?

By then i will have probably found footage of Fitzsimmons KO ing Greb in one of Fitz' defences of his New York State Sanctioned 1915 World Middleweight Championship.

Boilermaker wrote:By then i will have probably found footage of Fitzsimmons KO ing Greb in one of Fitz' defences of his New York State Sanctioned 1915 World Middleweight Championship.

You already have that footage in your fantasies.