Bob Fitzsimmons v Harry Greb

[Boilermaker]

The next two fighters on the list are Maxie Rosenbloom and Tom Sharkey.

A prime or close to prime Harry Greb has a good win on his ledger in the young Maxie Rosenbloom. Rosenbloom, who would go on to become a much better fighter would follow the Greb loss by losing to Jim Slattery on points a couple of times. It is clear that Greb was quite dominant and deserved his unanimous decision, but you would expect him to do so. the weights for this fight are unclear. According to boxrec, Greb weighed in the high 160s around this time. Rosenbloom appeared to be fighting around 160. Realistically speaking it seems almost certain that both came in slightly over the 160 limit with greb, if anything enjoying a slight weight advantage.

In contrast, Fitzsimmons opponent was Tom Sharkey. By this time, Fitz was clearly over the weight limit, but he was certainly outweighed by the bigger Sharkey. Sharkey was a far more accomplished fighter at heavy than Maxie ever was. He gave the world champ s Corbett and Jeffries all they could handle and outside of Fitz and these two guys was pretty much accepted as the best of the era. Fitz was admittedly one all technically with Sharkey, but Sharkey was KOd both times. Given that Fitz was the one who had to overcome the weight disadvantage it would seem unrealistic to not give this edge to Fitzsimmons opponent as well. Once again Fitz' list is more than stacking up.

[Stylist]

Are you contending Greb couldn't realistically beat Fitzsimmons?

I would be in agreement with the op.

[klompton]

Greb was well, WELL past his prime when he beat Rosenbloom. And he didnt just beat him, he dominated him. He beat him so bad that most of the newspapers present stated Greb carried him. One even said it took all of Greb's skill to allow Rosenbloom to go the distance. Rosenbloom later called Greb the greatest fighter he ever met.

[Boilermaker]

Greb was well, WELL past his prime when he beat Rosenbloom. And he didnt just beat him, he dominated him. He beat him so bad that most of the newspapers present stated Greb carried him. One even said it took all of Greb's skill to allow Rosenbloom to go the distance. Rosenbloom later called Greb the greatest fighter he ever met.

Interesting point. Although i think it is fair to say that Fitzsimmons was also past his prime when he met Sharkey (perhaps not as far past his prime as Greb was).

Klompton, when do you say that Greb was in his prime?

[klompton]

1919

[Boilermaker]

1919

yeah, that was a huge year, i would agree with this as the start of his prime, although 1918 he was not too far from prime either. When do you say he became a past prime fighter about 1923 or a little later?

[klompton]

Id say the end of 1921 as soon as he lost the site in his eye. By early 1922 several reports were already stating that he had seemed to lose a step.

[Bundana]

Klompton, I was wondering:
Approximately around which time was it first reported in the newspapers, that Greb was completely blind in one eye?

[klompton]

It was first definitively reported after his death but in late 1921 and on it was periodically mentioned that his sight wasnt what it once was or that he was having eye troubles etc. There were hints if you keep your eyes open. No pun intended.

[Bundana]

Thanks

[Boilermaker]

According to this small article, Rosenbloom, who had a reputation as unorthodox as Greb's, Rosenbloom hadnt really achieved much of distinction in his career when he upset Jimmy Slattery to win the cruiserweight championsip. Obviously one article means little but you will not find similar sentiments about Sharkey.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article ... rchLimits=

In contrast to the Sharkey Fitzsimmons fight, the Greb Rosebloom fight seems to have got little newspaper space at all. Probasbly this is because Rosenbloom wasnt considered anywhere near the fighter Sharkey was and of course Greb was not considered a Fitzsimmons at this stage. Here is a short article on one of the fight and there is no doubt that Greb proved superior to Rosenbloom (as Fitz did to Sharkey).

http://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2011 ... ehtml&.pdf

To show the standing of the fighters in the public eye, this 5 round Sharkey Fitzsimmons exhibition bout which was called a draw got as much publicity (in Australia at least) as the Rosenbloom Greb fight got.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article ... rchLimits=

I know Klompton raised a good point that Greb was a couple years past his prime when fought Maxie, but Fitz was to when he KOd Sharkey the second time. All in all, Greb's win here simply doesnt compare. Yet again Fitzsimmons competition comes out on top in the comparison.

[klompton]

I dont think I ever stated the two fights were comparable. They clearly arent. It really isnt a fair comparison to either Greb or Rosenbloom. Probably a more apt comparison would be Greb-Gibbons as both were just entering their slow slide, just like Fitz-Sharkey. You could argue that Fitz had only legitimately lost one fight in ten years and that coming at the hands of a much larger reigning champ. Sharkey was coming off a loss, so thats not great but barring that he had only lost twice by decision (to the same man Fitz lost to) in the previous six or seven years. Yes they slid afterwards but Greb was slower, older, had a lot of ringwear, was blind in one eye and saddled with a dying wife when he faced Gibbons. Gibbons as well was aging at 31 (and his prime is a bit hard to pin point because he was a little protected). There are many better comparisons to Fitz-Sharkey in Greb's record than Rosenbloom, although I havent gone back and looked to see how that even came to be a topic of discussion.

[Boilermaker]

I dont think I ever stated the two fights were comparable. They clearly arent. It really isnt a fair comparison to either Greb or Rosenbloom. Probably a more apt comparison would be Greb-Gibbons as both were just entering their slow slide, just like Fitz-Sharkey. You could argue that Fitz had only legitimately lost one fight in ten years and that coming at the hands of a much larger reigning champ. Sharkey was coming off a loss, so thats not great but barring that he had only lost twice by decision (to the same man Fitz lost to) in the previous six or seven years. Yes they slid afterwards but Greb was slower, older, had a lot of ringwear, was blind in one eye and saddled with a dying wife when he faced Gibbons. Gibbons as well was aging at 31 (and his prime is a bit hard to pin point because he was a little protected). There are many better comparisons to Fitz-Sharkey in Greb's record than Rosenbloom, although I havent gone back and looked to see how that even came to be a topic of discussion.

It came about because of the suggestion that not one of Fitzsimmons opponents could hold a candle to the top 10 opponents of Harry Greb, which i am sure you would agree is ridiculous. Eventually one of the posters had a go at naming the 10 best opponents of each fighter. I have systematically worked down the list and will continue to do so in coming months so far it is quite clear that there is no class discrepancy between any of the fighters discussed.

If anything, the discrepancy would be in favour of Fitzsimmons opponents.

It really is astonishing how lowly rated Fitzsimmons is on this forum. Under any criteria, whatsoever, he would be considered one of the elite fighters to have ever lived. It is not unreasonable for some people to consider Greb to be a better pound for pound fighter than him. After all, it is all mostly subjective and if it were that simple, we would all be rich betting on fights. But Fitzsimmons is definitely in the same class. I think that his record is better than Greb's. And that is saying something because as i am sure you know better than anyone, Greb's record is one of the greatest ever.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

It's a joke to compare their opposition. Anyone with half a brain knows Greb faced greater fighters and many more of them. That isn't a slight to your hero, it goes for pretty much any fighter who ever lived. And I hate to break it to you, Rosenbloom was miles greater than Sharkey.

[klompton]

To me Fitz is one of the greatest. I hold him right up there with Langford and Greb. Once you get to that level who cares which is better. They were titans.

[Giancarlo]

To me Fitz is one of the greatest. I hold him right up there with Langford and Greb. Once you get to that level who cares which is better. They were titans.

Very good point.

[Boilermaker]

To me Fitz is one of the greatest. I hold him right up there with Langford and Greb. Once you get to that level who cares which is better. They were titans.

That is true.

But i like to continue with comparing the 10 best opponents for the main reason that you get to look at and compare fighters who are never really considered much in the same light and hopefully from time to time if there is enough input quite a few people (myself included) will learn quite a few interesting things about some of the lesser discussed fighters.

The underating of Fitzsimmons by most on this forum is astonishing. But, i am sure that by the end of this thread that will change. As you say, he is one of the titans. There are not too many fighters who can be placed in the same class as Greb. Fitzsimmons is one of them.

[Boilermaker]

It must be about time to look at the next two opponents on the list. Norfolk vs O Brien. This one makes for a very close and interesting comparison. Anyone want to have a an analysis of these two underdiscussed greats before i hunt around for a few articles and comments.

[Boilermaker]

I havent got time to compare Norfolk and O Brien as opponents just yet but will in time. In the mean time, here is an interesting article about what one of the writers (at close to the height of Greb's career thought of his chances against Fitzsimmons and some of the other greats).

http://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2018 ... ehtml&.pdf

[SaadOffTheDeck]

We'll all be on pins and needles for the next addition of the buffoonery that is you.

[SamWise72]

Despite Saad's slagging, I have learned a LOT on this thread. I absolutely don't have the knowledge of these eras to contribute, but I do think it interesting that the man who is writing a book on Greb agrees that Fitzsimmons belongs in the same bracket. I also note that Boilermaker has reasoned arguments to support his views, while Saad resorts to dismissing. Anyway, gents, thankyou for the education.

[HomicideHenry]

Fitzsimmons was a freak of nature. 167 pounds, and was as powerful as a modern day super heavyweight and tough as nails to boot. Throw in the fact he was a very skilled man on top of this, despite his flat feet, it proved in his longetivity, the man fought on as a contender into his late 40's. Simply amazing stuff, p4p I rate him alongside Langford and Robinson. Middleweight wise, he's a lock in the top fifteen ever. As a heavyweight, he still is top 20 material IMHO (remember that up until the 1970s Fitzsimmons was rated among historians as a top five heavyweight). I dont know if Fitzsimmons could have kayoed Greb, considering "The Human Windmill" was almost equally successful against heavyweights as Fitz was.

[JohnnyCross]

I would say that Bob gets the nod due to size and freakish strength. It's a close call though. Harry gave Jack Dempsey hell in sparring practices and Jack is significantly larger overall than Bob. I think Bob would get Harry since Bob's stance has him leaned back away from a smaller swarming style boxer, and he would just need to catch Harry reaching for him with some hooks to the body to change Harry's strategy. But if Harry isn't the aggressor, Bob's size and strength would be more utilized. Though I see Fitzsimmons winning, Greb had the better résumé in my opinion, and would do better against more people than Fitzsimmons would. In short, Greb is better.

Now Harry Greb vs Henry Armstrong, that seems like a tough one to analyze. Would be a better fight and I can see it going either way.

Or Bob Fitzsimmons vs Sam Langford. Though Langford is small like Harry Greb, Langford is also more suited to fight larger boxers than Greb is. Greb is a tough small man, but he is too aggressive to stand a chance with top ranked big guys. Langford has a further reach than Greb, is more patient and ready to inflict damage given the opportunity waiting for the right time. Not sure who would win between Bob or Sam.

My first topic posted was actually influenced by this discussion. And I ask who would win the two above fights, as well as Ali vs Dempsey and Jeffries vs (Louis or Marciano)?

[badkatt]

fitz

[cfang]

I would say that Bob gets the nod due to size and freakish strength. It's a close call though. Harry gave Jack Dempsey hell in sparring practices and Jack is significantly larger overall than Bob. I think Bob would get Harry since Bob's stance has him leaned back away from a smaller swarming style boxer, and he would just need to catch Harry reaching for him with some hooks to the body to change Harry's strategy. But if Harry isn't the aggressor, Bob's size and strength would be more utilized. Though I see Fitzsimmons winning, Greb had the better résumé in my opinion, and would do better against more people than Fitzsimmons would. In short, Greb is better.

Now Harry Greb vs Henry Armstrong, that seems like a tough one to analyze. Would be a better fight and I can see it going either way.

Or Bob Fitzsimmons vs Sam Langford. Though Langford is small like Harry Greb, Langford is also more suited to fight larger boxers than Greb is. Greb is a tough small man, but he is too aggressive to stand a chance with top ranked big guys. Langford has a further reach than Greb, is more patient and ready to inflict damage given the opportunity waiting for the right time. Not sure who would win between Bob or Sam.

My first topic posted was actually influenced by this discussion. And I ask who would win the two above fights, as well as Ali vs Dempsey and Jeffries vs (Louis or Marciano)?

This forum is about fantasy matchups so you never know but how on earth is fitz going to beat harry greb? On points, lol have you seen how slow and flat footed he is. Greb was so much busier by all acounts. By KO? Greb survived hundreds of fights against the best of his era. Fitz is hard to rate and there no doubt he was a super tough and very hard hitting guy for his size but he was a pioneer from the gloves/bk era and for me Greb is a level up.

Greb vs Armstrong - Armstrong has no chance, hes a feather, light, welter really - Greb was a big middleweight who fought over 158/160 often. I've got greb all time #2 behind robinson but his record is simply out of this world. The sheer level of opponent and the number of fights its off the scale. Fitz for me is probably in the p4p 10-20 area and could be 10 or 20 as hes hard to rate.