BoxRec

Alex wrote: ↑08 Jun 2020, 13:47

Tony1244 wrote: ↑20 May 2020, 14:10 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.

Alex wrote: ↑08 Jun 2020, 13:47

Tony1244 wrote: ↑20 May 2020, 14:10 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.

Alex wrote: ↑08 Jun 2020, 13:47

Tony1244 wrote: ↑20 May 2020, 14:10 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.

BoxBuzz wrote: ↑12 Jun 2020, 10:41 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?

Ghost Town Ghost wrote: ↑12 Jun 2020, 13:41

BoxBuzz wrote: ↑12 Jun 2020, 10:41 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 wrote: ↑12 Jun 2020, 10:41 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.

Alex wrote: ↑08 Jun 2020, 13:47

Tony1244 wrote: ↑20 May 2020, 14:10 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.

provallone wrote: ↑28 Jul 2020, 11:20 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 wrote: ↑20 May 2020, 11:43 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!

goose 5 wrote: ↑20 May 2020, 12:46 Is video evidence necessary to judge a fighter ? If not, to what extent does it, at least, help?

provallone wrote: ↑28 Jul 2020, 11:20 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.

Cap wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020, 11:42 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.