Harry Greb vs Marvin Hagler

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 28 Sep 2005, 01:11

I thought id bring some fantasy matchups back

who wins at there peaks

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 28 Sep 2005, 06:42

I don't think Greb punched enough to ko Hagler, and Hagler isn't going to ko Greb. Marvin fought well inside but he preferred having room but Greb wouldn't care about that and would be glued to Hagler firing with both hands. In a 15 round fight the first third would have some hot times as Hagler would have to fight Greb, but in the second third there would be rounds where it would look like Marvin was going to get his way amnd some space to work in but in the last five rounds Greb would be attached to him agaion and pull away for the win.

barry · Post by **barry** » 28 Sep 2005, 07:20

Greb on points. Threw too many punches and was faster than Hagler.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 28 Sep 2005, 07:35

hagler by close decision.hagler comes on strong and wipes out harrys early lead.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 28 Sep 2005, 09:11

I'd go for Greb on points. He has an astonishing record and fought and beat top Lightheavies and Heavyweights!. Really when you talk about Greb you are talking about one of the top 3 fighters of all time pound 4 pound at anyweight not just Middle.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 28 Sep 2005, 09:13

silkov wrote:I'd go for Greb on points. He has an astonishing record and fought and beat top Lightheavies and Heavyweights!. Really when you talk about Greb you are talking about one of the top 3 fighters of all time pound 4 pound at anyweight not just Middle.

Have to agree with this. Of course it's all on records and reports because I've never seen Greb but I think he'd beat Hagler on points with no knockdowns.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 28 Sep 2005, 09:22

Ezzard wrote:
silkov wrote:I'd go for Greb on points. He has an astonishing record and fought and beat top Lightheavies and Heavyweights!. Really when you talk about Greb you are talking about one of the top 3 fighters of all time pound 4 pound at anyweight not just Middle.
Have to agree with this. Of course it's all on records and reports because I've never seen Greb but I think he'd beat Hagler on points with no knockdowns.

You can learn a lot from reading Grebs record. The fact that he beat so many men bigger than him including Tunney speaks for itself. Hagler was a great champion but Greb is in a league in which very few other fighters can reach.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 28 Sep 2005, 11:00

silkov wrote:
Ezzard wrote:
silkov wrote:I'd go for Greb on points. He has an astonishing record and fought and beat top Lightheavies and Heavyweights!. Really when you talk about Greb you are talking about one of the top 3 fighters of all time pound 4 pound at anyweight not just Middle.
Have to agree with this. Of course it's all on records and reports because I've never seen Greb but I think he'd beat Hagler on points with no knockdowns.
You can learn a lot from reading Grebs record. The fact that he beat so many men bigger than him including Tunney speaks for itself. Hagler was a great champion but Greb is in a league in which very few other fighters can reach.

It is also worth ntoing that Greb would take on anyone nio matter what their colour or size and that has to also point to the fact that theman was the real thing. I like Hagler but think he gets outworkled here.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 28 Sep 2005, 11:12

Ezzard wrote:
silkov wrote:
Ezzard wrote: Have to agree with this. Of course it's all on records and reports because I've never seen Greb but I think he'd beat Hagler on points with no knockdowns.
You can learn a lot from reading Grebs record. The fact that he beat so many men bigger than him including Tunney speaks for itself. Hagler was a great champion but Greb is in a league in which very few other fighters can reach.
Yes thats very true... when you take account of the times in which he lived you have to respect Greb and any other white fighter who was willing to meet all comers of any colour as there were many 'greats' of the same era who wouldn't.

It is also worth ntoing that Greb would take on anyone nio matter what their colour or size and that has to also point to the fact that theman was the real thing. I like Hagler but think he gets outworkled here.

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 28 Sep 2005, 11:22

Greb's record shows that he beat guys that boxed and moved, that jabbed and grabbed, that fight like muggers and guys that were classic boxer/punchers. And the fighters he fought were the best at these various styles, from Tunney to Mickey Walker. He proved how good he was against the recognized best.

theone · Post by **theone** » 28 Sep 2005, 20:20

Greb. No real advantage for Haglar in this match up. Greb seems to come up short in this department but it only seems that way because of all the bigger guys he fought. No one is getting knocked out and Grebs speed makes the difference. Greb, greatest middleweight ever, clear cut decision.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 28 Sep 2005, 23:22

Greb.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 29 Sep 2005, 05:37

theone wrote:Greb. No real advantage for Haglar in this match up. Greb seems to come up short in this department but it only seems that way because of all the bigger guys he fought. No one is getting knocked out and Grebs speed makes the difference. Greb, greatest middleweight ever, clear cut decision.

greb is the best 165-168 pound fighter ever.not the best middle.look at his middleweight fights.desperate struggles with o'dowd,walker(who was coming up from welter and spotting him half a stone)then the flowers losses.(admittedly he was fading slightly).the victories that seemed more impressive were at the higher weight when he didn't have to kill himself to make it.hagler,monzon,ketchel,robinson and cerdan would have had a great shot at winning at 160 or 158 as it was.at the higher weight greb would have been stronger and would win.(klompton is struggle with o'dowd okay seeing as you don't like it being a loss?).

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 29 Sep 2005, 07:14

As long as Greb was allowed to fight like he wanted you`d have to favour him to win the decision.
His record and history suggests he`d be too strong having outfought many of the top men at lightheavy.

But would he be allowed to fight his fight?? and I don`t mean the supposed rough stuff he is remembered for.

klompton · Post by **klompton** » 29 Sep 2005, 14:47

Hey Dalek, everytime you mention the O'Dowd fight you fail to mention your source for calling it a loss. I have all of the twin cities papers for that fight and they split right down the middle as to who won. So why dont you start quoting actual sources and stop just trying to get my goat. How many twin cities papers do you have access to there in the UK? LOL.

Another point I could make is that losing to O'Dowd was no dishonor as he was a great fighter in his own right and Greb, eager to make the bout a championship affair came in at just over 155 pounds which shatters your weak argument that Greb wasnt the best at 160 based on that fight. How strong was Hagler against championship quality fighters when he weighed 155?

Calling Greb "slightly" past his prime when he fought Flowers is such an ignorant joke. He was 32, blind in one eye, struggling to make weight, and had the ring wear of nearly 300 fights against the best competition available. How stupid can you be to suggest he was only slightly past his prime. Its a testament to his greatness that he was able to compete at the highest level when he was SO FAR past his prime. The Walker fight too, you act like he had a life and death struggle with Walker. He kicked Walkers ass. How well did Hagler do against Duran and Leonard both coming up in weight? Or Mugabi for that matter?

There is nothing anyone can say about Hagler in terms of what he could bring to the table to beat Greb that Greb didnt already see from larger men while he was beating them. Greb wins this fight, period, and he should because MOST experts agree he was the greatest middleweight ever.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 29 Sep 2005, 15:00

hehehe.i knew you couldn't resist m8.if you read the post it says struggled and i asked if this was more acceptable.lol.if you wanna complain about it start with this site and get one of the mods to change the 7-3 in rounds to o'dowd as it states on grebs record.please tell me which 160 or 158 pound wins are that great from harry?i maintain his better performances came at a heavier weight.grebs record at middle does not compare to haglers or monzons.as for weighing the 155 he also turned in a poor performance which far from shatters my argument.finally a lot of the so called experts like yourself have never seen him fight.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 29 Sep 2005, 16:16

dalek wrote:hehehe.i knew you couldn't resist m8.if you read the post it says struggled and i asked if this was more acceptable.lol.if you wanna complain about it start with this site and get one of the mods to change the 7-3 in rounds to o'dowd as it states on grebs record.please tell me which 160 or 158 pound wins are that great from harry?i maintain his better performances came at a heavier weight.grebs record at middle does not compare to haglers or monzons.as for weighing the 155 he also turned in a poor performance which far from shatters my argument.finally a lot of the so called experts like yourself have never seen him fight.

Every great fighter has struggled against some opponents... does Grebs alleged 'struggle' against O'dowd affect his standing in the context of his 300+ fights career?.... no I think not!.

klompton · Post by **klompton** » 30 Sep 2005, 01:34

So boxrec is now the be all and end all of boxing records? You look at 1 sentence from a newspaper which wasnt even at the fight posted on a web site by some unknown and suddenly your expert and can state categorically how the fight went? Thats credible...

What wins were good for Greb at middle?

Chip
McCoy
Moha
Borrell
Gibbons
Levinsky
Smith
Dillon
Christie
Bartfield
Meehan
McTigue
Miske
Houck
McGoorty
Brennan
Wilson
Walker
Weinert
Loughran
Moody
Moore
Slattery
Ratner

Etc etc etc etc. Yeah some of those guys were light heavies or heavies but Greb weighed in at or near the 158/160 pound mark in fighting them.

You discount some of his opponents who were light heavies and heavyweights which is ridiculous. So by your logic Greb wasnt a great middleweight because he fought successfully against larger men? Do tell. If Hagler had moved up and beaten Spinks, Muhammad, Davis, Yaqui Lopez, and then went on to defeat guys like Mike Weaver, Renaldo Snipes, Tim Witherspoon, Carl Williams and then moved back down to defeat Mugabi, Hearns, etc. People would be talking about him in the same breath as Greb, as an amazing MIDDLEWEIGHT. So why should Greb be remembered either as a light heavy or as a middle but not as both? Despite all his fights against big men his last fight was at the middleweight limit and when he won the title, already past his prime, the division limit was still 158 on the afternoon of the fight. Its not like the guy was going into weigh-ins 36 hours before a fight, barely making weight, and then blowing up to 175 for fight time.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 30 Sep 2005, 06:03

i don't discount his wins over heavier opponents at all.infact you can see in other discussions i plainly state hagler could not have achieved them.
and no struggling with o'dowd does not take away from 300 fights.klompton likes to say how hagler struggled with duran as if this PROVES he couldn't hang with greb.
boxrec isn't the be all of fight records,but i think they also try to quote different paper decisions in a cloudy period.
harry was a great fighter,who i happen to believe could not beat marvin at 160.it differs to your opinion but that does not make it WRONG.i believe that though harry was extremely durable,hagler had the punch to drop him.greb could not hurt marvin.i also think if they fought they would go to war,i don't think greb would be using his speed getting off and getting away.in any war at 160 i believe hagler prevails.
just to point out his battles at middle
chip- when greb starts beating him he is clearly on the slide.now when he met greb earlier and was beating him this is unfair on harry as he was still learning.i don't think either met each other at their best.
mccoy-please tell me you are not serious?mccoy was getting beat regularly.
both gibbons also beat greb at 160.
you know i'm not gonna get started on loughran and slattery again as we've covered this.
walker i've mentioned earlier weighed something like 150 or so.still a fantastic win though as walker was a great fighter.i am not knocking harry,i just think hagler beats him.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 30 Sep 2005, 07:12

The fact that Greb fought heavier men so often was because he had beaten everyone at middle. To try and say Greb wasn't as good a middle weight because he fought and beat so many heavier men is rather perverse!.

How many light-heavyweights let alone heavyweights (and indeed future heavyweight champions!) did Hagler fight!??.
I'm a big Hagler fan but Greb is quite simply in a different class.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 30 Sep 2005, 08:04

no way had he beat everyone at middle.the fact he fought a lot at l/heavy weighing 168 was because he was comfortable at this weight.now silkov you show me where i say he was not a good middle.i think you'll find that i only name 5 other middles with a chance of beating him.that suggests i think harry was a great middle does it not?just because i feel down at 160 it starts to favour the guys i mentioned does not mean i think they would beat him with another half stone of weight.as you can see i have said harry would beat them all.his speed would not be that greater than haglers etc.i'm talking the early champion years of hagler and not the slower version that fought mugabi etc.
now hagler stayed at 160,so what?the fight we are talking about is at 160 is it not?same with monzon.ketchel sparked o'brien.so what?walker fought and beat heavier men.do you think he beats hagler as well?tommy hearns beat light heavies,again so what?he wouldn't beat hagler at 160.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 30 Sep 2005, 08:44

Marvellous Marvin on points for me.

He's the best middleweight of all time.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 30 Sep 2005, 09:01

you can't go saying things like that m8.according to these greb sits so far above any other middle its not worth discussing.lol.
there are many differing views as to who the greatest middle is and despite klomptons claim that most favour greb this is not true.i've heard cases for greb,ketchel,hagler,monzon and robinson.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 30 Sep 2005, 09:38

Greb certainly has the best record of any MW. i think that's fairly indisuptable.

In these match ups though it's so hard because of the lack of film evidence. No doubt that nobody would have had an easy time with Harry but when greats square off (in our imagination) so much is about personal preference.

klompton · Post by **klompton** » 30 Sep 2005, 10:52

When Greb fought McCoy the first time McCoy had just beaten Joe Borrell and was middleweight champ who had knocked out the previous middleweight champ (respected George Chip) with a single punch in the first round. Greb was an unknown clubfighter and he dominated McCoy easily. Thats impressive whether you admit or not. Grebs first fight with George Chip came in 1915 when Greb was still basically a novice, especially compared to Chip. Greb had been KOd by Chips brother previously and NOBODY expected Greb to go the distance. He fought Chip on even terms throughout. That would be like Jermain Taylor of 2002 fighting a draw with Trinidad or Toney or someone of that Calibre. Thats not impressive? You can discount his wins over Loughran and Slattery anyway you like but there is no denying that at the time he fought them they were worldclass fighters and the wins regardless of their age were impressive. You try to throw out the Walker win by saying he only weighed 150. He actually weighed 154 which at the time was a middleweight. But to throw the win out as if Walker had never achieved anything above welterweight is ridiculous. He already beaten Mike McTigue (when McTigue was LHW champ!!!), Jock Malone (top contender for MW), Phil Krug (whos record on Boxrec is woefully incomplete but who competed for the NY version of the world middleweight title), Johnny Gill (another good middleweight whose record is badly incomplete here), Charlie Nashert, Lou Bogash (top middleweight contender), Soldier Bartfield, (top middleweight for years). So do you still want to argue that Walker hadnt shown anything at MW yet?