Harry Greb fighting in the Stanley Ketchel era

I was jocularly comparing your actions to those of a tin pot dictator.

I never realised you took yourself so seriously.

I won't attempt to swap badinage with you again.

Go easy on the insults Sweaty, you'd be surprised how lively this little **** can be.

 

Let's give each other a miss, you are so far up your own arse ,only your toes are visible.
Threatening to ban people you've be swearing at with impunity, you Scotch ****. This thread has been an exercise in self -mugging by you , but you're too self absorbed to see how ridiculously precious, and sensitive you have come across as. Giving out warnings of banning, do what you like about my swearing,I could care less.

 

No thanks. Im not here to argue with you which seems what you are most interested in. From mow on you are ignored, i highly recommend it with children.

 

To answer the ****ing question. I think Harry '****ing' Greb would do quite well; probably better.than he did in his own time. In the singular hypotheticals we often favor I wouldn't pick Greb to.lose a match. However if dropped into a time machine he would lose a few, as would any all time great if dropped into a deep division (and it is deep; not as deep as the era that follows, out the '30's or nineties but not weak). I think he could win the heavyweight title although Jack Johnson, when and if he fights Greb, would kick seven shades of **** out of him. Of course this era is not my strongest suit and if someone disagrees that is more knowledgeable I would suggest you listen to them.

 

Things got a little hot and heavy here... I didn't even get McGrain this pissed when we talked about JJW vs. Louis 1 lol. Anyways, I will a couple of my thoughts.... I don't think Greb would've gone through this era without a loss or two or three. People tend to act like Greb never lost.. he did.. and he would here to. Lastly, I have NO clue why people think he would so easily beat Burns. Burns is a very underrated fighter these days. Sure he was small for HW.. but was still the top LHW for some years prior to winning the title. To act like Greb would just beat him silly and win easily.. is well.. laughable. I pray nobody thinks he beats Johnson... that would be even more laughable. However, from what I've seen on here from some.. a few I'm sure do think he could.

 

One thing that is worth considering with a Burns/Greb fight is the rule set.

What if Burns were to make it a finish fight or a ridiculously long fight. Could Greb really KO him, he doesnt have a good ko record at all.

Or if he goes for a shorter fight, what if Burns only defends in a ND.

Maybe Greb would need to feign a loss, to get the rules he needs to win?


By the way, now that things seem to have settled down, i wouldnt mind reading McVeys answers to those Ketchell questions if they are available.

 

I don't see Greb putting away Burns at all... it would likely just be a ND fight.. I think people forget that Burns was a very good LHW fighter and would be the bigger man. SUre Greb had no issues with fighting bigger men, and did quite well, but burns would be one of the best big men he faced sans Tunney.

 

I think Papke would give Greb more to worry about because he had more weapons at his disposal than Ketchel. Ketchel had the one big clumsy cannon that could blast things out of the way if it could land. Papke had an assortment of knives, pistols, garottes and rifles, if that makes sense. In other words, I think Papke could devise a plan to trouble Greb more than Ketch could, maybe mixing up his hard-hitting with the clever boxing that wasn't part of Ketchel's arsenal.

Allow me to quote Leo P. Flynn- "Ketchel was a great hitter and all that but he didn't have the finesse of a Papke. Billy was a greater boxer, a deadly puncher, could take plenty and had a world of speed. He knew the fine points of the game from A to Z."

 

You fight almost 300 bouts in ANY era and you are bound to have some losses, I agree. The astounding thing is that Greb fought in such an incredibly tough era, yet his official losses and newspaper losses are both in SINGLE digits! Keep in mind that three of those losses were controversial (Tunney II, Flowers II and III), one due to a broken arm (Graves), one lost by fighting one-handed due to an injured arm (Keiser), one a DQ (Norfolk II) and one so close some considered it a draw (Hooks Evans). It is mind boggling.

Start from the top of his record and scroll slowly down. Look at all those rows of uninterrupted green (wins): http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9019&cat=boxer

Who matches that?

With all that in mind I think that he could get through Ketchel's era darn near undefeated! :smoke

Yes, he is underrated. But I don't see how he would slow down Greb one iota. He took on fighters who were a heck of a lot greater than Burns and gave them their whipping. So why wouldn't he do the same to Tommy?

I see Greb swarming him and winning by a wide UD.