Why Is SRR Commonly Ranked Ahead of Harry Greb?

Also lost it 5 times . Greb was able to hold onto his title until it was time to call it a day.

 

The answer is and should be because we can't view any of his fights. If you can see one great fighter and view his artistry.. why wouldn't you rank him ahead of another fighter who you could never view? Seems pretty basic and logical to me.

 

Grebs prime was blinded by the no decision era. It cost him dearly until all the research many yrs later. Kudos to Luckett Davis for correcting this in the last Ring Record Book 1986-87
He was the first!

 

Greb was among boxing's very first radio stars on Pittsburgh's pioneering KDKA, but audio recordings of those bouts are not known to exist. The entirety of Greb-Tunney I was both filmed and broadcast on KDKA, as was Greb-Walker. If those radio broadcasts were recorded and synchronized with preserved film of those legendary bouts early on, then SRR may never have had a chance to surpass Harry in all time stature. Gans and Langford benefited greatly from having prime [possibly peak] footage recorded of them in action.

Robinson got on radio, films and television, dating back even to his amateur days. Some of his greatest opponents and rivals remain alive and well even now [specifically Gene Fullmer and Jake LaMotta]. At least two members of this forum [one being burt bienstock] personally witnessed Robinson in action [and john garfield actually knew him and received some coaching from Robby]. LaMotta has said many times on-camera that SRR was the greatest boxer of all time, a formidable endorsement from a frequent rival who fought Ray at Robinson's peak.

It's probable that nobody alive today even met Greb [who died over 85 years ago] as a young child, let alone witnessed him in action. Not sure who was Harry's final living opponent, but Owen Phelps [who died at age 86 in 1991] might be a good candidate for that distinction.

Assiduous research and careful reconsideration are beginning to turn the tide in Greb's favor. Harry's films may be missing, and his fight broadcasts not recorded, but his true record is being clarified, and the newspaper accounts of Regis Welsh and others for the Pittsburgh press and other contemporary publications have been preserved [from an age when sports writing was a high art form, and boxing a headliner]. Opponents like Tunney and Walker also published their accounts for posterity.

Because boxing has become more of a niche interest, it might be more challenging to upend Robinson's historical primacy in favor of Greb than it was to induce Nat Fleischer to revise his all time rankings [which I don't believe he tweaked again after SRR], but prominent historians like Steve Compton and Springs Toledo are taking a tremendous shot at shifting this glacial public perception.

 

My answer to that is and should be - if all you care about is your own opinion of what you think you see then go for it. My 14 year old daughter thinks ODLH must be the finest boxer of all time because he looks "dreamy". So much for the "eye test". I put about as much faith in the average posters opinions of what they think they see and know as I do in hers.

Now if you decide to talk to serious boxing fans who care about what a fighter actually accomplished then the #1 all time resume belongs to Harry Greb and it isn't close. And if you were really curious and wanted to form an educated opinion you could look up and look at a dozen of so Hall of Famer's and World Champs he beat. Give those guys your "eye test" and use your intellect to fathom what sort of boxer, what sort of man could possibly have beaten them ALL while weighing under 160lbs.

Seems pretty basic and logical to me...

 

Although I don't hold the same position, I can't bring myself to say that this is not a good reason.

 

ESB would flourish if we had more posters like you, A

 

There was tremendous debate over the Flowers-Greb rivalry. Many ringside observers believed the Deacon won their first match, while the Windmill deserved the decision in both their title fights. Robinson's four title dethronings, to Randy Turpin, Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio and Paul Pender are thoroughly documented. [We do need to remember Robinson won SIX titles, and lost only four of those in the ring. He won one of those back from Olson without losing it first. Turpin was his only title loss prior to turning the age Greb died at.]

 

Maybe, it's not just lack of footage. Maybe, some people think that the 40s and 50s were better boxing eras than the 20s and the top dog in the most competitive era should be the top dog of all time.

1920s

1. Harry Greb
2. Benny Leonard
3. Gene Tunney
4. Mickey Walker
5. Pancho Villa
6. Tommy Loughran
7. Jack Dempsey
8. Bud Taylor
9. Tony Canzoneri
10. Tiger Flowers

1940s

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Willie Pep
4. Joe Louis
5. Ike Williams
6. Manuel Ortiz
7. Sandy Saddler
8. Billy Conn
9. Jake LaMotta
10. Marcel Cerdan

1950s

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Archie Moore
3. Kid Gavilan
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Pascual Perez
6. Sandy Saddler
7. Gene Fullmer
8. Carmen Basilio
9. Joe Brown
10. Harold Johnson

 

A, you certainly know your stuff...So much emphasis is placed on the fact
that there is no film available of Harry Greb fighting, therefore how can I rate Greb so highly....? The dozens of great fighters who outweighed Harry Greb by 10-35 pounds,and swore he was the best fighter they ever saw
has no meaning to these naysayers. After all they 90 years later know better than the Tunneys, the Rosenblooms, the Tommy Gibbons, even the
great Jack johnson who sparred with Greb after Lil Arthur retired ,called Greb the fastest fighter he ever saw...My dad who worked in Greenwich Village where Tunney came from saw his neighberhood idol Gene Tunney, take a horrendous beating from the 15 pound lighter Greb at MSG in 1922,
became an ardent fan of Harry Greb and always insisted that Greb would have whipped Ray Robinson even after he and I saw Robbie in his prime
as a WW...Many years later after a boxing seminar in New Hampshire
where the oldtime great prospect LW Ruby Goldstein was the speaker, I asked Ruby Goldstein who became a referee after his career was over this question. :"Ruby who would have won between Harry Greb and Ray Robinson " ? Goldstein who saw them both took his stogie out of his mouth and said " it would be a man against a boy ". I said," who was the man " ?
He replied Harry Greb. "too rough and too strong ". Finally, as I have posted before, I am convinced that Greb would have certainly beaten any opponent Ray Robinson fought...I am equally certain that Robinson would not have even challenged such bigger great fighters as Gene Tunney, Tommy Gibbons, Tommy Loughran, Jack Dillon, Maxie Rosenbloom, Kid Norfolk, Bill Brennan spotting these guys 15-30 pounds...I recall the only
lightheavy Robinson took on was the light punching Joey Maxim who did not hit as hard as some middleweights of his era....Robinson always knew his limitations even though he was close to 6ft tall....Greb knew no limitations as proven in 300 bouts almost every 10 days , and never given his bruises and injuries time to heal...And for the last 5 years or so completely blind in one eye...Need I say more ?

 

If you watch SRR's bouts at Middleweight between 1951 and 1952 with Jake Lamatta(6), Randy Turpin2 and Rocky Graziano and rate those particular performances against all of Harry Greb's performances and wars altogether I think you'd have to rate Ray slightly ahead of Greb still.

Mind you I don't rate SRR as the greatest Middleweight of all time as I do him the greatest Welterweight and of course still the all time greatest P.F.P. fighter ever. I give that distinction slightly to one Marvelous Marvin Hagler with SRR in a neck breathing second place behind him. But Harry Greb's accomplishments as a sensational warrior who literally fought with one blind eye throughout his career is most certainly not lost upon me as a true fan of the sport.

1. Marvelous Marvin Hagler
2. Sugar Ray Robimson
3. Stanley Ketchel
4. Mel Greb
(tied) Carlos Monzon

 

Burt, you're one of those "unknown" people I alluded to in the "foremost historian/researcher" thread who's leading the tide to reverse the historical standings of Greb and Robinson. You witnessed Ray compete at his peak, as everybody knows, and keep producing personal anecdotes like Ruby Goldstein's comments to you on the subject. [Do you recall where in New Hampshire this took place by the way? I know my way around the Granite State pretty well, so I'm curious as to whether it was at a venue in Portsmouth, Concord, Nashua, Laconia, Manchester, Hanover, Keene, or a smaller community, maybe further north like Berlin, and when. That might have been an event a local newspaper could have made note of, and recorded in their pages.]

Head to head, Greb was physically stronger and naturally heftier, but so were Robinson opponents like Gene Fullmer and LaMotta. However, everybody I'm aware of who saw both in action and compared the speed of the two fighters said Harry was also faster than Sugar. Forfeit peak Greb [with the two good eyes he still had in 1919] that advantage, then one would need to fall back on the tight skills and smarts of a peak Gibbons brother or prodigy Loughran to compete on an even basis. Something else to consider was whose title defense was better, past prime Greb's against near peak Walker, or peak SRR against near peak Gavilan II, two of the greatest successful title defenses ever at the lighter weights.

You have already made it clear that Robinson was the greatest you yourself ever personally witnessed in action. Burt, again very curious, but who was the fastest guy you ever saw in the ring? [Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, a lot of ringside pundits clearly rated Howard Davis, Jr. over Ray Leonard and Benitez in that department. Was Greb faster than them all?]

 

Nope

He didnt lose the title 5 times.

 

He lost it 3 times. 1 time near his prime to Turpin and the other 2 well past it.

 

Even the highly esteemed Surf-Bat reflexively botched that one. [Must've been distracted, tired, or both. That's an extremely uncommon factual mistake for him.]

I sometimes wonder how much more enhanced Robinson's legacy would be if he'd reached the final bell against Maxim, then dropped back down to continue defending his middleweight title from 1952 through to 1957. Early 1952 saw two of SRR's only three successful defenses at 160, Olson II in March, and Graziano a month later.

Like Ray Leonard at 147, Robby was a great fighter and a great challenger at 160, but not a dominant champion with double figure successive defenses at MW, as Monzon and Hagler would later become. Robinson abandoned his only opportunity to create such an unbroken string by cutting his second reign short after Maxim, but Olson II in March 1952, then Graziano in April 1952 raise some questions about what an uninterrupted second MW reign might have looked like. Ray next MW title defeat after Turpin in 1951 was to Gene Fullmer in 1957.

Does Robinson go on a six year tear for his second reign at 160, defend it successfully on a near monthly basis against the likes of HOFers Olson and Graziano, is there a rubber match with Turpin, and does he put the MW defense record completely out of reach of Monzon and Hagler during that 1952-1957 time frame? Olson would have never become a champion if Robby had not stepped down after Maxim, nor would Bobo be in Canastota today if Carl had to dethrone Ray to win the title at 160. Robinson had previously defeated three of the opponents Olson beat in MW title competition during Ray's 1952-1955 retirement, and nobody buys Pierre Langlois as a guy that could have dethroned an active SRR in 1954 either.

Dempsey, Louis, Ali and Ray Leonard all had a substantial chunk of athletic prime squandered. Tunney and Benny Leonard retired early while on top. Many greats went on ice during WW II. And Robinson chose to forfeit 1953-1955.