Why Is SRR Commonly Ranked Ahead of Harry Greb?

You don't have to be senile to misremember something, Burt. I'm 30 and I forget things all the time. I magnify and distort events from my past just like everybody else. People become nicer or meaner, objects change place. I've lost money betting with a friend on a film I'd already seen because I could swear Leaving Las Vegas starred Alec Baldwin and not Nicolas Cage. A few weeks ago, I remembered Duran knocking out Palomino, before someone here put me right, and I just watched that fight not that long ago. This week I've briefly lost my keys, my wallet, and my glasses because I was absent minded and not paying attention when I set them down. I remember the number of the house I lived in fifteen years ago, but not the street or color. Human memory is just not that good with the possible exception of those photographic memory guys. I don't know about them. The rest of us mortals write things down, take pictures, and make films.

I'm not saying that he sucked. I'm saying there is room to believe he wasn't as good as Sugar Ray Robinson. Those are two very different statements. He might just have been as good as Eder Jofre, Duran, or Willie Pep but not quite as good as Robinson or Armstrong. Could he have done the things he did if he were say as good pound for pound as Pernell Whitaker?

If Greb's reputation rests upon the abilities of the fighters he beat then we should examine those fighters and those victories. We know from chapter 5 of Tunney's autobiography A Man Must Fight that Tunney fought injured the first time they fought, but that he won or drew each subsequent time they fought. The fact that Greb wasn't able to repeat his success is telling in and of itself and implies that Tunney is telling the truth about being injured in both hands, an elbow, and cut over the eye, in addition to being half poisoned on adrenalin fumes and brandy. This was arguably Greb's greatest win and Tunney's account afterwards definitely tarnishes it somewhat.

Then, what caliber of fighter were the men Greb fought? There are hall of famers and there are hall of famers after all. Take Gene Tunney, he's good. Ring Magazine has him at #3 pound for pound in the 20s, but I'm not sure he'd be #3 if he fought in some other decade. When I see him I think, "That's a good light heavyweight, but Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, or Jersey Joe would clean his clock." He'd definitely make the top 10 though. He reminds me of Evander Holyfield in the Dempsey fights where Dempsey reminds me of Tyson. And Tunney reminds me of Klitschko too where he keeps clinching and smothering his opponents.

The Mickey Walker fight was a good win. I think Mickey Walker is one of the greats. But then again Mickey Walker was beaten 32 times and by lesser men than Greb. What kind of performances did they turn in to beat Walker? He's not unbeatable and has his weaknesses like everyone else. Maybe there was just a bad style match up for Mickey. Unlikely, but possible. The better man doesn't always win.

Then there's Tommy Loughran the great light heavyweight. This guy was good too, but he had one flaw. He had no power in his hands. He has an 8 percent KO record. The only all time greats I can think of with worse KO percentages are Maxie Rosenbloom and Nicolino Locche. He was known for his soft hands and defensive style which must have made him a tantalizing target for middleweight weight climbers like Walker and Greb. People who discount Robinson's fight with light heavyweight Joey Maxim because they say Maxim wasn't a puncher should consider that Maxim at least knocked out 18 percent of his opponents.

Then you have his losses to Tiger Flowers, etc. But let's move on.

But not all tornadoes are of the same force, Burt. We use the Enhanced Fujita scale to measure them from 0 to 5. They come in all sizes from 65 mph to over 200 mph. I'm saying what if Greb wasn't an EF5? What if he was more like a 180 mph EF4? They still level cities. Part of the way we measure them after the fact is by looking at the level of devastation caused and by the durability of the structures they toppled. Some of the structures Greb toppled don't sound like concrete bunkers, and the fact that sometimes they withstood him makes me think that he wasn't always an EF5.

That's certainly reasonable. Of course, if I heard those tales I'd still wonder if maybe they didn't take a dive or were injured or something. I'd ask how many times he beat them, how badly, did they have any outstanding flaws he could have exploited, and so forth. Were they over trained, overweight, weight drained, past prime, green, coming off losses, coming off of a long layoff, etc? The circumstances matter when we are determining how good a win something actually is.

 

It means nothing that Ray retained the belt 5 times because he had to lose it each time to do so where as Greb was able to hold it throughout, this is why i rate Greb higher.

 

But that doesn't take into account Robinson's career as a welterweight. I think it's more fair to tally up the number of victories either fighter had over Hall of Famers, Champs, and top 10 competition like we did in another thread. Robinson had about 44-13-1 and even though the Ring didn't start doing top ten rankings until later, I think Greb had about 39 victories over 22 hall of famers with multiple victories over guys who may have been top 10 if they were ranked placing the number in doubt; so let's say between 39 and 60. That's just a raw numbers game and obviously not all victories should count the same. But it does say something that only about five guys have more than 40 on their resume.

 

An argument used against Greb in this debate is the lack of film of him, but does it really matter?

Lets say that we found a high quality film of him and he looked awful.

It would just mean that he beat the people he did while looking awful.

 

Robinson is my one and Greg is my number two.

I am not sure how many fighters Greb fought that had the similar skill set as Robinson. My guess is that under rules where you had to box and not be allowed to maul an opponent that Robinson's speed and power, and timing would be a formitable task stylistically for Greb to over come. If Robinson had fought in that time period, he would have to had adjust. He also fought guys noted for their roughness and dirtiness (Lamotta, Basillio, Fulmer, Graziano, Zivic) and he came out on top.

BTW, Robinson at WW fought middleweight contenders who usually out weighed him by 15 pounds. He dealt with fighting at higher weights. Considering that late in his career he was leading on all cards against a HOF LHW I would say again that if Robinson had to fight in those day he would have excelled just like Greb, maybe even with more KO's against the higher weights.

Without seeing Greb I cannot say how they would match up but, if he is a windmill like they say, he would be leaving himself open for shots. I think that Robinson's power must have been in the neighborhood of Tunney, and his movement was better. Greb was not noted for his power. So if he is not allow to maul it think he has his hands full in a match. Robinson had his issues with crouch fighters so, I think Robinson has a very tough night. I think they go to the cards each time and probably never a clear decision.

Also, even though Greb's record is unbelievable in some respects, I think that Robinson wins over the elite level fighters he fought ranks right up there. For every one knowledgable historian that ranks Greb higher than Robinson, I think thier are about 10 of those same that rank Robbie higher.

I actually think the Charles' resume may be more impressive than both of theirs. Charles is my number three.

 

But was it a base hit or a grand slam when he beat them?

Theoretically, he'd only have to be about as good as the best person he beat to beat them. So who's the best guy he beat? Mickey Walker is the number 12 pound 4 pound according to the classics forum thread stickied above. So he only has to be at least the 11th best boxer ever, for him to beat Walker, hypothetically. The case for being at least 11 is made by the record. But people are arguing that he's #1 and I haven't seen a document that says Greb beat Sam Langford, Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Ezzard Charles, Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, or Roberto Duran. If we are just comparing the names they fought, Robinson holds a victory over Armstrong the #4 pound for pound.

 

A gourmet meal reading these posts

 

I like to think of having seen Greb by watching the fights of Henry Armstrong. Hurricane and Windmill sound about the same styles wise and Hank accomplish roughly the same in beating great comp at higher levels.

Thing is Greb did not have the comparible power of Armstrong. With that I still think that the style of Robinson is suited better to face a swarmer like Greb and Armstrong who can minimize a persons size advantage by getting close and throwing non-stop, and fouling a lot on the way.

Robinson would never stay put and would always be looking to counter punch. I have to believe he had superior foot and hand speed and power than Greb. This alone is enough to rank him higher when I think of who beats who.

Simply put, Robinson is higher because most people think that Robinson would beat Greb, along with what Robinson proved in over twenty years fighting from a featherweight contender to competing for the LHW crown.

 

As a middleweight Harry Greb fought a slew of much bigger great fighters than Ray Robinson did...Of this statement ,there is not a shred of doubt. Robinson who i as a youngster saw at WW, was the best fighter I ever saw, for sure with Willie Pep a close second...But the cold facts tell us SRR never had the cujones or the confidence to tackle a Charley burley, an Ezzard Charles, an Archie Moore, a LLoyd Marshall, or other lHs of his time as Harry Greb at 5'8" repeatedly did with great daring and success...
How are you blind to this telling fact...You say to butress your fallacy you say Ray Robinson beat Henry Armstrong...So what? I saw that bout and Armstrong was a shell of his former greatness who was stopped by a Fritzie
Zivic before...My contention is simply this : Any opponent that Robinson FOUGHT, Harry Greb would have assuredly whipped...His record shows that...But I cannot see a Ray Robinson challenge, let alone beat a LH as a Gene Tunney, A Tommy Gibbons ,a Tommy Loughran, a Maxie Rosenbloom,
a powerful Jack Dillon, a Kid Norfolk, a Gunboat Smith, a Bill Brennan etc,
all who outweighed little ole Harry Greb by 15 or more pounds...SRR
knew his limitations,but Harry Greb had no limitations...Shouldn't this count to ascertain who was better.? Picture a Ray Robinson even attempting to fight all these LHs, almost every 10 days, and for the last five or so years, with but the sight of one eye...?
An analogy : You have 2 undefeated racehorses...Horse A has the same weight on him as all the other horses and wins...
Horse B repeatedly beats other top horses with an extra 10 or more pounds on his back and also wins...Who would be considered the better horse ?
I gotta get back to the barn...See ya...

 

Indeed a pleasure to read so much informed discussion. I often feel the need to wash after many of the General Threads.

Boxers from different eras can never truly be compared head to head as boxing lovers would desire. At the most we can compare their records against their contemporaries, and the historical media. In an era where instant video replay is the expected norm it's not hard to understand the doubt of younger fans in the face of lack of personal visual proof - yet even in the latest fights there will be dispute over interpretation.

What's most important is that we are able to discuss and debate the sport that gives us pleasure without resorting to crudity, ad hominem attacks or hatred of any breed.

I knew nothing of Harry Greb, and little of SRR before ESB. Now, I know more. And have enjoyed the learning of it.

Koba

 

A breath of fresh air

 

Think that Robinson beating a prime Ezzard Charles one time would have been worth about ten fighters that Greb beat that outweighed him.

Robinson regularly beat guys bigger than him as well. Greb was great and I think if you put a prime Robinson at WW have him go against all the prime Middleweights of all-time he would have beaten them all. That would be a 15 pound advantage. He regularly beat middleweight. Funny thing is he started his career as a featherweight.

I don't like this idea that he was scared of Charley Burley. The Robinson that fought Jake Lamotta 5 times as a welterweight was scared of nothing. It may have a tough bout for Robinson but if at 36 he could hang and bang with likes of Basillio and Fulmer, I am pretty sure he could in his prime with Burley, Coca Kid, Holman, etc. He beat everyone put in front of him. Burley lost to Zivic. That in itself shows me that Burley was not untouchable.

He would have beaten them all.

 

I have no idea how you thought using more red herrings in your post was going to win you an argument? That is what really baffles me here. You typed all that just to make points I didn't make, while all the while not admitting you were wrong and concede. You flat out STATED Greb was BELOW 160 pounds when beating guys above his weight. This coudln't be further from the truth. So instead of admitting that you were flat out wrong you try and move the goal posts and post red herrings lol. Show me a place where I said Greb wasn't considered a great middleweight? Show me a place where I said some people didn't consider him a career middleweight? I never ever alluded to such things. So, it begs the question.. why did you go on and on about something I never made an argument about... instead of just admitting you were wrong?

Lastly, another fallacy again... nobody is claiming a slippery slope of never taking eye witness accounts of fights and needing to see them for myself to deduce anything. Of course certain things can be take from accounts of a fight. You can learn a great number of things.. while putting together a vareity of sources to come up with a logical conclusion about them. Again a point i never argued. What I DID argue is that... to take such accounts from people you have no clue on how they judged fights.. if it's in line with how you judge a fight.. not knowing the possible bias of certain writers.. and place that above somebody you can ACTUALLY see AND read newspaper accounts of the fights... WILL ALWAYS BE BETTER THAN NOT SEEING THE FIGHT AND JUST TAKING THE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS. There is no logial retort to that. It's unquestionably better to have both as opposed to just one. Which again is the point. In SRR we have both and we can deduce much more than we can with Greb. Thus rating SRR, who himself has a great resume and imo beat more impressive people is a pretty cut and dry.

Now, nobody is trolling anybody here... but please don't come back with a whole long winded post about things I never said or claimed instead of admitting you mispoke. Pretty simple really

 

Reading all this only makes more vivid the treasure chest of over 60-year-old memories, gettin' boxin' tips from SRR.

 

JLP, respectfully to categorize Harry Greb and Henry Armstrong as having similar styles shows me you should brush up on Harry Greb's style of fighting...Henry Armstrong whom I saw a few times ringside was an in your face swarmer much on the style of a later Joe Frazer...He took twice the punishment that the earlier Harry Greb did...Greb as Tunney and others opined was bouncing like a rubber ball to and fro, in and out, just about impossible to time. As Tunney said "never in the same spot more than half a second ". At the same time he threw punches in volleys from all angles,
and never gave his opponent the ball....A top MW described his fight with Harry Greb as "having the ceiling open up and tons of gloves pouring on my head ". But when Greb had to avoid retun punishment ,he had the fastest legs to scoot away...Unlike Armstrong who traded blows every second of a fight...His stamina was ungodly and he finished most fights faster in the last round than the first round....So Their is no similarity in styles between Greb and Armstrong other than their great stamina....Robinson fighting as a FW ? up to MW has no bearing on who was the greater P4P fighter...
After all, Ted Kid Lewis and Georges Carpentier BOTH started as flyweights
all the way up to fighting HWs...I repeat my contention that Greb at his best would have beaten every opponent of Ray Robinson, but SRR great as he was at 147-160 could never beat all of the big boys that the astounding Harry Greb did...For sure...