Harry Greb v Tommy Burns!

Harry Greb wins, because Harry Greb beats everyone.
He was close to impossible to beat, at his best.
I'm not sure there's a man in history who'd win a decision over a prime Harry Greb at his very best.
Harry Greb befuddles them all. Impossible to hit cleanly, throwing a million punches from impossible angles, with the speed of a bantamweight.
Who can beat him ?

 

If Harry had fought Tommy Gibbons during 1919, Greb's record for that year may well have been 45-1. At their peaks, the Gibbons brothers may well have been good enough to give the Windmill a lot of headaches before Harry figured them out in rematches [as he had to in fact do with Tommy].

Loughran was another Tommy who was pre-prime when he took on a post peak Greb. Peak for peak, Greb-Loughran is another interesting proposition.

However, Steve Compton is obviously the guy to defer to on this. NOBODY can beat Klompt as an authority on Greb.

My best guess here is that Harry's combination of speed, durability and stamina carries him to the decision over Burns, but The Little Giant of Hanover would be hammering Greb's body throughout, and did have a right hand capable of decking Harry. This would be an excellent scrap.

 

But that's a draw, not a win. [How about the mythical Klompton 1.5, of the exile period?]

 

Burns by KO.

Just kidding. Burns lost and drew to fighters who were the same size as Greb but not as good so youd have to favor Greb. Burns gets a bad rap though.

A note on the Gibbons-Greb series. I disagree completely that Tommy would have beaten Greb in 1919. Tommy clearly beat Greb in their first bout of 1920 but there were factors that hint that the result may not have been the norm in a series at that time. Greb was not able to train very well for his first 1920 fight with Gibbons due to an arm injury. For most of his training camp he was only able to do roadwork. Combine this with the fact that Greb was extremely over confident based on his success over the last couple of years and the belief that Tommy was a lesser version of his brother (who Greb had already beaten) and the rumors that Greb stayed up all night the night before the fight hanging out with his friends and you have a bad mix. Tommy on the other hand was primed and motivated. He knew he had his biggest challenge in front of him and came into the fight in perfect condition. Now Im not making excuses, and I make clear in the book that you have to go with the idea that the better man won on that day BUT I dont see Tommy beating Greb in 1919. Greb was so upset with the loss he wanted an immediate rematch with Tommy. Tommy went to Europe to try to find some easy money, was unsuccessful, and came back to face Greb. The fight was set at 163. Greb weighed 160 1/4, 4 1/2 pounds less than their first fight, showing he had trained down fine. Gibbons refused to weigh in illustrating that he was probably well above the 166 he weighed for their first fight. Greb won the rematch. Then in their fourth fight, with Tommy at the height of his fame with a long string of knockouts to his credit and everything on the line they fought a 15 rounder and Greb won easily despite already being blind in one eye and some saying he was slower than in the past. Its my opinion but I think the Greb-Gibbons II fight is an aberration. I dont think Gibbons could repeat that win in 1919 or 1920 against a primed Greb regardless of what weight they fought at.

When Greb fought both Gibbons brothers the first time he was not yet in his prime. Mike was and still had a rough go of it over 6 rounds. With Greb's stamina over a longer distance that result might be different. Certainly by the end of the year he was ready to battle on even terms with Mike. In 1915 against Tommy both Greb and Tommy were inexperienced but Tommy had a major plus on his side. He was the chief sparring partner of the greatest fighter in the world and was tutored by him as well. I cant stress enough how advanced Tommy was at that point in his career despite his relative lack of fights. Factor that in with the fact that it was Greb's first fight outside of the Pennsylvania/Ohio border area and you can see how it would have been a tough win. But Tommy was simply the better fighter in 1915. No doubt about it.

I think prime for prime Greb has Tommy's number. Mike is a different story. Mike was something special. I think he would always give Greb problems prime for prime. I dont think hed win a series but hed win his share and wouldnt embarrass himself by any stretch.

 

:goodVery much appreciated and informative post, K2! That was exactly the catch I was casting my line for. [And I think I'm going to stick with the K2 shorthand. That was a classic and challenging citadel of quality material.]

Mike Gibbons does merit much, MUCH more modern attention than he receives. Brother Tommy always made it clear Mike was his superior, no matter how successful Tommy became.

 

Good posting Anubis! I can't add anything as you know more about these two but I've wondered about such a match also. Like you said Tommy had a good right hand.

 

I concur.

It's posts like that which keep me hanging around. Such great info.

 

Sam Langford

 

No one near his weight catches up to Harry Greb including Sam Langford...As a middleweight I have read Sam Langford wasn't anxious to fight the prime middleweight Jack Dillon in the early 1900s. Sam Langford as a MW had to catch up to Harry Greb and ko him, and no one kos Harry Greb...We must also remember that when Sam Langford met Stanley Ketchel in 1910 in a run up bout for the MW title later on, Langford weighed about 12-15 pounds more than Ketchel did, and he was no longer a middleweight. At 160 pounds Greb outscores a weakened Langford for a decision. No one, but no one had a record of greatness like Harry Greb...

 

I've heard rumors about Greb staying out nights, being less than 100% and not taking opponents seriously were often put out there by Greb himself to shorten the odds, 'cos he liked to bet on himself.
You'd know better than me, but it's something I've heard.

 

The stories about his conditioning and partying didnt start until the last three years or so of his career. They were greatly exaggerated and distorted by the press and Greb spent most of that time denying them and arguing against them. Ive never really believed that Greb spread those rumors about himself. Elsewise why would he be so defensive when they were printed and why would he continually go out of his way to stress his conditioning? Whereas he had legitimately broken his hand in Denver or wrist in Denver against Bob Roper (probably a reaggravation of the break he suffered against Zulu Kid in Kalamazoo). The injury caused him to cancel a planned continuation of his western campaign and forced a month layoff.