Greatest Fighter Ever ?

Bull****. The second Greb-Tunney bout was a robbery of legendary proportions. It was known MONTHS before the fight that Greb could not win in New York. John Jarrett? You are quoting John Jarrett? This is the same "historian" who recently published another paper thin biography. This time of Mickey Walker. Yet he doesnt use a single citation from Walker's hometown of Elizabeth which had two excellent boxing newspapers. No thanks. While it is a fact that Greb beat Tunney before he won the middleweight champion its also a fact that he was past his prime not only when he beat Tunney but also when he won the championship. He won the championship after being a contender for six years. By the time he faced Tunney the first time he was already blind in one eye and had the ringwear of 224 fights and countless sparring sessions and exhibitions. By their second fight Greb was now dealing with a wife who was on deaths door and Tunney's crooked, connected manager who was a partner of Greb's recently deposed manager. Indeed it wasnt until their fifth and final fight when Tunney convincingly beat Greb. In that fight Tunney was allowed to weigh in for the highest disparity of any of their fights, and dealing with a severely faded fighter who a host of outside of the ring problems to deal with (on top of entering the ring with a poorly healed rib injury). I dont blame Stonehammer for not knowing better if he relies on poorly researched, speedily produced tripe like John Jarretts books but when people who know more come on here and correct you sit back and soak it up, dont continue to spout ignorance.

HOUDINI, the referees opinion might be taken at face value if nearly every source didnt consider him to have a biased party on behalf of Tunney. Most sources state that he unfairly favored Tunney and needled Greb throughout the contest, even including during the pre fight instructions. It had been pointed out prior to the fight by more than one source that Haley had been placed as referee by Tunney's interests and told to limit Greb. This was spoken of at least three months before the fight. As Surf Bat stated, ringside accounts favor Greb in the second fight by an overwhelming majority. Those who take heart in the relatively few sources that voted for Tunney should realize that percentage of writers who thought Greb won the third fight was greater than percentage of writers who thought Tunney won the second. Greb won the newspaper decision of their fourth fight. If you frame that, along with how Tunney finally beat Greb, then its plain to see that story which has been passed down ad naseum (Greb beat Tunney in their first fight but then came back and won all four of their next fights) isnt quite how it went down. In reality Greb won their first two bouts despite being robbed in the second, ost a competitive third bout, won their fourth, and finally convincingly lost their fifth bout. The story has also stated that Greb thereafter refused to face Tunney. Not true. In early 1926 he was in negotiations to face Tunney in Miami when Stribling was chosen instead and then scrapped altogether when talk of Dempsey-Tunney bout heated up. So, back to the original point: Benny Leonard was a great fighter but if you are basing his "greatest ever" status on his "advice" to Tunney on how to beat Greb then Benny falls far short for two reasons 1. His advice was to hit Greb to the body. This was basically a no brainer as you couldnt hit Greb's head consistently. A ton of opponents followed this strategy without Leonard's advice (he wasnt the first to follow or advise this gameplan) and it got them no more success than Tunney's 2-3-0 record against Greb. 2. As can be seen above, the strategy isnt really the real factor in Greb's final defeat to Tunney. Indeed, its a pretty clear bet that a 1919 version of Greb beats a 1925 version of Tunney. After all, their fight in the Twin Cities was a ten rounder with Greb winning the first three rounds before Tunney nailed him with a bodyblow that reinjured the rib that Tiger Flowers broke the previous summer. A younger, healthy Greb, with less ringwear and the site in both eyes takes Tunney to school and proves the folly of Leonards advice.

 

So the injury didn't occurred in the 2nd Norfolk fight after all? He fought THE WHOLE Tunney AND Loughran series ONE EYED? What about Tommy Gibbons? Did he fought Tommy Gibbons one eyed in '22 too? And Jeff Smith? JFC. That's just crazy.

 

Not rubbing this in on anybody, but I love watching the old myths getting blown out of the water.

The Papke-Ketchel "sucker punch" myth

The Clay-Cooper "torn glove/extra time" myth

The "Greb beat Tunney once then got dominated by Gene in all their subsequent fights" myth

All crumbling down like old Vegas casinos that have just been dynamited.

:good

 

Yes, it was the first Norfolk fight in which Greb was blinded, according to his friends, family, and doctors. He basically went the last half of 1921 through the end of his career blind in one eye. A period which encompassed:

3 fights with Tiger Flowers
1 fight with Mickey Walker
1 fight with Maxie Rosenbloom
3 fights with Johnny Wilson
6 fights with Tommy Loughran
5 fights with Gene Tunney
1 fight with Tommy Gibbons
1 fight with Jimmy Slattery

and a lot of other guys who were contenders and near champions. Greb lost the sight of his eye in his 211th pro fight. He had 89 more bouts and several more exhibitions blind in one eye. Of those 89 bouts he essentially went: 81-6-2 and won a world title. Pretty amazing when you think about it. Greb had a better record, more wins vs. all time greats/champions, PAST HIS PRIME AND BLIND IN ONE EYE, than any fighter of the last several decades. You could basically remove Greb's early years, and his prime entirely from his record and his resume still shits all over anyone today.

 

You think? Jesus. Everytime something new about Greb comes up his record gets a little more surreal. He probably had a wooden leg and lost his good eye against Norfolk or something.

 

No inacuuracies. so you agree with me that Tunney didn't wait for Greb to get old. That was my whole point. Nice that you agree

 

BULLSPIT!! Those record book w/ Grebs and oldtimers have been the same for 50 yrs and NOW the records are revised by modern researchers. BULL#$#%%T!! No WAAAYYY MMMAAANNNNN. Revisionist history crap by guys w3ho know quite less about the past than those who lived it and wrote it.

 

So you think record books written in an era when the writers had no access to microfilm, or archived newspaper reports from towns where fights were staged that they had no access to are superior to what we have today? Thats nuts. Go back and compare the ring record book with what we have now and you will see the vast difference in quality with the Ring coming out a loser, particularly at the end of its run when it should have been improving.

 

Oh no pal. I'm not basing Leonard's greatness on the advice. On the CAREER nad the word of those there back then. BTW. You are full of ****. I've read and heard about those fights for close to 70 freakin' years and now you write a book (which I bought from Amazon 2 days ago and wait for w/ bated breath because Greb is one of my favs.) and say EVERYONE else's story is wrong. That is like the Fearless book about him that portrays him as a clean fighter and not dirty. Bull****

 

Oh yeah Surf, EVERYBODY else is wrong but 1 guy. Sounds to me like you are following a false prophet of boxing.

 

Then read my book, look at the sources, and come back here refute what Im saying now with something of substance. If you cant then I will assume youve learned something and we can agree. Simply reading the same wrong history for 70 years doesnt make it so. For nearly 100 years it was repeated over and over again that Ketchel lost to Billy Papke because Papke punched him in the throat when the came to shake hands. Thats simply not true. Repeating it over and over doesnt make it any more true. Same with Greb and Tunney. If you can miraculously come up several dozen new, un-mined sources that tip the scales in favor of a Tunney win for their second and fourth fights Im open to that. Im willing to listen. As it stands now FAR more people voted that Greb should have left the ring with his title against Tunney than voted for Tunney. Many called it the worst robbery in history. Many more called for an investigation into the bout. Tunney himself admitted in his own biography, which he wrote, that Greb had some justification in saying the fight was a bad decision. If you can find the first hand sources to turn that on its ear Im willing to listen. You wont though. Same with their fourth fight. If you can find some obscure midwestern newspapers that were actually at the fight and tip the scales in Tunney's favor Im willing to listen. You wont. The fact remains that Greb won the first fight with Tunney in brutal beating. He got horrendously robbed in the second fight with most sources giving Tunney no more than five rounds of the 15. Some people said Greb beat Tunney as badly as he did in the first bout. The third bout was closer than is remembered today with six newspapers voting that Greb won. Those that voted for Greb basically threw up their hands and stated "whats the point? Greb cant win against Tunney in New York." Greb won the majority of newspaper decisions in Cleveland. It wasnt until their final bout that Tunney convincingly won (over a shorter distance and with the greatest weight disparity of any of their contests). Despite this Greb got off to an early lead against Tunney winning the second and third rounds and drawing or winning the first. In the fourth Tunney reinjured Greb's rib and the rest is history. Dont get me wrong, Tunney improved. But Greb's decline between 1922 and 1925 was far more dramatic than Tunney's improvement. Factor in the fact that Greb was already on the decline PRIOR to 1922 and you can see why age was a much bigger factor than Leonard's supposed gameplan.

I dont disagree about Leonard. He was a wonder. Absolutely fantastic.

 

Did The Ring Record books give you the newspaper decision results? No. So how do we now know most of those results and thus have a clearer picture of the careers of such men as Harry Greb and Benny Leonard (and others who fought during the ND era)? That's right, BOXREC.

Modern researchers have far more access to accurate research than the boys from the past. We don't have to rely on wire reports anymore or traveling to far away libraries in far away cities to look through hours of microfilm. Now we can get the same info in seconds online. We can go right to the newspaper archives of the cities where the specific bouts took place. Old time researchers didn't have that luxury.

BTW, I am a Boxrec editor myself and have had to correct many errors that were in those Ring Record books. Yes, I checked them myself and guess what? They were W-R-O-N-G.

Why not embrace the new info access that we have? It benefits you too.

 

It doesn't matter if you've heard about those fights for 100 years. If a billion people repeat a silly rumor, it's still a silly rumor. I've cited you examples already. YES, everyone else's story was wrong on those examples because they all drew their info from the same incorrect wellspring of information and throughout the years it metastasized like a cancer.

Now we can go back and debunk those myths, which is being done at an incredibly fast rate.