Is there no film whatsoever of Harry Greb in an actual fight?

..

 

I kind of understand what Dubblechin means about people being disappointed if they ever saw Greb as opposed to what they imagine, but for me personally his record speaks for itself.

 

Yes. Absolutely tireless. Iron chin. Buzzsaw. Sports writers from that period loved hype.

If you get the time, some day go back and look at old newspapers from that period. A lot of them printed "round by round" descriptions the following day. I did it with Dempsey-Gibbons. Find the round by round descriptions of an old-time fight (printed in the following day's paper reporting on the bout) that you have a complete film version of.

Read the report and watch each round the writer is describing. If you do that a few times, you'll get the idea.

Greb could've been great. I'm sure he was for his day. Based on the guys who beat him who were considered master boxers at the time, I'm just thinking he probably wasn't when compared to all the fighters who came after him.

And that's okay. Pioneers are rarely the best ever. Improvements get made over time. It's natural.

 

..

 

So you only rate fighters based on their records of wins and losses, and not how they (or their opponents) looked in a fight?

Somehow, I don't believe that for a second.

We base our rating of EVERY fighter on how they looked, who they beat, when they beat that person, how that opponent looked, was that opponent in his prime or not, the circumstance surrounding the fight, who the judges were (how the judges previously scored fights), how the referee was officiating the bout. We do it here every day.

EVERYTHING that goes into rating those fighters can't be done with Greb because we can't see any of that ... due to the lack of visual evidence of him or how his opponent looked or what the ref was doing or not doing.

If you don't think "how he looks" or how his opponent looked matters, and only wins and losses count, you'd be the only one here who does.

 

Really? You mean the guys who actually wrestled are considered better wrestlers than today's costumed stunt men, who read and follow scripts timed for television, who spend half the night talking to fans to set up the story line?


Weird. Are you honestly comparing pro wrestling and boxing?

 

..

 

..

 

I didn't realize George fought on television. I was kind of lumping him in with the pioneers who actually wrestled ... read my post again for clarification.

 

Yeah, I know who George was. Sarcasm doesn't translate well on message boards.

 

..

 

I base greatness on effectiveness. It is the only measure. The rest is merely aesthetics.

And for what it matters, Greb beat 16 Hall of Famers in his career a total of 45 times, many of whom we have seen on film and who looked fantastic. His record in 1919 alone compares favorably to many "great" fighters' careers.

 

If you want to believe Jonah was eaten by a whale and lived in its belly for three days, and a snake tempted Eve with an apple, and Greb was the best ever, knock yourself out.

To each his own.

 

..

 

..