Greb vs Hagler.

I'd say that without actual footage of Greb fighting these threads are pointless. It's hard enough comparing two modern fighters that have never fought, nevermind some ancient dude who is more like a mythical Hercules than anything else.

All I can say is that he could possibly (probably?) outpoint Hagler for a win, since all accounts say he was hard-chinned, mobile and threw punches in bunches. Then again, maybe Hagler ruthlessly smites him down.

 

Of course picking winners between great fighters of different generations is just opinions, it is safe to sat that Hagler or any other MW in history would knock out a Harry Greb who in his last
280 or so bouts was never, ever stopped, though he fought every10 or so days, against hordes of men that outweighed
Greb by 10 to 30 pounds. Remember you can't ko a man you can't hit solidly especially if you have volleys of gloves pumping into your face...If a prime Toy Bulldog Mickey Walker couldn't do much against a faded Harry Greb in 1925,taking a lacing from Greb, Hagler was no better than Mickey Walker, tough enough in his own right to beat heavyweights...

 

You're welcome.

And yes, you are probably right, as well.

If the guy who has all the Greb footage would just share, things would be so much better for all :hey

 

Greb went to war with heavy weights. Hagler never moved from 160, and fought lighter greats.

Greb would be like Vito Antuofermo vs Hagler in their first fight, but bring it every round instead of a late rally.

He has to work, but takes a solid points win.

 

Much as I like Hagler, you'd have to go with Greb, who is a class above him (and most others, to be fair). Whatever Hagler brings to the table, Greb has already dealt with in spades.

It'll be competitive though and there won't be a KO. Hagler losing on a cut is a possibility.

 

It's ridiculous to choose who'd win as we don't even have an accurate enough picture of how Greb fought! We don't know the nuances, we just have descriptions which make the reality of how he fought, lost in translation.

Also, Greb fought in a tough era, but he fought too early in time. Boxing had evolved considerably since then, Greb would most probably get beaten to a pulp.

 

Yeah, I hate to pick against Hagler too, especially against some guy who is more myth than man. All we can say is that most likely it would be a hell of a match given who Greb had beaten.

 

You talk like folks like Harry Greb, Benny Leonard, Gene tunney, Charlie Chaplin and my dad somehow walked differently than todays fighters. B.S. respectfully.. Common sense will tell you that...The difference is to less informed posters as you, the few films you see today were HAND CRANKED,skipping along in unreal time making fighters look like Charlie Chaplin...By your reasoning then, todays fighters have evolved over yesterday's generation like the 1940s when I was growing up. What a bunch of malarkey...I can assure you that 70 years ago fighters like a Willie Pep, Ray Robinson, Ike Williams, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Sandy Saddler etc ,all with over 100 bouts agaist top opposition, were every bit as "advanced" and I might add, a hell of a lot seasoned and better than YOUR "EVOLVED " fighters today...Study and discern...

 

BC58. Don't hold your breath about films still existing of Harry Greb in an actual fight...Though my dad saw Harry Greb pulverize the bigger Gene Tunney in MSG 1922, I do not need to see film of Harry greb in action to evaluate his greatness. Not at all. We today can today evaluate the magnitude of a tornado by seeing the destruction it left in it's aftermath, though we were not present.
Thus too with Harry Greb, we can see his amazing record in his 300 fight career, and what his opponents said about his greatness...

 

Who are these "less informed posters" you are talking about? Is it those who don't agree with you, or those who don't know anything about boxing history?

 

In one of the ND six rounders Greb used to fight he would probaly "Win" a ND, but in a real fight over 10, 12 or 15 rounds Hagler would beat Greb out of sight.

 

Greb did beat LHWs and small crusers by today's standards but he also lost to a welterweight and drew with him several times so these things aren't cut and dried.

No he isn't a class above and no he hasn't fought or beat anyone as good as Hagler. From the footage we have available of his opponents none are as well rounded as Hagler.

 

Mickey Walker? Gene Tunney? Tommy Loughran? These guys weren't as good as Hagler?

 

Hell No B.
It is not posters who do not "agree' with me, not at all. We all have opinions for better or worse. It is the few posters well intentioned, who say boxers today have "evolved" over fighters of past generations from Greb's time ,from Ray Robinson's time, Haglers time up to the present time...Ridiculous I say, because they base their opinion on the few hand cranked boxing films of those days that skip frames and distort how the old boxers must have really looked in person...When I say the best fighters I saw was in the 1940s, It is not just sheer nostalgia but because most of those top guys had over a 100 bouts against a DEEP POOL of experienced fighters, thus making a great assortment of champions like a Pep, Robinson, Ike Williams, Sandy Saddler,
Kid Gavilan, Charley Burley, Arche Moore, Ezzard Charles etc.
To say that todays fighters have evolved over these guys is sheer nonsense I believe. Having said this there are guys that are from more modern times as some of my favorites like a Duran, Arguello, Hagler, Tommy Hearns, Ray Leonard, along with my favorite today GGG who would have done very nicely with most any of the "old timers " of yesterday...If these "evolved" posters think that the latest is the greatest, why coun't me out...