Jim Corbett vs Harry Greb

No, Greb's stamina was legendary even in his day. It was said numerous times throughout his career in 15 and 20 round fights that he started fast in the first round but amazingly picked up speed as the fight wore until by the finish he had fought himself to a frenzy. I don't think stamina would be an issue for him.

Corbett was from a different era. Its almost unfair to pit guys like him against later fighters because in Corbett's era there just weren't that many real, trained professional fighters. The guy had 20 fights and only six of those went past 10 rounds. Even his legendary 61 round fight with Jackson was a dull, slow, monotonous affair for the latter 2/3s of the fight, one of the reason's he lost to Fitzsimmons was because he tired in the later third of that fight which ended in the 14th. So I don't know that Corbett had any advantage at all in stamina over someone like Greb. His size as well I don't think would have been an issue. The high 170s through mid 180s was a good weight for him which Greb dealth with very often and likewise Greb had fought men as tall and taller. Another problem for Corbett would have been Greb's frenetic style. You can see from his bout with Fitz, and read in some of his accounts, that he preferred to fight at his pace. I don't know of anyone that really made Greb fight down to their pace. That could be a huge problem for Corbett. I don't know that Corbett really had the power to halt Greb's aggression. He only five knockouts and most of those were somewhat uninspiring (Sullivan was ancient and ridiculously fat and out of shape took 21 rounds, Mitchell was 33 and had gone more than 3 or 4 rounds just a few times in queensberry fights, McCoy likely took a dive, Choynski had three fights etc). This isn't to denigrate Corbett, he was a great fighter in his time and in his own right as well as an innovator but his time was very different from the sport as it would stand two decades later. I really think its one of those instances where if you take a fighter just as he was and plop him down in a later time hes at a disadvantage. You really have to speculate on how he would do under the more "modern" conditions of the 1910s and 20s with far more fights, fighters, better and more experience sparring partners, etc. It would be like asking to take Archie Moore and drop him in the 1870s or 80s and make him fight someone like John L. under London Prize Ring rules. Obviously youd have to give Sullivan the advantage. I just don't think Corbett translates well to more modern boxing so its unfair to him.

 

Greb probably

Depends on criteria but no he didn't in terms of who he beat

 

Probably Corbett. He was just too big. Corbett, by the way, could be very rough on the inside. On film, he's not shy using his elbow under Fitz's neck to break clinches.

 

If you count news decisions or who was the better in many shorter matches, Corbett was 59-0-3 before meeting Peter Jackson. I can repost it here if you'd like to see it.

I actually think the No decision-era that Greb fought in was a terrible time for boxing and definitive results. It's my newspaper is better than yours in too many cases. Or my manager had better connections than yours.

Greb seemed to have a limit in terms of weight, eventually saying Tunney got " too big " for him.

 

Did Corbett ever beat anyone that was great at all? Im not including a fat drunken Sullivan.

As for Greb's skills i have no doubt they would look better than the foppush style corbett employed in the films we have of him, which is again the point. Being great in 1890 was a damn sight different than being great 30 years later. We can say unequivocally that many of the great fighters Greb beat, and not so great fighters, look a hell of a lot better than corbett in his prime so i have no problem saying that while its debateable that Greb ever beat a great 180 pounder (and for the record he won their fourth fight in which Tunney weighed in the neighborhood of 180, boxrec is wrong) its also debateable that Corbett was a great 180 pounder by the standard of grebs era. He certainly doesnt look like it. Weve certainly seen footage of men who were bigger and who have better skills and who hit harder that also happened to lose to Greb. One thing is undeniable the only fighter of any size anywhere near as great as a prime Greb beat Corbett and did so weighing no more than Greb.

You are right that just because there werent many fighters doesnt necessarily that Corbett wasnt good BUT it says a lot when Corbett, who was considered a master boxer in his era looks decidedly amateurish on film and we can say with a degree of confidence that his apparently crude style is a reflection of the skill level of his era.

 

Corbett beat Choynski, and got the better in terms of rounds won vs Peter Jackson. Both guys are considered great, especially Jackson who by accounts had modern like skills, especially in terms of a 1-2.

Wasn't Greb considered crude in his day or amateurish? Yes. This suggests Greb's fighting style or method more like the early 1900' then 1920's. Just saying. Crude does not necessarily mean bad if it can't be stopped.

Rocky Marciano was considered crude. He never lost.

 

I think Tunney, Gibbons & Flowers must've done an ok job of "slowing him down some to their pace" . Not entirely obviously, but they probably did better than most

 

How many fights had Choynski had when they fought? Was he an all time great? Was he great when he fought Corbett? No. His fight with Jackson was a draw. A draw isnt a win no matter how much a racist like you would like to see the white guy win. And by what accounts did Jackson have modern skills? The accounts from 1890? Thats the point, Corbett had modern skills in 1890 but he would be embarrassed by LHWs from a few decades later.

Yes Greb was considered amateurish skillwise but we know that what he brought to the table was more than enough to beat bigger fighters who were more skilled than Corbett by modern standards. Thats the difference. Corbett looks like **** barely had any fights to be able to say the same. Had Corbett actually fought 300 guys from ww to hw from brawlers to stylists many of whom had 200+ fights themselves then wed know more about how well his style would translate but instead, over the course of a 17 yr career corbett had 20 fights, he lost four, being stopped three times, and drew three. He scored 5 knockouts in his eleven wins. Of his 20 fights 11 were scheduled for no longer than six rounds. Five of those opponents were total nobodies, choynski had 1 and 2 fights respectively, Sullivan was shot, mccoy threw his fight, mitchell was shot. So really, while Corbett's record was imoressive in its day due the lack of competition its really nothing special. I mean can you imagine trumpeting a fighter based on a win over an inexperienced one fight vet like choynski? Does his win over Lomachenko (who was VASTLY more experienced than choynski) make salido great? You think that would be a good argument for him beating pep? Id laugh at that argument.

Comparimg marciano and corbett is like apples and oranges for a couple of reasons: to begin with brawlers are often crude and yet often have success, foreman, mayorga, etc. Corbett was no brawler and more to the point he wasnt called crude in his day, he was considered a stylish master so we can say with a high degree of certainty that corbetts crudeness by todays standards is what passed for a master boxer by that eras standards. Furthermore, while rocky was called crude, particularly early in his career, we also know he improved and certainly looks better and more modern than corbett does, just as guys like levinsky, jeff smith, walker, loughran, tunney, and slattery among many others do. Finally, and again, we have corbetts own words that he simply didnt have enough fights to develop the style and tactics that guys like Tunney and Slattery (both of whom he admired and both of whom Greb beat) developed over long careers against much better and more experienced competition. And thats why i say that this exercise is unfair to corbett. The two eras were just tok different. Its like wondering whether william the conquerors army could have beaten hitlers. No. I have doubt that given the benefit of generations of experience those minds were capable of developing the tools and tactics necessary just like Corbetts keen mind would have but simply matching one against the other prime for prime as they were corbett loses.

Greb was the type of fighter that comes along very very rarely. The elite of the elite. Corbett was not. Period. He met one of those guys and got knocked out.

 

Tunney may have after greb was past his prime but it took him several times to do it even then, i thought we were talking prime for prime here. Flowers never did even when greb was shot, and gibbons probably did in 1920 but it was one time out of three fights anywhere near grebs prime that he could do it and given the fact that greb claimed he took gibbons lightly and then took the rematch and whipped him and then dominated him when it really mattered. Even then id pick gibbons to beat corbett as well, both gibbons' in fact. But I stand by my assertion that the absolute best version of greb beats the absolute best version of corbett and i certainly dont think corbett ever saw the likes of anyone who fought with the same level of speed, elusiveness, activity, and volume. I think its safe to say Greb met several stylists at least the equal of Corbett in terms of both skill and size.

 

The author of the post below this has had excellent reviews for his Harry Greb book, he is acknowledged as an expert on the boxer.And no, I am not his mate!