Greb Knocked Out By Body Shot

Awww, I see our favorite troll has returned. I assumed he had more heroic battles to wage than his sad little tempests here. Dont mistake my silence for having nothing to say on the subject. Im simply celebrating the independence of the greatest nation in the world and have little time to respond to uneducated wanna be blues musicians who are descended from convicts. Whats a matter Greg? Your Les Darcy shaped ***** break and you have nothing better to do than show your face around here again? I don't need to rely on boxrec or wire reports from Cumberland, who didn't even send a writer to the fight. I have the actual ringside accounts of the fight. I'll let others read and judge for themselves instead of posting a bunch of nonsense and a couple of broken links:

I'll post the parts that address Greg Looneylands post.

Pittsburgh Chronicle Telegraph: "Rogers Defeats Greb In Fast Go" "...Greb claimed that he was struck foul, although it was not apparent to the referee and others at the ringside. After a delay of ten minutes the fight proceeded and Greb followed his usual rushing tactics..."

Pittsburgh Leader: "Greb Earns Shade Over Buffalo Boxer In Exciting Affair" "...In the first round, just at the bell, Greb claimed a foul, declaring that Rogers had hit below the belt. After resting several minutes, during which time he was vigorously rubbed by his trainers, Greb resumed the battle, and again in the fourth round was hit foul twice, both times unintentionally... ...He (Greb) carried the fight in practically every round..."

Pittsburgh Sun: "Greb Beats Rogers In Hard Fought Bout" "...The bout came near having a sad ending in the first inning, when Greb claimed he had been fouled by Rogers. Referee Ed Kennedy said he had not seen an unfair blow struck and, despite the claims of Greb, refused to intercede in his behalf..." This paper gave Greb the 1st, 5th, and 6th calling the 2nd even, it did not state a winner for the 3rd and 4th rounds.

Pittsburgh Daily Dispatch: "Harry Greb Bests Al Rogers In Fast Six-Round Battle"
"...At the end of the first round the local pug claimed a foul and it looked as if the bout would end there, but referee Kennedy refused to permit the claim. Rogers boring in tactics and low hitting resulted in Greb several times claiming a foul during the six rounds." This paper had Greb winning rounds 1, 5, and 6, with round 2 even and round 3 going to Rogers and didn't list a winner for round 4.

Pittsburgh Gazette-Times: "Rogers Has Better Of Greb" "At the outset the men set a hot pace. Greb started his rushing and he was met by punches which landed around the stomach and short ribs, but he kept coming in. Finally after about two minutes of fighting, Rogers sunk a left hook to Greb's stomach, while they were in a neutral corner. That punch had an appreciable effect on the Garfield favorite, who showed it hurt by a pained expression on his face. They boxed and just about bell-time they were near Greb's corner, Rogers having his back to the press stand. Just at the bell Greb fell back, and both hands went to the region of his stomach, then lower, and after staggering about, fell to the floor. Rogers walked to his corner and Greb was assisted to his, but he sat writhing in apparent pain.
Judd Bruff was keeping time, and at the conclusion of the customary minute rest Greb made no move to leave his corner and instantly there was a hubbub of excitement. The Rogers contingent claimed the fight. The Greb people said Harry had been fouled. Referee Kennedy walked over to Bruff and told him to ring the bell to start them off again. Greb did not leave his corner, and a long argument started. Finally superintendant N. W. Mathews was appealed to, and he told Rogers he did not need to continue unless he wanted to, but he advised that Greb be permitted to recuperate in order to give the crowd a chance to see the fight, which bid fair to be a corker. After a 10 minute rest Greb came out of his corner and they started."
This paper gave Rogers rounds 1, 3, and 4 and counted all other rounds even. It also makes it clear that the referee did not see the punch and had to ask the opinion of the press who were situated behind Rogers when the action happened. Hence Noble Mathews making his diplomatic decision.

Pittsburgh Post: "Greb Shades Rogers In Gruelling Battle; Fouled Three Times" "...There wasn't a moment that a thrill did not take place and upon several occasions it looked very much as if a riot would be the windup of the whole affair. And all because Rogers refused to keep his blows above the belt. No less than three times was Greb fouled by the Buffalo middleweight, the first in the opening round and twice again in the fourth. Gamely Greb continued the bout, but there is little doubt but that he fought in great pain, especially after the fourth round... ...A second before the finish of the opening session, while coming out of a clinch, Greb suddenly dropped to the floor. Just then the bell rang and the local boy was carried to his corner. He claimed a foul. Few in the hall saw the blow, but as one fellow remarked, "why should Ickie show the yellow when he was winning?" That was it. Greb had the first round and gave evidence that he was going to land a few more before the end of the battle, so why "lay down"?... ...In this round (the fourth) while fighting furiously, Rogers twice hit low. These blows, while delivered by accident, were witnessed by most of the ringside spectators. Again did Greb gamely continue fighting, although no one could have blamed him had he refused to keep on. Referee Kennedy warned Rogers and once more the pair took up where they left off." This paper gave Greb every round but made it clear that Rogers was not outclassed and that it was a very good and bitterly contested fight.

The Pittsburgh Press report was authored by Jim Jab who didn't need a minor controversy like this to be critical of Greb. He had a decades long fued going with Greb's manager and rarely missed an opportunity to criticize Greb. He wrote in the style of a poor mans Grantland Rice which means his meandering musings are not easily quotable. Needless to say he called the match a "disgusting exhibition" said Greb acted "like a quitter" and called Greb's fans sacrilegious and nauseating.

By my count that's four votes for Greb to three votes for Rogers out of Pittsburgh's seven newspapers. The two most detailed reports have differing views of the fight. To Greb's credit he gave Rogers an immediate rematch. This time not a single paper thought Rogers won. They fought once more less than two years later and Greb won that one as well.

You would know all of this if you had gone straight to the source and read my book which covers all of this in detail. Had you actually done that instead of coming on here and trying to pathetically attack me you would have known that I covered the buildup to these fights in detail, quoted from every newspaper in Pittsburgh, and even quoted at length the positions of both Greb's manager and Rogers' manager from their own words.


Pretty silly to try to claim this as a loss against Greb when A. Rogers was given the opportunity not by an official but by the superintendant of police, to claim the fight by KO and he refused. B. Neither the referee, nor any other official, was in position to rule on the punch makes the point moot. Hence the fact that the bout was allowed to continue, not as two separate bouts as some people here seem to think but simply as a continuation of the same bout due to the fact that no official was in any position to rule on the merits of the punch. This sort of thing was common in an era when the paying customers were given every opportunity to get their money's worth as opposed to the standards of today when fights are routinely stopped legitimately or not with no recompense for the fans. Five years later an even more controversial example of this occurrence took place when Johnny Kilbane defended his title against Danny Frush. In the very first round Kilbane complained that Frush was hitting low but the referee refused to acknowledge his claims. In the next clinch Kilbane grab's Frush around the neck, pulls him in close, and plants a well placed knee right to his gonads. Frush drops like a stone and tries to the claim the fight on a foul. Kilbane is shouting at Frush. The referee walks around the ring telling everyone to stay calm and seated. He converses with officials and then makes the announcement that this fight would not end on a foul in order to give the fans their money's worth. Frush is given time to recover and the fight continues with Kilbane administering an awful beating. Greb even had another very similar occurrence happen when in 1924 he was fouled by Jimmy Delaney. Delaney even apologized to it and called it an accident but Greb was hurt so badly fans started walking out thinking the bout would end on a DQ. Instead Greb refused to claim a foul and fought on beating the hell out of Delaney.

So, nice try Looney but Greb, unlike Darcy, still gets a win in this fight and he didn't need his management team and gambler backers to fix the rematch in his favor.

 

I say we kick gregs ass :thumbsup

 

Sorry, I was tired) Yes, he could claim a KO victory.

 

I don't recall Pittsburgh Leader's decision listed in the book, but I don't have it at hand to check.

 

Thanks for the insightful post. Especially the tidbit on Kilbane-Flush.

 

I just checked and you are right. I forgot to include the Leader's decision in my book. Strange because I used it, along with the weight of the three other votes for Greb to call it a ND W for him based on a 4 to 3 vote in the record in the back of the book. Either way, thats what they said about it. The point, just like the result, stands. 4 papers voted for Greb, 3 for Rogers. There was obviously a lot of confusion surrounding the fouls with a lot of disagreement. Ultimately I think the right decision was made because the fight continued and was a close and bitterly contested argument. The fans got their moneys worth and the newspapers chose who they thought won. I find it comical that there is an attempt to read so much into it.


Not sure what Greg is on about anyway. This is the same guy who argued until he was blue in the face that 6 round no decision bouts dont count and were nothing but exhibitions. I guess his rules only apply when they suit him.:roll:

 

Thank you for the excellent responses, and i do think it needs to be stressed that no matter what happened, this shouldnt really take much if anything away from Grebs legacy.

But, Of the 4 papers you listed for Greb, it seems to be common ground that:
1. there was one equal round, 3 rounds to Greb and (presumably) to rounds to Rogers.
2. Greb claimed a foul blow at the end of the fist round but the referee could not and/or did not see this.
3. Greb won the first round, which was a lively round where both fighters did well.

On the descriptions given, surely Greb could not possibly have won the first round given that he was ruled by the referee to have been knocked down at the end of that round. This has to tilt the round in Rogers favour (or at worst) make it an equal round. This means that the papers who gave Greb the verdict 3-2, on their own scoring actually had it wrong and must have actually had Greb losing 3-2 or at worst a 3-3 draw. Certainly under modern rules, it could have even been a likely 10-8 round against Greb, which would have meant that he would not have won the fight.

 

While reading ringside reports in old newspapers on microfilm, I found to it was fairly common for fighters or their managers to decline to accept a win by a disqualification. I got the feeling that the fighters and the managers didn't want to alienate the fans, matchmakers and the promoters in such cases. To so could limit the fighters' chances of getting future bouts at the same venue.

- Chuck Johnston

 

The problem with your logic is that in that era a knockdown didnt automatically win you a round. Since the referee admitted that he hadnt seen the punch and actually asked the opinion of the press, essentially deferring to them, we are left with their opinion. Thats what im going by. The majority opinion. They were there and judged the fight by the standard of the day, not ours, so why should i second guess them based on a minority opinion? It makes no sense. The ref didnt see the punch and couldnt render a decision. Thats beside the fact that Greb may have gone down after the bell ending a round Greb won from a punch that might have been foul. Award a round based on that? No.

 

This is a circular argument isnt it. The official standard of the day is that there was no decision. We are retrospectively using newspapers to find a winner but in reality there was no declared winner.

I dont see how a round could possibly be scored against a fighter in any time (save for some exceptional circumstances which dont seem to be the case here) when it ends with the other fighter on his back, being saved by the bell and unable to continue.

I understand what you say regarding the timing of the blow. But, if it happened after the bell as you left open, the referee would have DQd or at lest reprimanded him. This didnt happen, therefore it was ruled a legal punch (whether it was or not). Remember the ref did see the blow, just not where it landed.

If a paper did award that decision to Greb, it seems a little unfair to me (wuithiout further evidence)

 

I agree. With these ND fights, its often my newspaper is better than yours. Take note all the sources Klompton used were from Pittsburgh. Might they be a little biased to their own town fighter?

 

Here is a short excerpt on Al Rogers, who seems to have been a hell of a lot better than his boxrec record indicates. Perhaps this shows at least in some cases the difficulties with using newspaper decisions in many instances.

http://www.harrygreb.com/alrogers.html

Here are some general links to some articles regarding the Rogers Greb buildup, which may be of some interest to others.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=V0kEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5002,4149565&hl=en

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=V0kEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2707,3384961&hl=en

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=V0kEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4608,4520083&hl=en



This one is particularly interesting. It suggests that Rogers and Greb are both on a similar win streak, even though boxrec lists him at this time (unless i am mistaken as having not won a fight in 7 or 8 fights. I would be interested to know if Klompton or others have further details on Rogers other fights around this time.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=h0kEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4406,3617704&hl=en

Here is a letter from Roger's manager which obviously considers the first fight as a KO win for his man.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=OkkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6403,6333484&hl=en

nothing too exciting here, just a buildup to Rogers v chip, interesting to note the mention of chips win over greb adn the sell of Rogers as a legitimate test of chip
https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=NUkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1110,3240966&hl=en

 

Who is the one using circular logic? You are arguing, based a minority of newspaper reports that Greb was either knocked out, lost, or lost a round in defiance of a majority of the ringside accounts, then, because it doesnt suit you, you want to argue that the fight or at least those papers judgement of it dont count, despite the fact that it was their accounts, and only their accounts, that you are building your argument on. I did no such thing. I deferred to the majority of first hand accounts who judged the fight based on the standard of the day.

In answer to the question of whether pittsburgh papers were biased for Greb I would say simply that this is an ascertion that must be proved before its accepted. There plenty of examples of local papers, even from this fight, voting against Greb for us to say the papers were even handed for the most part. For example, just before this fight a majority of local papers, many who voted for Greb against Rogers, voted against Greb when he fought Phillys Joe Borrell. Just after the Rogers fight four of the seven local papers gave Greb no better than a draw against New Castle's (a civic rival) George Chip, the other three called the bout for Chip and every single one if those three voted for Greb against Rogers so its pretty hard to claim they had some kind of civic bias for Greb. In the case of jim jab i could give you numerous, ludicrous examples of just how biased he was against Greb, not for him. If this is going to be the basis of the argument then we might as well throw out all results in favor of hometown fighters issued by their hometown papers (or at least those results that dont support your argument). However this would seem odd in the face of just how successful Greb was fighting away from home against local heros and how often and unanimous those papers were in favor of Greb fighting as the outsider.

 

And for every letter Hugh Shannon wrote Red Mason answered. Why not post both sides of the argument. Thats what I did in my book despite Looneyland pretending Im biased.

The funny thing is that after all of the controversy sorrounding a foul blow in this fight Greb rematched Rogers immediately, beat him fair and square without controversy and do you know what Rogers excuse was for losing? He complained that the referee, who was the most respected referee in Western Pennsylvania, would not allow him to use the kidney punch. A blow that was illegal in both Pennsylvania and Rogers native New York at the time. Ill let you guys decide if thats ironic or just an admission that he couldnt beat Greb without cheating.