Greater win? Greb Vs Tunney or Armstrong Vs Ross

Hence "in hindsight."

 

Greb was also a solid favorite over Tunney too.

 

Yes. We're all using hindsight.
I think Armstrong v Ross is the greater win to this day, based on hindsight, but I seem to be in a minority here, surprisingly.

 

Yes, exactly.
People knew Tunney was a pretty good light-heavyweight at the time but he was not so good or proven as to be a favourite against Greb, despite the weight advantage.
Ross, on the other hand, was rated as a very good welterweight champion, going up against a featherweight champion.

 

Greb / Tunney By just a hair.

 

In contemporary terms, Henry Armstrong's win over Barney Ross was far greater than Harry Greb's win over Gene Tunney. In fact, Greb's win over Tommy Gibbons during 1922 was far greater than his win over Tunney two month later.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Bingo

 

We are using hindsight. But Im talking about how those wins were viewed in their day without the benefit of hindsight VS how they are filmed today WITH hindsight. At the time Greb was considered a lock to beat Tunney. Whereas Armstrong, while given a good chance to win, was a slight underdog (7-5). That, combined with the fact that Armstrong was fighting for his second title (the limit of which was 21 pounds higher than his first title) made the win that much more sensation. However, in hindsight I think the shine is taken off that win ever so slightly by the fact that Ross who had married just before the fight was focusing much more on his business, family, etc than his training and was already talking retirement. The old adage is that when a fighter starts talking retirement hes already retired. Ross certainly gave a performance that had all of the hallmarks of a guy who was checked out and the fact that he retired after the fight saying his heart wasnt in the sport anymore all adds up to take a bit of the bloom off the rose. Still a fantastic win but certainly not against a prime and focused Ross. The Greb-Tunney fight on the other hand was more predictable not because Tunney was such a bad fighter but because it wasnt yet known just how great he was. He certainly improved but how much is debateable. The guy was in his seventh year as a professional, was twenty-five years old, and had about sixty fights under his belt. On the flipside of that argument Greb had nearly ten years and 200 fights of wear and tear and nobody knew he was blind in one eye, caring for a dying wife, and fighting a younger, bigger, stronger fighter who was nearly 15 pounds his superior. Whereas Ross was clearly a distracted fighter who by his own admission was no longer able to get up for the fights, Tunney would go on the literally reach the highest level of the sport. So yes, with the benefit of hindsight its easy to see why a win that was relatively predictable at the time seems so noteworthy today.

 

If you're going to downgrade the Armstrong-Ross win for the reasons you cite, then surely Tunney " literally reaching the highest level of this sport" means absolutely jack **** because by the time we'd added up all the mitigating factors against Jack Dempsey (distractions, retirement Hollywood, marriage, business, management disputes, legal problems, 3 years off, etc. etc. etc.) we're left with a far more severe case than Ross.
So, to credit Greb in 1922 for what Tunney achieved in 1926 (which is a stretch anyway) once we've taken the shine off, becomes even more untenable.

Nice revisionism on this thread though.

 

You dont have to agree with me but to call it revision to state what is accepted fact because you dont agree is pretty weak. People have and do rate Greb's win over Tunney as a milestone. Period. Dont think so? Just go look at just about every single mention of both men for the past century. You will almost always find Tunney lauded as having only one loss: to Greb, and Greb lauded for handing future HW champ Tunney his lone loss. Armstrong's win over Ross was also a well noted milestone. Which is greater is simply a matter of opinion that will vary from person to person.

What IS revision is to suggest Tunney was some green amateur and as such the win was meaningless. And yes, a lot of people do think Tunney's wins over Dempsey should come with an asterix given Dempsey's relative lack of activity at the time. If these facts have eluded you Id have to question what rock you just crawled out from under. If you dont like the facts, as they were then and as they are now viewed, dont shoot the messenger. But pretending that Armstrong took out a prime monster at 147 and that Greb took out some rank amateur who had not yet begun to develop is where the true revision lies. In reality Armstrong took out an aging disinterested fighter who was a natural lighteweight, just like Armstrong as evidenced by the fact that when Armstrong had it written into the contract that Ross had to come in four pounds under the limit Ross came in five pounds under the limit and remained there despite there being a rain delay of several days after the official weigh in. Lets not pretend that if Ross had continued to fight for another six years going undefeated Armstrong's win wouldnt look a LOT better.

Greb, like Armstrong, defeated a bigger, younger undefeated man who while being a polished and seasoned professional was still improving (and would continue to do so into his final fight). Rather than being at the end of his rope Tunney was picking up a head a steam when he met Greb and would continue to go undefeated the rest of his career. Now, you can pretend that Greb's official win over Tunney means less because of when it occured but of course this ignores the fact that he was robbed a year later against Tunney in a fight the press and fans overwhelmingly felt Greb won handily and it also ignores the newspaper decision Greb took over Tunney in 1924. So the idea that an aging Greb somehow got Tunney at the right time in 1922 and thereafter couldnt cope with a more developed Tunney later is the same revisionist tripe Tunney himself willingly shoveled for decades when Greb wasnt around to point out the actual truth of the matter.

 

Fair enough
But I think Tunney is a bit overrated, at light-heavy and at heavy. His resume is overrated. His record was largely enhanced by great management and timing.
And i believe you've stated similar.

I never suggested Tunney was some green amateur.
He was a still relatively inexperienced at the highest level though, it can be said. And he probably improved over the next couple of years.

I never doubted that Tunney's wins over Dempsey come with an asterisk. Quite the opposite.
My point was that Tunney being heavyweight champion 4 1/2 years after Greb beat him is being used here to enhance the value of Greb's win, despite the significant time between the fights and in spite of the asterisks. Not to mention Tunney who beat Dempsey was 15 pounds bigger and stonger than the Tunney Greb beat

No one's pretending Greb took out some rank amateur who hadn't begun to develop. You're just resorting to strawman argument, as per usual.

Ross wasn't a prime 147 monster either.
He was probably a bit past prime and he was a 142 pounder. He was, however, an accomplished and experienced and VERY GOOD champion.

And Ross is greater than Tunney anyway.

Ross was 9 pounds heavier than Armstrong. That's all that needs to be said on the weight, as they were both fighting at comfortable fighting weights.

Armstrong beat Ross up and Ross retired. It wouldn't really make any difference what Ross did after. That's all hypothetical.
I don't give much credit to ANY fighter for wins based on what the 'defeated opponent' when on to do AFTER.

Didn't George Chip "defeat" Harry Greb in 1915 or 1916 ? (Greb with probably already as many fights as a 1922 Tunney).
I don't see Chip's win counting for greatness due to what Greb did after. It remains what it was.
I could use a hundred other examples.

I agree, Tunney's wins over Greb later on don't mean anything much about them "head to head" because Greb was declining.
I agree that Greb deserves credit for being robbed in rematch too.
I agree that those were very good wins.

I just don't see how this adds to Tunney's value as a fighter, and as a scalp for Greb.
It's not far off the mark to say his entire legacy of greatness is built on an aging sight-impaired Greb (who whipped him twice to begn with anwyay) and a completely inactive Dempsey, and an old Gibbons.

Ross, whatever critcism we can throw at him, is greater than Tunney.
And 1938 Ross is still greater than 1922 Tunney.
That's it.

 

I dont think Tunney is overrated. I think his record is overrated and I have always said that he played the game as well as anyone in terms of matchmaking and manipulating the narrative around his life. However, Ive also given him all due credit for being a spartan athlete with a keen analytical mind who was tough, well rounded, supremely conditioned, and would be a difficult fight for anyone.

Its not being used to "enhance" Greb's win. It is what it is. And again, its not like Greb's win was a one off. Any discussion of Tunney's weight vis a vis Dempsey ignores the simple fact that Tunney was defending his American LHW championship against Greb and thus had to make 175. Its not like he suddenly at the age of 29 had a growth spurt and outgrew the division. He simply didnt have to make weight anymore because he made a conscious decision to abandon the division and chase after Dempsey which he correctly viewed as low hanging fruit. Had he defeated Greb in 1922 he would have done so then as he had announced.When Greb beat him in 1924 Tunney weighed in the 180s (despite the bogus weights boxrec posts which come from no source at all), so again, the idea that Tunney losing to Greb was a product of his lack of size, young age, inexperience, etc. is a non starter. One could just as easily, and more realistically say that Greb's decline had as much or more to do with Tunney eventually beating him clearly than Tunney getting so much better. We can see footage of Tunney in 1924, can you honestly say he was so much better in 1926 than he was in 1924 or from what we know in 1922? On the other hand Greb's decline over the following years was well documented in the press.

As per usual you are talking out of both sides of your mouth and trying to play both ends against the middle. You cant pretend that Greb going into a fight in Tunney's hometown, being older, blind in one eye, and smaller by every metric is devalued because Tunney *only* had 60 professional fights in seven years under his belt. From the time Tunney fought Greb until the time he fought Dempsey Tunney's level of competition didnt dramatically increase. He was on the same career trajectory. He fought primarily B and C level opponents with a sprinkling of fights here and there against A listers who were past their prime, just like he had always done. Where is the cutoff date that win over Tunney by a smaller older fighter goes from being pedestrian to something really special?

Ah but here is the problem with your argument. You say Ross was greater than Tunney. Thats not the question. The question is was the Ross that Armstrong fought in 1938 greater than the Tunney that Greb fought in 1922. I dont think so. Ross MIGHT have a greater resume. But he also was likely the easier fight of the two fighters in those fights. Armstrong was in his absolute prime going into that fight and taking on a relatively small welterweight who was past his prime, distracted, and already talking about leaving the sport. Greb was past his prime, blind in one eye, distracted, and was fighting a guy who was in his physical prime, bigger, taller, stronger, etc in his hometown and undefeated as well.

Dont act like Armstrong beat Ross into retirement. Thats nonsense. Ross was talking retirement for months before Armstrong beat him. He turned in a terrible performance which was noted by the press and can still be seen today. He was checked out. Dont act like if Ross went on fighting for six more years and went undefeated and gained another title at middleweight it wouldnt make Armstrongs victory look a LOT better. You couldnt say that to me with a straight face and if you actually believed that youd be in the minority. If for no other reason than you wouldnt be able to say he beat Ross in his last fight. It sure sounds a lot better to answer someone with my argument that "Armstrong beat the guy and then he went on to accomplish all of that" Its precisely the difference between a champion defending against a good contender and then that contender goes on to accomplish things later or you never hear from him again. It makes a big difference in the caliber of the win. If you really believed that bull**** then you must give Chester Slider full credit for defeating Armstrong in his last fight. Right? No? Didnt think so...

It was a hell of win. You dont think a win over Greb on Chip's resume is impressive? The mental gymnastics necessary to prove your point to yourself must get exhausting.

Thats a sad comment in my opinion. Tunney's matchmaking and Tunney's ability as a great fighter arent mutually exclusive. Not all fighters who pick their spots suck. Jack Johnson was just as careful as Tunney was about matchmaking later in his career but I still think he would kicked the **** out of Langford, Jeanette, and McVey. Just because Tunney tried to stack the deck in his favor doesnt mean he wasnt a dangerous opponent or a great fighter. He was. Tunney left no stone unturned. By that I mean yes he was careful about his matchmaking and got some breaks along the way but this was an extension of his focus and single minded approach to winning. Just as his careful training and preparation were. Dont get me wrong. I dont like the guy. I despise him. But I also respect him as a fighter.

I disagree and I'll leave it at that. Greater overall, probably. Greater in 1938 than Tunney in 1922. I dont think so. Tunney had all of the motivation in the world to achieve. Ross was done and he knew it. He wanted to sit back and get fat, he was pretty open about this.

 

I lean towards Armstrong beating Ross, because of the stages of the victims respective careers.