If Greb footage is found and it is mediocre how would it change your view of his opposition??

I think any decent footage if extensive would be eyeopening ... there is no doubt Greb was exceptionally fast, had super human stamina and an iron chin. Would and did fight anyone ... what film would possibly qualify would be how much of his style would be allowed under current rules because by all that I have read a significant part of his aggression was constantly jumping and forcing one clinch after another, pretty much not allowing opponents time or space to punch as he was on the move ... it would be extremely interesting to see for sure ...

 

Right, and the guys we have footage of who look good by modern standards (Tunney, Loughran) tended to have defeated Greb, too,

Take someone who was unorthodox and fast, like a Naseem Hamed. He could be incredibly confusing and frustrating to fight for boxers trained in your modern, basic boxing style.

Throw Hamed in the ring with pioneers of boxing who liked to hold and clinch for 9/10s of the round, and I'm sure they wouldn't even know what they were seeing.

If Greb looks awkward, throwing punches from all angles because he was so unorthodox, like Hamed was ... but WITHOUT the punching power Hamed had ... some of those fights where Greb outlanded everyone could look like an absolute train wreck and would explain why so many fighters with even a more modern style found him perplexing, too.

I'm sure there was a method to his madness. Film always helps. You can also see how the "names" he faced look on those nights.

But a film or two or 10 would explain a lot.

 

If he's awkward and didn't spend most of the round holding, I think that would cause problems for a lot of those earlier fighters, who relied on holding A LOT. It would also explain why he outlanded so many. It's easier to outland a guy if you aren't tied up all the time and if you're not trying to tie up the other person constantly.

I have a hard time watching or enjoying a lot of older fights from the 1920s and earlier because of all the holding. So much holding.

 

Like Tunney who fought Greb five times and lost three of those by most accounts. Or Loughran who fought Greb multiple times but managed only a single win and a draw? Or Levinsky who fought Greb numerous times and never won one? Or Walker who lost his only fight to Greb. Or the Gibbons brothers who split six fights with Greb? I could keep going.

Nobody ever said Greb was undefeated but the fact remains that of all of his opponents we have footage of none got the better of Greb in a series. Many of them are in the hall of fame and look good so the idea that some bum who got lucky and was able to attain that much success against them simply doesnt hold up. Grebs consistency is kryptonite to the idea that orthodox fighters were simply taken aback by his style. That might explain his first win but not his continued success against them. This isnt Hamed losing to the first A list boxer he meets. To use you two examples Greb beat Tunney, by most accounts beat him a second time, lost the third, beat him the fourth, and lost the fifth. Greb fought Loughran six times, winning the first three, losing the fourth, and then winning and drawing the fifth and sixth. Loughrans familiarity with Greb’s style didnt allow him to come back and defeat him. Likewise against the Gibbons brothers Greb won the latter half of both series, meaning in fact it was he who improved upon past performances. So yes, its to their credit that some of those guys beat Greb, and it adds to their already great resumes, but the fact that Greb could fight at such a consistently high level and defeat such quality of opposition with such regularity is nit going to be washed away if people think his style is unorthodox or not aesthetically pleasing. Ive said over and over again that Vernon Forrest, one of the most orthodox boxers of his era, doesnt get his losses to Mayorga ignored because Mayorga was so unorthodox. What it does show is that stamina, toughness, and determination can make up for a lot in the face if technical deficiencies.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

Yes it is

 

We'd also see how his style would play out under the rules of today ... just how much fouling was done, how much holding and hitting, how much clinching .. no doubt he was physically gifted and incredibly brave but how effective would he have been if he wasn't allowed to endlessly maul, if that';s what he did ..

 

What are the rules today that are so radically different? I seem to recall fighters like Wlad and Ruiz clinching ridiculously in their fights. When were they DQd? Hopkins mauled and fought on the inside. How many fights did he lose because of it? Low blows, rabbit punching, kidney punches, backhand punches, thumbs, elbows, headbutts were all illegal then. What has changed in the sport that would render Greb helpless? Hell, in fact, the biggest change today IMO is 36+ hours between weigh ins and fights and if Greb had that he would probably be a huge 154 pounder. Can you imagine a 154 pounder today who consistently beat light heavyweights, cruiserweights, and heavyweights? Nevermind the medical science that could potentially correct his detached retina. If anything Greb might benefit greatly from the changes to the sport. Greb held and hit excessively later in his career when he lost the site in his eye and his depth perception was handicapped but you dont get a name like the Pittsburgh Windmill and a reputation as an all action fighter with legendary speed, stamina, and defence by being some clinching octopus. Johnny Dundee who was most often compared to Greb during his lifetime fought nothing like this picture some here have of a guy clinching his way to victory.

 

I thought Greb only won the first against Tunney & one was controversial.
It was 2 official victories-& why do you think Greb deserved the win, yet did not get it?

I consider him not clinching often a virtue, how do you think Greb would deal with it if he fought in a context where he could not avoid being clinched/it was allowed a lot?

I admire that you are the Resident Expert on Greb, but wonder if you can be neutral on this question...
Does it not detract at least a bit from Greb's greatness that he seemed to do so much cheating?
Even intrimidating referees? Answering one about what he was doing by incredulously saying eye gouging?

Also if Greb did not use a lot of foul play, do you think he would not have gotten a partially blinding injury, that it was a sad case of "live by the sword, die by the sword"?
Thank you for your honest consideration Klompton.

 

prob it'd mean that i need to learn more about boxing.

obviously it depends which fight the video is of.

 

Augustus Burton had a very weird style of fighting, maybe even weirder than Hamed. I would have loved to have seen him and Greb in a match had they lived in the same time period.

 

Greb defeated Tunney in their first fight. The second fight was considered a terrible robbery in Tunney's favor. The vast majority of first hand sources and expert opinions stated that Greb deserved that win. Their fourth fight was a newspaper decision for Greb.

Greb fought all sizes, shapes, and styles of fighters. I have no doubt he encountered men who clinched.

If you doubt that I can be neutral you shouldnt listen to what I have to say on the subject.

Greb really wasnt considered a dirty fighter until after he suffered his detached retina. Even the tactic he was accused of most was holding with one hand and hitting with the other. This was necessitated by his lack of depth perception due to being blind in one eye. Even then there are just as many stories about his good sportsmanship as there are of him cheating. The guy had 300 fights all over the country, often in his opponents hometown and was only DQd once in a fight in which both fighters were accused of roughhousing and several of the people ringside said the opponent was the guilty party who should have been disqualified. It defies belief that Greb would be such a dirty fighter but only be DQd once across all of these fights and often in the other fighters hometown.

I think its silly to believe that Greb would go into any of these venues and intimidate a referee and then go on to not only be allowed to fight but win. Its not like he was walking around carrying a gun. He wasnt a dangerous guy. He wasnt mob connected. Its ridiculous. Ive only heard three instances, one taken long after Greb died, of Greb supposedly "intimidating" referees. One was against Soldier Buck in Louisville in 1925 when Greb was warned by Marvin Hart for pushing Buck through the ropes. The descriptions of this bout in the Louisville papers arent great so we dont know exactly what led to all of this but Greb insulted Hart and then he and Hart got into an argument. Hart fined him $500, then reduced his fine to $50 and then waved the fine all together. This isnt depicted as Greb "intimidating" anyone and frankly Greb had won every round of the fight handily, this incident took place in the tenth and final round, and had no real bearing on the victor. Another instance that, again, doesnt really fit the mold of Greb "intimidating" a referee was in the second Tunney fight when Patsy Haley went to Greb's corner between rounds to warn him for something. Greb and Haley argued. Thats it. However, most of the ringside reports stated that Haley not only over-officiated that fight but badgered Greb relentlessly. Greb lost that fight and Haley was the deciding vote so its hard to see how his supposedly "intimidating" referees helped that outcome. In reality most accounts state it was the opposite: Haley badgered Greb so relentlessly that in order to avoid getting a DQ or points docked Greb was forced to fight nearly flat footed and completely out of character. The final instance I can think of and the only one I can think of that would paint a picture of Greb "intimidating" a referee is really not very credible. It came years later and if I remember correctly was first printed by James Fair who has been thoroughly debunked as a Greb historian. It was supposedly during the Mickey Walker fight. The story goes that Greb was unhappy with the referee and said something to the effect of "that meddlesome cop! Ill show him" and then went on to knock the referee down, injuring his knee. Now, again, this has no basis in fact. First and foremost Greb had the Walker fight well in hand. Second, there is no hint that Greb had a dispute with the referee. Purdy did fall, twice, while trying to break the fighters from clinches but the first time it was Greb who actually helped him to his feet and there is nothing said of any animosity from Greb toward Purdy. In fact the fight was considered a great fight without a blemish of dirty fighting and referee interference etc.

Im not sure what you are saying here.

This would have to accept that Greb had used a lot of foul play BEFORE he was injured and the record simply doesnt support that contention. And again, after he was injured the main thing he was accused of was holding and hitting.

 

Well for me it wouldn’t make one iota of difference, in fact it should enhance his legacy. I mean he beat Gene Tunney and Micky Walker just think about it, that’s enough for me and that’s apart from all of his other stellar wins.

 

No one here is doubting he was an astonishing physical marvel and great fighter. The issue is what impact may be made by seeing him and from the endless forced cliches to the constant head butting , if that’s what we see as many wrote at the time, it may shape opinion. It’s a what if …

 

I appreciate all the detail Klompton!
I do not know the provenance, but I was saying that I read when Greb was eye gouging the referee asked what he was doing & Greb supposedly told him, incredulous that the referee would intervene, & the ref was taken aback & did not protest.
You heard of an instance like this?

I said I "wonder if" you can be neutral.
Because even the best historians may fall prey to worshipful attention & always taking the most favorable interpretation, however plausible.
I am not saying you are doing this; I am expressing healthy skepticism on all sides.
Maybe the facts support your aguments completely.

An example of bias AND likely proper scholarship: Bill Jenkinson wrote a book about the Home Run, "Baseball's Ultimate Power".
He combed tons of sources like microfiche & calculated the length of homers even when interrupted by say walls or stands with seemingly sound physics.
He made a very convincing argument that Babe Ruth hit the ball further than anyone-in absolute distance & more often hit monster shots.
Even with much worse training & bat technology.
Had Jimmy Foxx just ahead of Mickey Mantle for the next 2, Mantle the fastest ever...

But he also wrote a book "the year Babe Ruth hit 104 home runs".
Talking about how many he would have hit with modern sized stadiums & the same rules.
That would be fine, but then he went too far & compared the conditions & competition, concluding Ruth would essentially still be the best ever-as I recall implying that maybe today he could hit 104 dingers in a season-not just against those same pitchers!

Which is highly implausible; athletes & hurlers have gotten so much better.
Anyway it is possible Ruth would still be great today (the game does not demand the best trained modern athletes) even reincarnated...

Likewise Greb was so much of an outlier maybe he WOULD be nearly as good today-without the benefit of all the modern sports science let alone PEDs.
He certainly seems an enigma to me.
Just the engine he had while being so active is more than hard work; it seems a Freak genetic ability.
It is not like he had a hyperbaric chamber or EPO or blood transfusions...

 

If he looks the same as he does with the footage we have of him, I'd still call him garbage on the eye. Effective as heck, but not someone that has perfected the sweet science.