We have no evidence that Harry Greb was that good.

I appreciate you directly answering the Robinson question. But your answer actually supports my broader point more than you realize. You rank Robinson above Greb because an "analysis of their careers suggests SRR was further removed from the field in his era." That's a subjective assessment about the nature of Robinson's dominance, not just a raw comparison of win columns and resumes. You're evaluating how Robinson dominated, not just that he dominated. That's exactly the kind of analysis I've been arguing matters for all-time ranking, and it's the kind that becomes harder to do with Greb because the evidence available is less reliable and less detailed.

On your second point, you keep saying I'm proving Sal's original post. I've explained multiple times that I'm not claiming footage is needed to assess greatness within a fighter's own era. I'm saying it's needed for the fine distinctions at the very top of cross-era lists. You're arguing against a position I've never held. At this point you're restating Sal's post and I'm restating mine. We've both made our cases. Simply repeating "you're proving Sal's point" without engaging with the distinction I've drawn is just a never ending loop.

On the brawler/technician scenario, I think you've actually identified the core of our disagreement more clearly than either of us has so far, so credit for that. But here's where I'd push back, you've said throughout this debate that you value dominance more heavily than most. Dominance isn't just effectiveness. Two fighters can both win decisively, but one can demonstrate a visibly higher level of control, adaptability, and mastery in doing so. That difference is real and it's measurable, primarily through film, not newspaper summaries. If dominance is genuinely your highest priority, then a subjective assessment of how fighters dominated isn't just relevant to my criteria, it's relevant to yours. You can't measure dominance without looking at how it happened.

On Greb vs Tunney 1, fair enough the reports are broadly consistent about a one-sided beating. I'll give you that. But it does illustrates something else that does support my point. Even in one of Greb's best-documented fight, there's genuine debate about the nature of his dominance. Some reports talk about his speed, volume, and aggression as the story of the fight. Others focus on the headbutts, holding, wrestling, and dirty tactics, with some writers mentioning the crowd booing because of the fouling. Tunney himself afaik blamed the loss on Greb's dirty fighting rather then his overall skillset. So even with a consistent result, there is a genuine question for ranking purposes did. Greb win because he was the superior boxer, or because he fought a dirtier fight? Film would answer that instantly. Newspaper accounts can't. And the answer matters, because winning through fouling and winning through technical mastery are two very different claims about a fighter's greatness. If that ambiguity exists in one of his single best-documented fight, imagine how much is lost across a 300-fight career with no footage at all?

 

Except you cut and pasted all of that from klompton:

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/why-was-greb-ranked-as-no-1-so-late.405665/page-13

 

Do you have no hope?

 

For what it's worth, I am in full agreement.

 

1. Where your argument further falls apart is that SRR's most brilliant, dominant performances weren't filmed. Most film of SRR is past his prime. My analysis that SRR was further removed from his field has nothing to do with footage I've seen, but that he was even more consistently dominant during his prime.

2. You literally posted "mastery in the fighters own era".

3. Of course you can measure dominance without seeing film. A cornerstone of your argument is that SRR is ranked ahead of Greb because an analysis of his career, supported by film, illustrates his dominance not just in record, but on film. OK, SRR had over 200 career fights. Could you please list which of his fights that you have watched from start to finish to determine he exerted this dominance in fights throughout his career?

4. You rank Klitschko very highly at HW and have cited Povetkin as his key/one of his key wins. Excessive clinching is fouling. Do you see how this is inconsistent with this argument? No such inconsistency for me, if the ref let them get away with it, then that's on the ref. Aside from instances of robberies, I judge based on outcomes, not style.

 

? Not only is my post not a cut and paste to the one you’ve linked, it doesn't even remotely resemble it.

 

His resume alone is evidence.

 

You cut pasted everyone of those quotes from klomptons post down to his comments on them:

“I wanted to put together a little list of examples that in some areas Greb had always been though of as one of the greatest
fighters in history and that his
Joe Williams writing in 1924 picked Greb as the greatest middleweight of all time. Williams started out in Cleveland and had
actually seen Greb fight as an amateur in Cleveland before later becoming a syndicated columnist.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=S08uAAAAIBAJ&sjid=e9gFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5186,2295160
Mickey Walker in 1949 rated Greb the greatest fighter of all time
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ttZaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=R2oDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1782,3721058
Billy Prince, writing for the Bridgeport Herald in 1950 rated Greb the greatest MW of all time
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Z9UyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yQAGAAAAIBAJ&pg=4706,7494771
In his March 29, 1929 syndicated column Grantland Rice called Greb the best "little good man" I ever saw.
In the February 20, 1926 issue of Colliers Rice wrote an article about Greb titled "The King of all the Marvels" in which Rice
literally gushes about Greb's faculties as a fighter.
In his March 5, 1936 article Rice called Greb the fastest fighter he had ever seen and said that Joe Louis would have as
difficult a time with him as anyone. Teddy Hayes, Dempsey's old trainer is quoted as agreeing with this assessment.
In 1944 Grantland Rice called Greb the greatest fighter pound for pound he had ever seen (I believe this is before that title
was supposedly made up for SRR)
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Z9UyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yQAGAAAAIBAJ&pg=4706,7494771
Rice continually rated Greb above Robinson. Here is just one example:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=EJ8yAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5ekFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6118,740942
Gene Tunney often called him one of the greatest if not the greatest fighters to ever live. There are too many sources to even
cite this.
In the Pittsburgh Press of January 24, 1924 Cuddy DeMarco rated Greb the greatest fighter he ever saw.
In the February 7, 1958 edition of the Binghamton Press John Fox called Greb the greatest fighter ever. He prefaced this by
saying that if Robinson won the upcoming Basilio fight (which he did) people would be once again calling him the greatest
fighter ever. "Not me..." He begins.
In the November 17, 1948 issue of the Winnipeg Free Press Gene Tunney is quoted as saying that greb is possibly the greatest
fighter pound for pound he has ever seen.
In the December 30, 1937 issue of the Lethbridge Heral Soldier Jones rated Greb the greatest fighter of all.
In the March 17, 1941 issue of the New York post Jack Kearns stated that Greb was a sure shot to beat Dempsey if he had been
"Sucker enough" to accept the match.
In the August 1929 issue of the Geneva Times Maxie Rosenbloom says Greb gave him the toughest fight he ever had and admits
that Greb could have knocked him out if he wanted. I have another quote by Rosenbloom where he calls Greb the greatest fighter
ever but I cant find it and if I remember its just a clipping without a date or source name to cite. These are rare moments of
candor from Rosenbloom who more often tried to pass off the myth that he beat Greb.
In the July 12, 1951 issue of the Cumberland Evening Times Charles Einstein picked Greb to beat Rocky Marciano and Rex Layne
in a mythical matchup.
In the May 24, 1955 issue of the same paper Tunney picked Greb to beat Marciano saying Marciano wouldnt lay a glove on him.
In the september 9, 1929 issue of the Montana Standard Tommy Loughran rated Greb the greatest fighter he ever fought
In the November 14, 1951 issue of the Troy Times Record veteran fight manager Tom Walsh ranked Greb as the greatest fighter
pound for pound that he had ever seen.
In the November 4, 1947 issue of the Tucson Daily Citizen Jimmy Slattery credits Greb with giving him his toughest fight.
In the February 13 1951 issue of the Cumberland News C.V. Burns calls Greb the greatest middleweight ever.
In the May 13, 1951 issue of the Salt Lake Tribune veteran fight handler Babe Culnan rated Greb the greatest fighter ever
pound for pound.
In Chuck Wiggins obituary in May 1942 he is quoted as always saying Greb was "the greatest I ever met"
In the December 28, 1952 issue of the Cumberland Times Fay Keiser calls Greb the greatest middleweight and says he would have
"beat the life out of Conn"
In the November 8, 1953 issue of Knockout Jimmy McLarnin calls Harry Greb the greatest fighter he ever saw. McLarnin had
fought on one of Greb's undercards and spent the rest of his life talking about how great Greb was.
On May 29, 1941 (the newspaper this is from is cut off) Bill Corum called Greb one of the greatest fist fighting men of them
all
On September 4, 1932 writing for the Universal News Service Ed W. Smith, legendary referee and newspaper reporter, wrote how
Dempsey could not beat Greb. Keep in mind that Smith was closely associated with both of these guys.
In the 1951/52 Weekly Sporting Review Xmas and New Year Annual E. G. Hammon lauds Greb as one of the greatest middleweights of
all time.
Red Mason, Greb's former manager called Greb the greatest fighter of his weight that ever lived. Maybe a biased opinion but
Mason was as expert on boxing as it got.
John McGarvey, matchmaker for Motor Square Garden ranked Greb with greatest middleweights of all time
Patsy Scanlon, lightweight boxer, ranked Greb as greater than Dempsey at his best.
James J. Long of the Pittsburgh Sun ranked him as one of the most outsanding boxers of all time.
E. W. Dickerson, longtime boxing expert for the Grand Rapids Herald called Greb "The greatest boxer of his weight and inches
the ring has ever known."
George Barton, one of the most respected boxing experts in the country for decades, called Greb "one of the best fighters of
his weight that the game ever produced" and stated it would be "a long time before we will see his equal, all around ability
considered."
George Engel, another of Greb's managers who ended on bad terms with Greb called him one of the greatest fighters the world
has ever known
Jack Farrell, writing on October 31, 1926 (the newspaper is "the News" but I dont have where its from) called Greb "one of the
greatest in the game" and said his record was probably one of the greatest ever compiled.”

that was a post on this forum from 2014. At least be honest about it when caught taking credit for someone elses work.

 

Can you quote a post I've made that has any of this content?

You can't, because I haven't posted a single quote about Greb on this thread or any other thread. You've either just made this up or have confused a quote someone else has made as one of mine.

Are you ok?

Edit - Ah, I can see what you've done. Lonsdale81 has posted this content and for some reason you're under the impression I have. It's not hard to read the posters name at the top of posts. You should be more careful before accusing someone of being dishonest. You owe me an apology.

 

1. Well no because Robinson has two things going for him. First the records to show how dominant he was against the fighters of his era. Second actual footage of his dominance both in his prime i.e the LaMotta fight and the Angott fight as well as his fights even past his prime where his greatness and how above his competition he was even past his best. That's more then we can say for Greb and is why he is considered the best. Both because of his record and because of the footage we have to show how good he really was relative to his peers and even compared to fighters today. It's hard to argue that has no bearing on how most historians rank him. To ask you a question; if your ranking of SRR isn't based on footage, then what IS it based on? You said he was "further removed from the field in his era." How did you determine that? If it's purely record-based, what specific part of Robinson's record demonstrates more dominance than Greb's? And if you can't point to footage and you're both working from records, what makes your assessment of Robinson's dominance more than a subjective impression?

2. My point was about assessing mastery within a fighter's era as a basis for cross-era comparison. Otherwise why even have lists why not just rank fighters within their own era and never compare them against fighters across other eras? Why make P4P lists and ATG lists? If ATG ranking is purely about what each fighter achieved in their own era, with no cross-era comparison beyond raw records, then an ATG list is just a collection of "best of their era" snapshots with no meaningful way to order them against each other. The moment you put Greb above Robinson, or vice versa, you're making a cross-era comparison that requires judgment beyond resume. Eras are different, different rules, different competition depth, different conditions. We need a way to assess how impressive achievements were relative to those differences, and that requires evaluating the quality of what we're seeing, not just counting outcomes.

3. No, I haven't watched all 200+ of Robinson's fights. Nobody has. But that's not the standard. Having film of even a small sample, a few in his prime and then his fights past his best where he was still clearly a level above world-class opposition, gives us a better understanding about his abilities that zero film simply can't provide for Greb. It's not a choice between watching every fight and relying only on records. The two complement each other. Records tell us what happened. Film helps us understand what it looked like and how meaningful it was. Having both gives us a more complete picture than having either alone. For Robinson, we have both. For Greb, we only have one. That gap matters, especially at the very top of all-time lists where the margins are thin.

4. The difference is that we have film of Wlad's clinching, so we can make an informed judgment about how much it contributed to his success and weigh it accordingly. For Greb's fouling against Tunney, we can't make that judgment because we can't see it. I'm not saying fouling automatically diminishes a win. I'm saying film is required to assess how central fouling was to a fighter's success versus their legitimate boxing skill. And that distinction clearly matters to how people evaluate fighters, just look at how film of Ward's tactics shapes perception of his career. Without film, that kind of assessment is impossible.

 

the evidence is the multitude of great fighter that he beat and many much larger than him including Gene Tunney among many other ATGs

 

That was me.. & i clearly said in the post that I'd pulled them off of prior threads & hope the posters don't mind.. & what's wrong with sharing quotations anyway u lollipop? Are u the quotation police or something? Read the thread title again.. it says there's no evidence that Greb was that good .. well those quotes clearly contradict that don't they.

 

1 and 3. Ok, its becoming clear that analysis of footage is actually a very minor contributory factor in your ATG rankings. You've seen, at best, a tiny fraction (less than 1%) of SRR's career, yet rank him above ATGs such as Duran, SRL, Mayweather, Pacquiao, RJJ and Whitaker, whose brilliance on film is a sight to behold, and of whom we can see either all, or at least all/vast majority of their major respective bouts, on film.

For over 99% of SRR's career you're relying on results and primary sources. To apply the rationale you applied to Greb, he may have looked a lot worse in his other fights.

Yes, seeing less than 1% of SRR is better than none of Greb, but they must be very close in your ranking if that <1% of footage is the tiebreaker for you, given you have SRR above the utterly brilliant on film Mayweather, for example, of whom 100% of his career was filmed.

How silly for this exchange to have gone on so long, when footage is but such a minor contributing factor for you.

 

The original argument was about footage mattering in general not what percentage it matters. Reframing it as it only matters a small amount so why argue is conceding the main point and yes my position from the beginning is that footage matters when you're comparing the best of the best if their resumes are comparable. Its what sets Robinson apart from Greb and is the factor that gives him the edge, that's always been my position. Not to mention you are essentially conceding to my argument by going from footage not mattering at all to now saying it does matter even to minor degree. The Robinson/Mayweather comparison proves my point: records carry the most weight, but footage helps us verify and contextualize what the records tell us. For Robinson, even a small sample does that. For Greb, nothing does.

Let me ask you something since you say footage has no bearing on your ranking of fighters. If your ranking of SRR isn't based on footage, then what IS it based on? You said he was "further removed from the field in his era." That's a subjective judgment about the nature of his dominance. How do you make that judgment from records alone without any visual evidence of how he dominated? And if you can't point to footage and you're both working from records, what makes your assessment of Robinson's dominance more than a subjective impression?

 

Here's some more proof theres no evidence:

The fastest fighter I ever saw.. hell Greb was faster than Benny Leonard.
-Dempsey

Greb was the greatest fighter i ever saw.
-Tony Galento

The man I believe to be the greatest fighter who ever lived is Harry Greb.
-Hank Kaplan

Greb is one of the three best ringmen i ever saw. Ted Kid Lewis and Benny Leonard were the other two.
-MW Augie Ratner

In a March 1975 issue of ring magazine they had Greb as their #3 MW in their listing of greatest fighters of all time division by division.

In May 1994 issue they still had him #3 in a revised list.

In a January 2001 issue they had him #1.

In 2002 Ring complied their list of the 80 best fighters of the last 80 years & had Greb #7.

They have consistently ranked Greb highly right through the 20th century & into the 21st.

Here's some more reading material:

Boxing: The Great Champions by Gilbert Odd (1974):

Biographical accounts of prominent boxers, with Greb featured for his remarkable career, including his middleweight and light heavyweight titles and victories over fighters like Gene Tunney and Tommy Gibbons.

The Boxing Register by James B. Roberts and Alex Skutt (1999):

This comprehensive record of boxing history includes a biographical piece on Greb, noting his titles, 45-0 record in 1919 & his fights against Hall of Famers like Mickey Walker and Battling Levinsky.

The Fireside Book of Boxing edited by W.C. Heinz (1961):

A compilation of essays, stories, and profiles of boxing’s greatest figures, including historical accounts of early 20th-century fighters. It includes contributions from notable writers like Jack London and covers Greb & the 1920s.

All this further information before any cut & paste search is done (for whatever that is supposed to prove) was pulled off the Harry Greb footage thread.. of which i was a participant under my LenHarvey account which i can't log back into as i lost my email & can't remember my log in information hence this account..

.. & regardless of quotations we can see how good Walker, the Gibbons brothers, Loughran & Tunney were.. it doesn't take a genius to work out that a set of wins like that could only be done by someone pretty damn good..

This content is protected