Everyone who calls himself a Boxing history enthusiast at least knows that Greb was the only man to beat Gene Tunney. Tunney has a record so clean that it would even make undefeated record obsessed casuals take a step back. 80-1-3. That sole loss being to Greb. What makes this even madder, is that Tunney didn't fight in an era where every contender had a spotless 30-0 record, while just starting to beat men with winning records. He fought in an era where you were expected to fight. Tons. And lose tons as a result. And he didn't. Despite fighting tons of Hall of Famers. Men like Jack Dempsey, Georges Carpentier, Tommy Gibbons, Tommy Loughran, Battling Levinsky, Leo Houck and severals contenders like Martin Burke, Jimmy Delaney, Charley Weinert and Chuck Wiggins several times. Sure, not all were prime. But it's clear as day that he was ahead of the entire field, Greb aside. So, he's gotta be the only one Greb beat with such a clean, modern looking record ? The others surely didn't dominate the field in a similar manner. Right ? C'mon, you know what you're here for. Tommy Gibbons: Beat HoFers Billy Miske, Georges Carpentier, Kid Norfolk, Battling Levinsky and Harry Greb himself. Champions George Chip and Bob Moha too. Retired with a 95-5-4 record. 1 loss was a DQ to Miske, 1 was to Tunney, 1 was to Dempsey. The other remaining 2 were to Greb. The first one when Gibbons was 51-0-4. The second when he was 77-1-4. Yeah, Greb even took 0s from top 50 ATGs. Mike Gibbons: Beat HoFers Mike'O Dowd, Jeff Smith, Jack Dillon, Ted Kid Lewis, Leo Houck. Greb as well, once. Retired at 112-12. He was 88-6 when Greb beat him. Jack Dillon: Beat HoFers Frank Klaus, Battling Levinsky, Billy Miske and Leo Houck. Champs George Chip, Al McCoy and Bob Moha, as well as major Heavyweight contenders of the era like Fireman Jim Flynn, Gunboat Smith, Frank Moran, Porky Dan Flynn and Charley Weinert. He beat them an ungodly amount of times, losing very few in the process. He was 173-14 when Greb beat him the first time. Jimmy Slattery: Beat HoFers Maxie Rosenbloom (4 times) and Young Stribling, as well as top Heavyweight contenders like Battling Levinsky. Retired at 114-13. Greb beat him at 48-1. Tiger Flowers: Aside from the Greb wins, which were fights he arguably lost, he also held wins vs champions like Pete Latzo, Johnny Wilson, Panama Joe Gans, Lee Anderson, Eddie Palmer and Jamaica Kid. Retired at 135-17-8. Greb's official win over him was when he was 69-9. If we're to believe he actually won every fight, then he got robbed when Flowers was 110-14 and 118-14. Mickey Walker: Beat Hall of Famers Jack Britton, Maxie Rosenbloom, Dave Shade, Lew Tendler, Tiger Flowers and Paul Berlenbach. Champions like Mike McTigue and Pete Latzo, and Heavyweight contenders like Paulino Uzcudun and King Levinsky. Retired at 131-25-6. Most losses came super early and super late against guys he would have destroyed in his prime. Greb beat him at 71-12. Speaks volumes how a 71-12 record looks bad in comparison to 6 other records of men that Greb beat in an era when everyone lost 1/3rd of their fights. Even men like Jeff Smith and Kid Norfolk could perhaps qualify. King of kings.
A poor man’s Joe Grim, barely getting by guys who couldn’t carry Wild Bill Hanrahan’s glove laces. This content is protected
I've stated often, I believe Greb and his Era and those before him fall under that banner of "Prizefighting", hardy tough capable fighters and men for sure. But by the 1930s Athletic Stylists added to Boxing, so you now have tough capable 'athletic' stylist Boxers & Fighters, which for my money changed things up for the better. Would the Prizefighters still be relevant, sure, 100%, however, not as prominent. Loads of great Boxers & Fighters could have beaten Greb and Co.
Have you seen footage of Mike Gibbons? Was he just a "hardy, tough capable" prizefighter? Joe Gans? Benny Leonard? Gene Tunney?
yes, and I know. By 1930, that is just a generalized point where visibly change was becoming evident. of course, there would have been some athletic stylistic types before that, though fewer by later comparisons, and yes, there would also be some less finessed Fighter Brawler types existing thereafter, even right into present day, though fewer by comparison to the 'Prizefighting' Eras... just a generalized visible reference point. But Boxing definitely did change stylistic wise from those earlier periods.
Jimmy Mclarnin was one of the best fighters of the 1930s & he was in awe of Greb & is on record as saying 'he was the greatest hed ever seen'.. Mclarnins peers were men like Louis, Steele, Ross, Lynch, Thil, Canzoneri, Kid chocolate etc.. that's not a statement to be sniffed at.
Both Gibbons brothers were master boxers who wouldn't look out of place even today. The idea that they're prehistoric relics is as ignorant as it gets.
Losses back then were a lot more common on a fighter's resume mainly because fighters fought more frequently. Fighting monthly year upon year in that era of what was it.. 8 divisions? Is far more taxing on a fighter's body.. You're facing a less diluted talent pool than today's 17 division era & you're facing off against thinner gloves which would inflict more damage.. then u factor in all the other things they dont have that modern fighters benefit from such as PEDs, more recovery time, pre day weigh ins etc.. The likely hood is under 1920s circumstances you're gunna lose & underperform sometimes. So yes, the sentiment of the OP is valid, maintaining a record like Tunneys or the Gibbons brothers in those times especially demonstrates how good those individuals were.
Never said they were prehistoric, just less athletically stylish from what later became the basic norm... in fact, I said they would have been still relevant, though not immortal.