Compare Robinson and Grebs resumes.

Norfolk might not be among the top 10 opponents Greb faced, and they went 1-1 against each other, one of those fights being toward the end of Greb's career when he was half blind. The series with Tunney (which would be equivalent to Charles's series with Marciano) was pretty much dead even by all accounts. By contrast, Charles lost both fights to Marciano, one by KO.

You could say the very same for Greb's series against Tunney and Flowers, except that the evidence would be a bit more substantial, seeing as you're just talking about of your ass here.

:roflYeah, so I guess fighting half-blind after a decade long, 200+ fight career doesn't equate to being past prime by the time he took on most of the names you mentioned.

 

I'd say that Greb got the better of the Gibbons brothers. He beat Tommy 2-1 while Mike beat a young Greb in a close 6 round bout and later lost a clear 10 round fight when both were close to their prime.

You could argue that Greb had the better of Tunney in three fights. The Norfolk loss was controversial.

 

BS, Greb had the same number of fights as Flowers, was younger than Gibbons, more experience than Tunney

Look at the primes of his opponents:

Miske - dying
Walker - giving up 8lbs in his first fight at MW
Rosenbloom - only 20yo, pre-prime
Tommy Gibbons - 3years older
Mike Gibbons -7years older
Tunney -pre-prime
Loughran - pre-prime undersized from his prime weight

I'm not saying they werent quality wins, but Greb gets extra kudos for what fighters did once they improved or catching them on the decline

 

1. How about the Tunney series being the equivilent to Charles series with Moore? magine what Marciano would do to Greb

2. Some also had the first Flowers fight going to Flowers so Greb may have lost 3-0

I've seen Suzie Q present evidence Charles beat Johnson/Valdes, given he may have had an agenda that Charles was still prime against Marcaio it maybe BS. The Ray fight was an SD and somehave said he won that 1, I havent reareports myself. Ray himself was a beast of a HW going something like 70-0 and also beat Charles and obviously a draw could go either way

3. A knockout concussion is the thing that tends to make fighters 'shot' faster than anything, Greb never suffered KO losses, Charles did numerous times against bigger better offensive fighters, therefore Charles became shot quicker.

 

Tommy went 2-2 not 2-1. And Mike was 32 when he lost a closish fight to Greb

 

Um, no? Tunney was the substantially bigger men in each of their fights, particularly the latter ones when Greb was already starting to fade anyway. You have a natural MW fighting a natural LHW, which is pretty equivalent to a natural LHW fighting a small HW.

By most accounts Greb should've swept the series. Again, you're talking directly out of your ass.

Be that as it may, how are you going to attempt to discredit all of Greb's close fights as possible losses while excusing Charles's losses for possible wins?

So the fact that Greb had an even more dangerous style against larger opponents, took just as many if not more hard shots in over twice as many fights, and was half-blind by that stage in his career couldn't by any stretch of the imagination lead to the conclusion that he was well past his prime? Could've fooled me.

 

1. So why not the equivilent of Walcott or Ray who were also plenty bigger than Charles? Charles started at MW just like Greb

2. Yet plenty of accounts have Flowers winning all 3?

3. I havent seen evidence of Greb beating flowers, Ive seen evidence of Charles losses being controversal. I also wonder if Greb likely being a crowd favourate over Flowers/Tunney affecting newspaper reports? You also have to ask if Grebs style, played into his hands, with him throwing allot of punches and possibly being credited for missing fluries of punches

4. Greb hasnt fought any punchers like Marciano, Ray, Walcott, Moore, Marshall, Burley from what Ive seen on film. Regardless numerous concusions equates to a shot fighter, I've never heard of Greb being concussed and beat down

 

Greb stands alone.

 

I forgot about their very early fight. Either way I'd say that Greb established superiority over the two during their rivalry.

 

Probably because neither were as good as Tunney comparatively (you could even make the case that Marciano wasn't, as a matter of fact), and Walcott at least did not carry the same size advantage over Charles as Tunney did Greb. Charles may've started at MW, but he didn't fight larger fighters as a MW, he fought them as a LHW and a HW. Greb's fighting weight was pretty consistent throughout his career, no matter what the size of the opponent.

They were close fights, to be certain, but the readily available evidence suggests that in the first loss, the overwhelming opinion was that Greb was the better man, while the second loss (which also happened to be the very last fight of Greb's career) seems to have been more in Greb's favor as well, though the opinions are a tad more divided. The first fight, which Greb won, is probably the most disputed of the 3 decisions, actually.

Well then you obviously haven't read the reports, which clearly state as much as I've said. And yet you're willing to give Charles credit for possible wins based on the opinions of one ESB poster. Howw typical.

The reports aren't based on the perspective of the fans, they're written accounts from ringside scribes and judges. The press, even the Pittsburgh Gazette, was not always in favor of Greb if you've read the scribes, so I don't see why they would be for these particular fights. And again, you're so quick to dismiss written reports yet so willing to except the opinions of one poster as gospel for the sake of argument. It seems to me you make a statement and see if there's any possible way to justify it when someone comes up with a rebuttal, rather than actually believing what you're stating.

The fight reports don't suggest this. it would seem that whenever what you say was indeed the case, the reports reflected it in Greb's losses, draws, or close calls. Probably because the majority of the time his positive work far outweighed his negative work.

From what you've seen on film? Well, doesn't that just beat all?

And that's a negative?

 

Greb was more consistent over a longer period of time against high caliber opposition than Robinson. Simple as that.

 

I don't think one can make a case that Greb ranks above Robinson in longevity though. Robinson fought from 1940 to 1965 and was world class for 20 of those years.