Kid Norfolk ... Forgotten All Time Great ...

That is one of the best questions in the Sweet Science. What motivated Harry Greb to fight as often as he did and to take the risks that he did -many of which were unnecessary...?

Was it money? I don't think so. That doesn't answer the second question.

Was it glory? He was big in the early to mid 20s but was overshadowed by Dempsey and later by Tunney. I think he had the style that would defeat Dempsey prior to Norfolk I and perhaps after it too. And he proved it in 1919 and 1920. Alas, he was avoided by Dempsey and thus could not quite scale the heights that would come with a MW in possession of a HW title.

His background was not underclass that we are used to hearing about when it comes to so many great fighters of yesterday and today. His origins were at least working class and he was en route to building a career at Westinghouse in Pittsburgh probably as an electrician.

I think that he just loved to fight. He relished battle and took pride in besting his opponent -the bigger the better. It contributed to his vanity and gave him an immortal name. So a large part of this is great pride. Greb was supremely confident in his abilities.

Looking at his later career, one gets the idea that he was too extreme to be labelled simply a proud and natural fighter, though. There is something else going on here. Fighting half-blind for over 60 fights is quite crazy. Half the field of vision is in darkness, and one's depth perception is off. And look who and what he was mixing it up with... It's recklessness multiplied. There seems to be a measure of something like rage or desperation that was exascerbated by his disability as well as by the death of his wife.

Next him… [a] scepter’d king,
Stood up, the strongest and the fiercest spirit
… now fiercer by despair.
~ Paradise Lost, bk. II, l. 44

 

A great insight to my query,Stonehands...
A few points...Despair can cause Greb to be more combetive, when his wife died, but while she was living,Greb fought like a man posessed.It seemed that danger was in his bones...
I have read in many old Ring Mags years ago, that Greb admitted to boxing writers of the time, this quote,after outspeeding Dempsey in several sparring sessions, Quote "If I fought Dempsey in a regular fight, after a couple of rounds Jack would KILL me "Unquote...I believe this opinion of Harrys...Power punchers dont look as effective in the gym,because they cant go all out in a sparring session...
I once read in a Ring Mag from the late 1920s, that young Greb walked into a gym as a kid, and asked to be taught to box..He was told no dice,as they thought young Harry was too muscle bound..He must have been a very strong and combative youngster ,even before he started to box...
But the question of why Greb upon learning of the loss of sight in one eye, continued his frantic career, knowing that a blow to his other eye, would virtually blind him,can never be answered...The answer was buried with the Pittsburgh Windmill in 1926...Whatever the answer, his likes we will never see again...

 

These Quotes Of Greb were written by writers who knew Harry Greb well...It could have been one of the writers of the RING Magazine's columns of those days, but read them I did...
I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the boxing scribe, who quoted Grebs opinion...
Of course Harry persued Dempsey...What money that bout would have drawn for Greb....

 

'


Let me choose my words more carefully then Kevin:


I think when you write very one sided, slanted accounts in favor of the fighters you have an interest in, or completely falsify stories (such as saying that Greb was given a rough time in a fictitious sparring encounter with Panama Joe Gans that never took place) thats tantamount to writing a fairytale. Whether you are getting the royalties on those stories is between you and your publisher.

Before people go jumping on me, because I know you have friends here, I will give examples:

In your book The Sundowners you tell a nice story about Gans and Greb going three rounds, evenly matched, and both exhausted when it was over. The only evidence you give for this match is the word of Damon Runyon (which which you dont even cite a source)... Runyon wasnt in Benton Harbor covering the Dempsey-Miske fight where this sparring encounter supposedly took place. I checked thinking I may have missed something. Runyon was on the east coast covering baseball as it led up to the World Series and only occasionally published editorial comments on the Dempsey-Miske training and bout itself, never once purporting to be in camp. I looked through my own stack of newspaper articles from journalists who covered the fight for papers in Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio. Not a single one mentions Greb and Gans sparring despite going into great detail about all of the sparring sessions, not just those involving Dempsey.

In discussing Greb's refusal to fight Gans in Syracuse in 1919 you paint a wonderful picture of Gan's taking offense to Greb's use of a common racial epitath (which shall go unsaid by me) which did occur. However you then have Gans starting after Greb and Greb putting his hands up as if in fear of Gans and apologizing... This did not occur. We dont know exactly what happened. All we know is that Greb used the term and it said he was "called" for it by Gans and apologized. You then go on to quote a newspaper which was run by the owner of the arena that had lost money on the show which intimated that Greb was choosing not to fight Gans because he was too good. Never once did you mention that Gans was the THIRD substitute that they had notified Greb of in less than 24 hours which played a large role in Greb and Mason not wanting the fight. Furthermore, rather than framing this situation in the correct context of the times which was right after the Red Summer, one of the most racially violent, racially charged time periods in the 20th century, you mention the red summer AFTER these events almost as an after thought. Was that simply tacked on, was it poor writing, or was it by design to elevate Gans in the eyes of the readers?

To explain Norfolk's performance in the first Greb fight you hint that he was out of shape because he weighed 179 despite the fact that he had been hovering around this weight for more than a year and indeed spent many of his fights that year in the 180s. In fact if you go through Norfolk's record you can see that the majority of fights where fought ay or around this weight. You then go on to completely distort and twist what was written the next day to meet your own agenda. You state that of four Pittsburgh papers 2 gave the fight to Norfolk and 2 gave it Greb (in your post above you state three give it to Norfolk and 1 to Greb, I find that discrepency alone interesting) BUT that they all agreed that Norfolk had dominated early and that Greb only came on after the seventh to win the final three rounds. You state that Greb was in danger of being stopped several times. You say the deciding factor was that Norfolk was never seriously hurt and that Greb could not impose his will on Norfolk. Kevin, come on, I have to call bull**** here. There were 7 Pittsburgh papers at the time, not four. As stated above in previous posts 3 voted for Norfolk, 3 voted for Greb, and 1 was ghost written by one of the writers who voted for Norfolk so you can throw that one out. The referee himself publicly stated he would have given the fight to Greb had decisions been legal in Pitts. Greb was never in danger of being stopped. In fact the Pittsburgh Press writer Jim Jab who hated Greb called the dull. The turning point according to all articles was either the 5th or 6th round (depending on which article thought Greb or Norfolk won, there generally being a one or two round swing in the scoring of the majority of articles). Norfolk was not "fighting back valiantly" or viciously as you say in the final two rounds. In fact he was being backed around the ring and hammered by Harry. The fight was about as even as can be, how you gleaned from any of the articles that it was a dominant win for Norfolk is far beyond me.

Thats not all of the things Ive seen in your writings that stand out as being either twisted or outright untrue but those are the ones that I can comment on with a great degree of knowledge from my own research.


These things may seem small to some but the way some of these things are twisted, in my opinion, hurts credibility and once that credibility suffers the good work that you have done in trying to keep these criminally forgotten fighters alive gets called into question. Tell these guys stories the way it actually happened. They are still every bit as interesting and relevant. Dont embellish and certainly dont reach so hard to tie them to the more established names of the past.

You say I have an agenda for stating that Greb was at the height of his partying days but I can back it up with sources and a plethora of news reports where Greb was in trouble with the law at several points, showing up out of shape for fights (as he was for the Norfolk fight where one Boston paper called him "hog fat"), and giving uncharacteristic sub par performances. If thats an agenda at least I can back it up with documented sources. When I sent you emails asking you for your sources for the Gans-Greb sparring match your reply was "I misplaced them"... right... You say that Boston papers had Norfolk winning the fight in Boston. I never said they didnt. You say that Greb was warned for fouling, so was Norfolk. It was also stated by several boston papers that Norfolk should have been disqualified not Greb and that Norfolk was as guilty of fighting dirty as Greb was. Several also state that it was more of a wrestling match than a boxing match. If its a feather in Norfolk's cap to have beaten a guy who was naturally 20 pounds lighter when he was out of shape in an awful match. Hey go for it. More power to him. But when both where closer to their primes he certainly couldnt and didnt. Despite what you have written to the contrary.

Like I said, I have a ton of respect for your work and what you are doing. Its great. It really is. But whatever motivated you to print some of the above in the light in which you printed it, combined with other stories you have printed that dont jive with reality (and I will admit these instances are the minority) in my opinion does a great disservice to your goal of trying to bring these men and their accomplish back into the light of day. Its a noble cause, I admit far more noble than my research, and thats why I think those things detract from it.

As far as me having an agenda, maybe I do but anyone who has a question about any of the fights Greb had or any of the instances that might show Greb in a less than stellar light (and there are plenty that can and will give people pause) can ask me and I will tell them exactly what I wrote, how I wrote it, and why and I think you and they will be satisfied that I dealt with the subject in a painstakingly even hand. Thats been my goal from the start, to write about the man, not the legend. Greb's story, warts, losses, and all, is far more interesting (in my opinion) than the legend which has been repeated enough, and wrongly so, to make me want to puke.

 

I think he had some issues with his pride and confidence. Don´t get me wrong he had tons of both but if somebody has to proof something to himself and others time and again he must have some issues. Perhaps an inferiority complex or something like that.

Or he was an adrenalin junkie. He always had to test out his limits, always go further than before. That´s what people who are into extrem-sports do all the time to get the adrenalin kick.

In science there is a theory, if you have many theories the most simple one is probably the right one.

 

I'll offer an opinion about Greb's quote regarding Dempsey. I would not doubt your word that you read that or that it was quoted by a reputable source. At the same time, I have no doubt that Greb was sure that he could take Dempsey.

This forces the question... why would Harry say that? We know that Greb chased Dempsey. At least one of the sparring session was, according to a reporter who was there, 'an honest-to-goodness battle.' And Greb did very well. Perhaps Greb, realizing that the sessions actually hurt his chances at getting a shot, tried to downplay them. He may have been trying to show Dempsey up for reporters in the hope of having them pressure Dempsey into giving him a shot. In so doing, he underestimated how much of a cherry-picker Kearns was and he failed to factor in that after Willard, Dempsey himself knew first-hand that small fast men could whip bigger men -if they're great.

 

We will never know that Greb's assertion, {In a regular fight with Dempsey,after a couple of rounds ,Jack would kill me ],was to entice Dempsey into the match ?But say it Greb did I am convinced...How great Harry Greb was,[my favorite fighter],I cant see him evading the young and prime Tiger Dempsey, for the full bout. IMO...

 

Guys, after reading all of your valid comments on Greb...I feel that the man was really PAUL BUNYAN...Greb was surreal like, for sure.....

 

Yep.

Details...

Greb beat Gibbons handily at Forbes Field in 1920 and two days before that was in NYC sparring/fighting Dempsey himself in an exhibition. He split Dempsey's eye wide open after two rounds.

Greb fought Gibbons at Madison Square Garden in 1922. Since their first bout, Gibbons had earned 21 stoppages in 26 victories. The winner of their fight at the Garden was supposed to fight Tunney for the American Light Heavyweight title as “a qualifying test” to face Dempsey.

Tunney and Dempsey were at the fight beside high society. More than 14,000 had come out to see Gibbons, prematurely decreed as “Dempsey’s next opponent.”

The wrong man won. Gibbons took only three out of the fifteen rounds. The betting figure that favored him was the ratio by which he was out landed in the fight: two-to-one. “I never saw so many boxing gloves in my life,” Gibbons admitted the next day, “his punches seemed to come from everywhere –from the gallery, from under my shoes, from behind my back.”

Then Greb destroyed Tunney. Dempsey, incidentally, had reportedly warned Tunney about Greb.

 

greb lost the 1918 fight against miske. he got revenge in 1919

 

And for the record I have never seen a quote attributed to Greb while he was alive stating that he EVER thought in a match of any length Dempsey could beat him. I have seen such a quote printed years later but I dont give it much credence, much like many of the stories that came out about Greb long after he died.

 

I don't think anyone will jump on you. You are more than entitled to express how you feel about something. And I truly do expect to get some criticism about my books, they are not perfect by any stretch. I guess I was disappointed to be called out by you in such a negative manner. I know better now. So be it. I will say that just because you (meaning you Klompton) do not have a source for something does not mean that someone else does not or that it did not occur. I will also say that just because you approach everything from a Greb slant does not mean that everyone else does.

I thank you for being one of the 20 some odd people who bought the Sundowners and I look forward to reading your Greb book when it comes out.