Greb vs Louis. What type of chance does Greb have?

Nat Fleischer left-handedly commented on the Tunney-Greb II fight in the April, 1923, issue of The Ring. After saying he would not give an opinion and add fuel to the controversy, he went on to write:

"The question arises as to what constitutes a foul, according to the rules. Holding and hitting is a direct violation ofthe Walker Law, viz,

Section IV--Fouls:

#6--Holding an opponent with one hand and hitting with the other hand.

Harry Greb in his battle with Tunney and every other in which he has taken part used the above tactics, as shown in rule 6.

Patsey Haley warned the Pittsburgher at least a dozen times in each round and like the good referee that he is, did not want to spoil a night's sport for the fans who had paid their good money, so he simply penalized the offender for his unfair tactics, and at the end of the bout awarded the decision where he felt it belonged.

Now to get back to Chairman Muldoon, who by his statement was embarressed by the rest of the commission, whose members privately are credited with endorsing Referee Haley and Judge Meeghan. It must be taken into consideration that Mr Muldoon's opinion was his personal one.

Haley, in the opinion of experts, is the most competent referee in America, while Meeghan is a former sporting editor and boxing critic of long experience.

(Fleischer goes on to a long discussion of why judges should be eliminated with the referee alone giving the final verdict, and ends with)

Let one man, a capable referee, perform the duty of picking winners."

*Obviously, in this case that capable referee voted for Tunney.

 

Fleischer later commented on this fight again in his bio of Tunney, "Gene Tunney, The Enigma of the Ring"

"It was a spectacular affair that had 15,000 persons, a packed house, at a high pitch of excitement from start to finish. The marine carried off the unanimous decision of Judges Charles E Miles, Charles Meegham, former sports editor of the New York Morning Telegraph, and Referee Patsey Haley."

"Pandemonium reigned when the decision was announced by Joe Humphreys and for a time the police were kept busy quelling riots in various parts of the arena. The Pittsburgher's friends felt that he had been jobbed, but those who watched the bout closely saw no basis for complaint."

"Sharp as was the division of opinion among the boxing fans as to who won, there was just as sharp a difference of opinion among the newpapermen. Some agree with the official verdict, others felt the least Greb should have gotten was a draw and still others believed that Greb had won. Yet the officials voted unanimously in Gene's favor and that was sufficient to gain the title he had lost almost a year earlier to the same Pittsburgh windmill."

 

I think Greb has a better chance than people are giving him. The small, quick, hard to find guys were the type louis had the most trouble with and to boot he had an iron chin. stylewise the advantage is Greb's as well

he has the chance to eke out a decision

 

Impressive research, but I question the underlying premise. The opinion of the press is not the same as "expert ringside opinion" nor of the opinion of the attending fans. Nor is just a headcount quite accurate. A tabloid with limited circulation does not cancel out the New York Times.

Bottom line for me, as loud as the complaints are, they are not convincing at all. Greb went into this fight a 7 to 5 favorite. Tunney went into their third fight an 8 to 5 favorites. That simply does not square with Greb winning this fight decisively. It certainly squares with Tunney winning.

*New York Times, December 10, 1923, preview of the third Tunney-Greb fight

"Despite this being his first bout of any consequence since regaining the title, Tunney has been installed the favorite at odds of 8 to 5."

 

greb goes home in a box

 

It can come across as ugly to think of Louis, ripped n' on the prowl, to stumble over the smaller man, round after round. We would like to think that a heavyweight as destructive and historically commanding as Louis would be bullet-proof against the trickery of a truly great, but ultimately, much smaller man.

Greb did not possess that power which has always been associated with the ability to vanquish, to conquer, but that record, film be damned, speaks volumes.

Greb could beat the bigger men, and not just the average ones. The styles of each may even favour the windmill.

Without taking any sides, Greb must at least be given a real chance.

 

Well, that "myth" started at the very time that there plenty of people around who had seen the fight. Why didn't those people come forward to point out that Tunney winning was a "myth".

The comments I remember from the old days were that this was a close, competitive fight, and a controversial decision.

 

Well, Burt, I have heard that story many times also, but I would like to know the original source. I think it is an urban myth. The NYSAC did the weighing, I think, and I believe Eddie Eagan, a man known for integrity, was the Chairman then. Conn had not officially weighed less than 170 lbs for over two years. He was listed as over 170 lbs for all four of his light-heavyweight championship fights. His weights for the four fights leading up to the Louis fight were 182, 181, 178, 180, and for his next three fights, 182, 183, 175 3/4 (for middleweight Zale). 174 actually seems a bit light.

Be that as it may, here is the tale of the tape for Greb and Tunney (from the NY Times, Dec 10, 1923) and Conn (NY Times, June 18, 1941)

Weight

Greb-------165 lbs
Tunney----174 lbs
Conn------175 lbs

Height

Greb-------5' 8 1/2"
Tunney----6' 1/2"
Conn------6' 1"

Reach

Greb-------70"
Tunney----78"
Conn------72 1/2"

Chest (normal)

Greb-------36 1/2"
Tunney----38"
Conn------40 1/2"

Chest (expanded)

Greb-------40"
Tunney----42"
Conn------43"

Neck

Greb-------16"
Tunney----16 1/2"
Conn------17 1/2"

Biceps

Greb-------13 1/2"
Tunney----14 1/2"
Conn------15"

Forearm

Greb-------11 1/2"
Tunney----13"
Conn------12"

Waist

Greb-------33"
Tunney----33"
Conn------32 1/2"

Thigh

Greb-------21"
Tunney----22 1/2"
Conn------20"

Calf

Greb-------11 1/2"
Tunney----13 3/4"
Conn------14 3/4"

Ankle

Greb-------9"
Tunney----11 3/4"
Conn------9"

*My own take is that Tunney and Conn are comparable. Greb is obviously a smaller man.

 

Ha! Talk about a biased comment. Its not much better than saying "the Times agreed with me so Im going with Times opinion." What a joke. Especially considering the New York Times had pretty shitty boxing coverage. Its merely the easiest paper to get ahold of ringside reports for lazy people and it agrees with you, so essentially you disregard a vast majority of dissenting opinions as tabloids (and even if that were true, which it isnt, it hardly disqualifies their opinion as meaningless) in order to suit your own agenda. Thats funny.

You also, at the same time, disregard the opinions of mere journalists yet try to bolster your argument with the kind of yellow journalism in boxing (Nat Fleisher) and the opinion of a judge... who himself was a journalist...

Does it escape you that journalists were typically, at this time, the most knowledgeable representatives of the sport and very often sat as judges ringside, referees, promoters, managers, and even in some cases sat on Athletic Commissions??? Talk about a weak argument on your part.

The bottom line, whether you choose to believe it, is Greb couldnt have won that fight if he killed Tunney in the ring. Im not going to go into all of the shinnanigans that happened leading up to the fight in order to stack the deck in Tunney's favor because I cover it in my book but the decision stands as one of the most home cooked in the history of the sport.

 

Oh, so your remember comments from the old days huh? LOL! People did come forward! What do you call it when several papers demand a sweeping investigation of the decision? But I guess the fact that the only papers who agreed with you were from Tunney's hometown.

Oh, and in regards to your little comment on holding and hitting, maybe you should read back through the posts and note that many papers stated Tunney broke the rules every bit as much as Greb. But lets disregard that as well because it doesnt jive with your thesis... right?

 

Isnt it strange when a majority of New York Papers (Tunney's hometown papers) vote that he didnt win? Isnt even more strange when every ringside account polled outside of New York gave the fight to Greb... But that doesnt matter because the New York times voted your way right? Keep hanging onto that little nugget.

 

Here's one given Louis' overall record ... he wins a tough decision the first time out and in the rematch he flattens Greb ... Louis was not great at making strategic changes during a bout but had the physical skill set to adjust with practice ...

 

Adding to the tally Greb vs Tunney rematch

All 4 Brooklyn paps, Greb
Staten Island advance, Greb
Dum Dan Morgan ringside, Greb
George Engel Tunneys own corner man, Greb
Frank Fornoy MSG matchmaker, Greb

Enough to make ya wonder, what if Harry had two good eyes??!!

 

Oh yea Ed Sullivan later of TV fame wrote "The decision held a rocqford oder"

 

You missed the main point. I accept that Tunney won in the eyes of most because he went from an 7 to 5 underdog in the second fight to a solid 8 to 5 favorite in the third fight. It makes no difference to me what the Times thinks as long as they are quoting the correct odds for that third fight.

*you are the first to call the longtime editor of Ring Magazine a yellow journalist to my knowledge.

**I guess the opinions of the referee and two judges who were appointed to score the fight don't matter?

***"New York Times had pretty shitty boxing coverage"---James P Dawson was "shitty"?

****Some reporters are experts. Some not. But trainers, managers, other fighters, etc, might be more respected experts than many, most, or even all, reporters. There is no way of telling what these folks thought in total unless they were polled.