Kid Norfolk

Tommy Gibbons can

 

1915 prime Greb??? exnay on smokiin crack

 

Obviously not but the 1920 version was. By that logic no one beat Greb twice in his prime as he was likely past his absolute best against Norfolk/Tunney with his eyesight, although perhaps Bartfield has a case?

 

So now gibbons won both 1920 fights vs greb???
Repete rinse!

 

Nutty how? Their paths literally never crossed as opponents, not even in speaking. So how is it fishy that Greb never faced Langford? Tommy Gibbons never faced Langford, Billy Miske never faced Langford, Bill Brennan never faced Langford, the list of people who COULD have faced Langford goes on and on, the fact that they never did doesnt mean there was some big conspiracy to avoid an aging, nearly blind fighter, who brought literally nothing to the table in terms of either prestige or money.

After Langford lost to Fred Fulton in 1917 he was basically a non entity in the title picture. By the time Greb was being considered a HW contender in 1918 Langford was fighting deep on the chitlin circuit for next to nothing and as often as not he was being criticised for showing up over weight, out of shape, and putting on half assed matches (that were often criticized as fake fights) with those he fought. By the time Greb was considered a serious threat to Dempsey in 1921-1922 Langford was a virtual nobody fighting against even lesser known fighters and not always winning.

So here is Greb in 1921-1922 at arguably the height of his fame, coming off wins over Gibbons and Tunney and looking to cash in and force a fight with Dempsey and your argument is he fights old fat blind Sam Langford in Jaurez, Mexico... Im sorry but that doesnt make sense. Even if you put that fight on in New York its more of an embarrassment to Greb than a feather in his cap.

Im just curious when exactly Greb was supposed to fight Langford for it to A. Earn him money and B. Earn him prestige? Particularly when he would have literally had to have gone out of his way in order make the fight. Keep in mind that the vast majority of contracts that Greb signed to fight basically went like this: A promoter calls or wires his manager that they want Greb to appear before their club. Manager wires back that the promoter can sign any opponent they want as long as Greb gets X amount of dollars (whatever his typical fee would be for a venue of that size/population etc) plus travelling expenses and maybe a few comp tickets for friends/family/etc. Never, once in any of those instances, have I ever found that Greb was offered Sam Langford and turned it down. Not once.

Is it your contention that Greb was scared of Langford? Prejudice? I dont think logic supports either of those conclusions considering he was typically willing to face the best black fighters that were being avoided left and right by men who were sometimes considered bigger and better and it isnt like Langford from 1917 on was cutting a swath through the best opponents he faced. In fact his spotty record against men who probably wouldnt be considered on Greb's level suggest that Greb likely had little to fear from that version of Langford and less to fear as the years went by. During this era Langford has two primary wins which people point to as evidence of his ability: Flowers and Norfolk. Flowers at this time was almost completely unknown outside of Georgia and was probably outweighed by 20 lbs, he also had a weak chin which is poison if your fighting Langford. This was hardly the Flowers of 1926. As stated in previous posts I think Langford's victory over Norfolk was a very nice win, but in my mind its as symbolic of Norfolk being slightly less than great. This win however occured a bit before Greb would have been considered a contender for HW honors and it was directly after this victory that Langford suffered his two back to back defeats to Wills which really established Wills, and not Langford, as the best black contender for the HW title. Between Fulton and Wills Langford had been pushed back and would never again attain his former standing. From this point on his decline was notable and if you look at the fighters he fought and where he fought them he basically relegated to facing black journeymen and faded greats like Jeannette and Clark in fights that meant little and paid little. Langford was well aware of this and it showed in his lackadaisical performances.

 

Please explain.

Gibbons beat Greb in 1915 when Greb was nowhere near his prime and Gibbons was being trained and sparring with the best fighter in the world.

Gibbons again beat Greb in 1920 when Greb came into the fight over confident and undertrained. They rematched two months later and Greb won handily.

In 1922 they fought a 15 round decision match as an eliminator to see who would face Dempsey. EVERYONE thought Gibbons would knock Greb out easily and that the Gibbons-Dempsey fight was set in stone. Greb dominated Gibbons winning nearly every round and making him look ordinary.

The best you can say is that in Greb's prime he went 1-1 against Gibbons and when he was already starting to slow down and blind in one eye he handily outpointed Gibbons in 15 rounds and that was while Gibbons was in his prime with a record of something like 21 fights and all of which were KO wins for him except one and hadnt suffered a defeat whether popular or otherwise since his previous bout with Greb.

I disagree about Bartfield as well. He won ONE clear decision over Greb in their first fight in Buffalo. After that they fought four more times and a had a couple of relatively close fights but in every instance Greb was seen as the winner by the majority of local papers and in two of those four he was unanimously selected as the winner.

 

Klomton, you said all!.There are people today who try to denigrate harry Greb's legacy, and have absolutely no conception of time frames ala
Sam Langford..None whatsoever..It is like today someone would demean Joe Louis, who after all didn't meet Jack Dempsey...After all Dempsey kod
Cowboy Luttrell,when Louis started boxing...A little exaggeration, but
my point is made...
Only you could shed some light on the naysayers today with FACTS !...

 

Dempsey was well over 180 pounds and a lot of people here say a win over Harry Greb would have enhanced his record by a significant margin.

 

To play add-on to the last comment, if we're all gonna rave about how awesome Harry Greb was at least partly due to his ability to take on and beat all comers, especially many bigger than him (and yes folks, we read that here ad nauseum), then does it occur to anyone else but Unforgiven and myself that it is amazingly duplicitous to denegrade one who actually beat him in those circumstances?

Look, if you're gonna build up a legend with that criteria then stand by it all the way.

 

I think the argument against Norfolk's wins has more to do with the circumstances of their actual bouts than any size dis/advantage, personally.

 

You make statements like you have an archive that covers the history of every person that ever lived on the planet. Read what you wrote. It sounds nutty. I'm not saying Greb should have fought Langford even though he basically fought everyone else or that there was a demand for the bout.. I am responding to your statement. It is over the top and impossible to prove.

 

I sure hope you're not refering to me Burt as you'd be way off . I base my opinions on as much fact and as little romance as possible. I still have not heard any response to my question of the specific, brilliant Dempsey performance you refer to against top opposition ... Willard, Brennen, Carpentier, Gibbons, Firpo, Tunney 1 , Sharkey and Tunney 2 are what exists on film. Which one is it ? I ask this with all respect to you and to hsitory.

 

And yet you're the one with no argument to pose outside of "that's nutty, heh hyuh!".

 

HE, you were not in my mind when I posted my answer to Klompton.Not at all. It was a general attitude of castigating great fighters of yesterday who because of legitimate circumstances , never met a boxer who those
posters of today favor now...
I completely forgot our sparring sessions of last week, completely, but
you now mention again, who did Dempsey beat of top calibre.? And I
repeat like a Gattling Gun,whoever they threw out to him of his TIME, excepting Gene Tunney when Dempsey was over the HILL.
Like Alka-Seltzer,I repeat once more it is the Dempsey of Toledo, Fred Fulton, Carl Morris, Gunboat Smith,Battling Levinsky[highly forgotten today], era,that made Jack Dempsey the awesome legend that in 1950
was voted by hundreds of boxing writers who saw him in his heyday,
and VOTED him as the greatest heavyweight of the century up to that time...THEY knew of what CALIBRE the prime Dempsey was composed of,
more accurately than naysayters of today..If today i found out that
the 1950 poll was bogus,than i would CHANGE my opinion, for I trust
the thoughts of ringsiders who saw the Toledo Jack Dempsey FIGHT,
a heck of a lot more than the opinions of people NINETY YEARS later...
After all by and large we all depend a great deal on history if we want to know the past...Cheers...b.b.

 

This and the above quote are my point exactly. Harry was performing against the odds, the odds werent in his favor. The odds would have been in Dempsey's favor and Norfolks favor and its Harry's ability to battle those odds that make him a stand out. For a person who has the odds in their favor they dont get extra credit for doing what they are already supposed to do: Beat the smaller fighter. This is one situation where it definately doesnt work both ways and more to the point I have yet to see any conclusive argument by anyone that Norfolk ever definitively beat the smaller man.

As for the Langford argument I fail to see what baring that even has on this argument. In essence Grant states that he agrees with me but chooses to argue with my point for the sake of arguing... Ok, Im the one thats nutty though.