How Techniaclly Skilled was Harry Greb?

this is the best answer so far

we don't know!! reports of the day were, by their very nature, clouded and within the context of the day. until footage comes out, we have no idea how technically skilled he was

 

Without film impossible to judge. We may get to know what other people of his time thought but we will never know.

 

From what I gather, he applied a certain measure of skill and caution when he dethroned Johnny Wilson for the middleweight title. It is not described as a great entertaining fight, but a clear win, which is what the situation called for. (Interestingly, Greb won and lost his world title to southpaws, apparently the first time in Queensbury history that happened.) He was reported to have boxed largely flatfooted in taking the title, yet still had too much speed for Wilson. With that title on the line, Greb may have played it more conservatively, whether challenging or defending.

He entered his legendary 45-0 1919 campaign already with around 130 fights behind him, most going the distance, and with plenty of experience against the likes of Bat Levinski, the brothers Gibbons and Chip, Miske, O'Dowd, Moha, Brennan, Houck, Dillon, McTigue, etc... With a background like that, not having technical skill would be a neat trick. Whether or not choosing to use it is a different matter, but he seems to have been perfectly capable of either boxing with skill or punching with power if he decided to.

 

What do the greatest artists in any field have in common? They transcend the upper levels of convention. They take what was/is considered 'great' to another level, a new level. Greb a technician? He was more than that.

Greb would reduce top fighters, all-time great fighters, to bewilderment. Tunney, Dempsey, and Gibbons were only a few bigger greats who he left completely stunned. What was it Gibbons said, he felt like "a thousand gloves" were thrown at him. Dempsey couldn't believe the speed. Tunney said it was like fighting an octopus.

He was known for speed and stamina. Speed, we'd probably all agree, is the best athletic weapon a fighter can have. Stamina must be right up there at the top as well. Boxing is not a strength and power sport so much as a speed and stamina sport... and that is a partial explanation of Greb's effectiveness in dealing with virtually any style and any size. In fact, if a historian had to pick which fighter he really had trouble with, most would probably go with Tiger Flowers -and Flowers was in some respects a mirror image of Greb himself.

Greb, to be fair, was slowing down by the time he lost his title to Flowers. Not to mention half-blind.

What made him effective was not his technical ability. He had a firm grasp of technique and could outjab an opponent or master him from outside when he wanted, but what put him over the top was his ability to spoil the other guy's plans by not only reading and countering whatever the opponent tried to do, but by fighting in a manner that was totatlly unreadable. Greb's style seemed to have no ryhme or reason, therefore it was tough to solve. Effective boxing relies on formulas. That is what fundamentals really are- formulas. When a man throws in a jab, you slip and counter with a straight right. A straight right is countered with a left hook, and so on. Greb broke all the rules and confused the hell out of whomever he fought. Why? Not necessarily because he swarmed all over him like Armstrong, not necessarily by breaking all the expectations like Pryor, or by speeding all over them like Pacquiao...
... Greb did all of the above.

Whitaker, Armstrong, Calzaghe, Pacquiao and Pryor all offer glimpses into what Greb was. Throw in a physical strength that had to be beyond most middleweights, an iron jaw, and what can only be a love of battle that was obsessive or pathological, and you have an idea of what he was in the ring.

 

There were a few fights -Tunney II and one of the Flowers fights, if I remember right- that saw Greb fight relatively calmly because there was real concern that he would be DQ'd for fouls. This may have been a concern for the Wilson fight. Wilson had been ducking him, and was said to be 'connected' at the time. Greb did foul, by the way, -particulaly after he was going blind on the right side.

 

Stoney, perfect !. You put the essence of Harry Greb in prose, that I can only express in feelings. Greb was unique in boxing history, and his boxing
career is stuff that legends are made of...Thinking about him quite often, because of a couple of factors. My dad saw Greb soundly whip Gene Tunney
in 1922 MSG.My dad also lost an eye,and I was always aware of his struggling to make a living driving a cab, while trying to keep this handicap a secret...and finally when I was a youngster, I and my dad met a fighter
who fought Harry Greb numerous times, Soldier Bartfield, in my uncles luncheonette. Bartfield was in his 50s at the time ,playfully grabbed me in a clinch and tatooed my ribs. It hurt me and my dad pulled me away from
Soldier Bartfield, who apologized to me..Only later on ,I read about Soldier
Bartfield and Harry Greb fighting numerous times..So i share a commonality with Harry Greb. We were both pummeled by Soldier Bartfield...:good:good:good

 

Stonehands...that is one of the best assesments of Greb's style that I have seen

 

Great post Stonehands, I really enjoyed reading it :good

 

bman.
Yes, bman, Greb had something else in spades... It's called guts.!
Just imagine when Greb found out he was blind in one eye, and the other eye was failing. Any mortal fighter would have called it quits, knowing that one blow to the "good eye", could close it and make Harry Greb completely
without sight,and at the complete mercy of his opponent. Yet he went on this precarious way for the last few years of his career, against great fighters who for the most part were bigger than him. What anxiety he must have felt in private before these fights... He was one of a kind, and the gods of boxing, threw away the mould, after his tragic death on an operating table....

 

Well, I´m pretty sure I neither have your knowledge of boxing or Greb but I´m pretty sure you´ve never seen him fight. This means all that is based on the opinions of his contemporaries. Those are just that opinions. What you wrote was excellent and I think it´s very likely that it was like you described it but in the end we will never really know. Sadly. Sounds so astonishing. Too good to be true.

Sounds a bit like "I shook the hand of the man who shook the hand of the man who shook the hand of the great John L. Sullivan.

Interestingly, probably the two of the greatest fighters ever ended up fighting half-blind/blind at the end of their careers.

 

Sam Langford was also half blind at the last few years of his career, and
completely blind ,when after years of searching for him, a resolute reporter
found ole Sam COMPLETELY blind in a Harlem tenement house in NY. Still
cheerful he was. A great article was written by that reporter many years
ago. He also raised some funds for Langford's last days...

 

Addendum...The name of the boxing reporter who tracked blind and destitute Sam Langford down was Al Laney of the New York Herald Tribune who wrote a series of articles I read in 1944. Great reading on old "Tham"...

 

From everything that we know of HG - who would be the closest contemporary (i.e. anyone we have film of) to get an indication of style the way he fought?

I've read up on him a few times, looked at boxrec - and it's an incredible record. So unfortunate that of all fighters from that era - we have next to zilch film on him at all.

 

Calzaghe, but its impossible to know without footage