Harry Greb vesus Barbados Joe Walcott in a fight to the finish

The fact he is not in most top twenties is because he is largely forgotten ... the reason he is given such a shot is that it is not a distance fight ... over ten or fifteen almost everyone would pick Greb.

 

Not necessarily in Joe Walcott's time. A fight to the finish could mean exactly that. No set number of rounds.

and i think it is very, very relevant. Greb's style (despite his reported awesome stamina) appears to be an extremely high workrate and must have slowed him down. Couple this with the fact that he very very rarely managed to stop his opponent, and this one is going to be very, very difficult.

I know it is trendy to rate Greb as a top pound for pound for pound fighter. But Joe Walcott, despite being smaller is every bit as good pound for pound and there is nothing wrong with rating one over the other. In a finish fight, Joe is more experienced for sure and his big punch is also going to be a chance of catching Greb, particularly as the fight gets longer.

It is true that Greb is bigger and stronger (probably) but Walcott has faced and done well against guys much bigger stronger and harder hitting than Greb. So he has proved he can handle that side of things. In fact, Walcott has fought fighters quite a bit bigger than the guys Greb fought.

In the end this is a toss up fight. I go with the unproven greb (under the rules) to produce something special in the later rounds and win but i have no doubt that Walcott is every chance and wouldnt be surprised in the slightest to see him win. IN fact i think he maybe should even start favourite.

 

B, I posted there were no major fights to the finish in MODERN TIMES, meaning 1900 and up. If fights to the finish were prevalent in modern times, we might as well kiss our record books goodbye, because many of our greatest fighters who decisioned great opponents and champions, might very well have lost were the bouts "fight to the finish". Boxing would no longer be "boxing" as we have known it. Skills as we have known it in boxing would be meaningless as less skilled fighters would cover up, stall, save there energy, and do everything to survive and exhaust his opponent
til a ref stopped the contest,or a fighter less skilled would out survive his opponent...Would we consider a Ray Robinson any greater than the human punching bag "Iron Man Joe Grim", who could not be KNOCKED OUT, though he had little skills, but would most surely outlast Robinson,Benny Leonard,
Duran, Hagler, etc. All our great sprinters and milers at track might lose to
distance runners who might jog forever waiting for a rival to quit. My point is that that our best HOF boxers theoreticaly, could lose to less skilled
men with limitless stamina and sole ability to take punishment. Thus boxing as we have known it as a sport of skill, would have vanished...

 

burt bienstock, what you said about how boxing would no longer be boxing as we know it if there were fights to the finish in modern times was one of the smartest and well analysed things I have ever heard. I agree 100%. Man what an analysis. And the man with the best combo of chin and stamina (I mean who had a one of the greatest chins AND some of the best stamina, there may be a handfull better with chin or stamina) would have been the greatest.

 

Joe would win. He faced boxers hitting much harder than Harry ever could. He may have better stamina, but Joe has some of his own, hit harder, and had a granite chin. In a fight to the finish, Walcott. In a distance fight, however, Greb. Greb has not faced a demon as strong as Walcott.