Greb Knocked Out By Body Shot

The superintendent never said anything about Rogers being allowed to claim a KO. He told Rogers he did not have to continue if he chose not to. Thats a different thing, especially since the superintendent wasnt an official of the club. You guys trying to monday morning quarterback on this is comical. In fact the Gazette-Times in their buildup to the rematch expressly stated that the referee did not rule it a knockout. Period, end of story. For those who seem to think this was some kind of a knockout I would refer you to the Pittsburgh Gazette-Times (who thought Greb lost the fight) own official printed record for Greb which called this a ND-W 6 based on the fact that the majority disagreed with them.

 

Yes, I got that wrong.
However, it's still odd (and even ominous) that the policeman would get involved and apparently advise that Rogers should placate Greb's fans by continuing.
It also seems like the officials of the club weren't doing much officiating themselves.

It wasn't a knockout.
But the referee didn't call foul either. That's the issue.
I don't know what others are arguing about the official result, but the simple facts as described by the reports make it a crooked or tainted fight. That's my comment.

The hometown fighter was allowed time to recuperate from a blow that the referee never called foul. It's not right but it's the kind of thing that has always happened in this sport.
If this wasn't Harry Greb, if this was say Georges Carpentier, you'd be screaming blue murder about the hometown cooking.

 

i cant respond in detail to klomptons posts for a while. But clearly Rogers stood to make more money by gaining a reputation of keeping the crowd happy than by not. Dont forget that greb was not yet the legend he would become. I presume rogers was supremely confident at the time.

 

It's not a KO unless the referee counts to ten.
Did the referee give a count ?

 

tko?

 

Yes. It should have been.
But it seems the referee failed to call it.

Greb refused to come out for round 2 and that should be a TKO win for Rogers. That's pretty clear cut. There's no grey area in such a case.
Fighters get 1 minute rest between rounds and if they fail to come out at the bell for the next round, that's a TKO loss.

It's a simple case of hometown advantage. Crookedness.

I don't see anything in the reports that says Rogers was offered the chance to "claim a KO win" either, ....... not that that would have made things okay, since it still smacks of intimidation to ask a fighter whether he actually wants the win. By the local police chief.

The whole thing stinks, of course.

 

Your wrong, i dont consider it crooked at all because the referee never saw the punch. Not only that but he wouldnt rule on it, first trying to get the timekeepers opinion, then the press, and finally the police. It would be unfair to rule either fair or foul so the best option was to have the fighters fight the fight on its merits. Thats exactly what happened. You reading something sinister into them saying this to Rogers is ridiculous. the house was on verge of a riot between both camps and Grebs fans had already been loud and raucous, so its no wonder they gave Rogers the option to leave that scene. If Rogers, who had a lot more experience than Greb, was that much better than him and had legitimately hurt him then why couldnt he prove his point in either that fight or the rematch, or the rubbermatch. Instead he got beat in all three and his excuse for losing was literally that the referee didnt allw him to foul... talk about home cooking... gee whiz, that cruel hometown referee defending Greb by not letting Rogers foul... the bottom line is that the most fair solution was given and after that Greb did the right thing by offering an immediate rematch, which he won, and a sizeable side bet which he also won.

 

Don't be silly. It's the referee's job to rule foul. It's his job to see the punches. In the absence of ruling it a foul, it's a fair punch by default.
Therefore the fight goes ahead. The bell rings for round 2 after the standard 1 minute and both fighters should be up and fighting.
Just because one of the fighters (the hometown fighter) is refusing to fight and crying foul shouldn't dictate anything. Nor should the local police superintendant. Or the hometown fans.

It's no big deal in the grand scheme of things, though. These things happen in boxing. There's no need to insist of denying it. Greb had about 300 fights, mostly wins and "ND wins". It's not surprising that one or a few incidents like this would occur along the way.

 

Exactly many alts spinning again. The ref had every right to award the fight to Rogers. I don't know if this applies in that era but a ref can count out a guy who refuses to come out for a rd. In other words the ref starts counting with Greb on the stool and when he reaches 10 then Rogers would be awarded the fight by ko or tko. Dem's the rules many alts, seems the ref was influenced by the fans going at it. Many alts you still hiding Greg seems to be right on this one. Don't be a prissy nitpicker accept the fact that Greb wouldn't come to scratch in the 2nd rd. That he was given a 10 min break to recuperate:good

 

And he didn't. He didn't see the punch and he didn't make a ruling. Sorry chump, don't shoot the messenger. I'm just telling you what happened?

According to who? You are judging this fight by the standard of TODAY. It was NOT fought TODAY, it was fought 100 YEARS AGO. The rules have changed umpteen times in umpteen different location since then. Simply because you were born decades after Greb died and think you understand how the sport was operated back then doesn't make it so. Like Ive said, you've shown a pretty appalling lack of understanding of the context of not only this fight but the era in general.

Unfortunately for you and your little argument, this isn't what happened. Nobody was given any home cooking. You've taken exactly ONE newspaper report that carried a minority opinion and stretched that into a much larger story that simply isn't supported by the written record. It doesn't matter what you think was right back then by backwards applying flawed standards of the NABC written 70 years later. What matters is how that sport was run at the time. It was not uncommon to allow a fight to continue if the ref couldn't rule on a foul, or if he thought both fighters were fighting equally foul, etc. What you are doing is no different than watching a bareknuckle match and complaining that it doesn't conform to the standards of today. It doesn't work like that. The match was handled as fair to everyone involved as possible, and for those that had a gripe about it an immediate rematch was offered along with a sizeable side bet. Had Greb really thought he was the benefit of home cooking he could have just steered clear of Rogers. Instead he fought him three weeks later without an interval and beat him again.

 

Many alts no matter how you spin it the fact remains Greb got a 10 min break, and wouldn't come out for the 2nd rd. We are talking about the first rd and that he wouldn't come out for the 2nd until he got that break. You discount anything that goes against your own storyline. From the reports you posted it seems there was trouble brewing with the fans. That the police chief had to suggest anything shows that trouble was in the air.
The fact that the ref didn't rule it a foul and gave Greb a 10min break, and that the police chief had to get involved suggests homecooking whether you like it or not. Stop changing the subject, the point is he was apparently stopped, and you pointing out that this newspaper and that newspaper gave greb the win and that greb beat him after that, still doesnt answer the question of the stop. The ref seemed to be intimidated by something(the crowd?) cos it is the ref's call, that he didn't see the foul, that was his call. So that would mean greb who didn't come out for the 2nd until he was given an unfair advantage by getting that 10 min break he should have been counted out or at the very least the fight stopped. The fair citizens and writers of Pittsburgh had more to do with that call then the myriad of fans from Buffalo who attended lol.

 

It's never been the case that a referee has to make "a ruling" on every punch. A punch is allowed until it's declared foul. That's always been the case. Fights aren't stopped for minutes for punches to be declared fair.

No. The rules have NEVER said punches need to be declared fair to be allowed.
If that was the case, the referees would be stopping the fight after every punch to make a judgement.
You're talking rubbish and hiding behind your "knowledge of the era".

You're deliberately talking about things that have nothing to do with the particular issue of what happened in the 1st round.
Trying to create strawman argument's, as usual.

Anyway, you say : "It was not uncommon to allow a fight to continue if the ref couldn't rule on a foul"

Yes ! But the point is the fight was NOT allowed to continue. It was suspended for several minutes until GREB deciding HE was ready to continue.
Big difference, chump. :good

Of course you think that's fair. Because, in your eyes, everything Harry Greb did is sanctified.

 

Yessir!:good