Marvin Hagler v.s Harry Greb

Hagler by UD, but Greb would give him hell in the worst way.

 

There's no way in hell that Hagler would outpoint the speedy Greb.

Greb would simply 'out-do' Hagler in every way.

 

Do you mean this Harry Greb: http://youtube.com/watch?v=HMA6Pd6tT3Q

It is impossible to judge fighters with such limted film footage. All you have to go on is reputation, and that was determined by whoever wrote whatever piece that featured such fighters. There is no way you can actually give a propper analysis.

All you can do is say how well Hagler's reputation matches up against Greb's. Or how the footage we have of Hagler fighting matches up with the written accounts of Greb's fights.

If all I have to go on is the film I linked to previously, Hagler slaughters him. To be fair to Greb, I won't make a call on this one. He may have been better than that.

 

But if you check the guys record mate,that surley shows he was ****ing awesome,that is some bad footage,but so what really,he beat **** loads of top boys,and that is on his record,he therefore must have had something,maybe he was screwing about on that film,god knows.

 

A lot of old time fighters look that way on film. That is why Jimmy Jacobs argued with Cus D'mato about the way some old time fighters would do against fighters from more recent eras. Cus finally admitted Jacobs was right about the way pioneers would match up against modern fighters. Techniques keep evolving and get better through time. People correct the mistakes that people before them made.

I have always argued that if someone was good in another era, you should give them the benefit of the doubt. If they had the same conditioning knowledge, and had the same techniques available to learn; they could have a chance of being just as dominant in another era.

I also said that it would not be fair to Greb to make a choice against him in this fight.

Greb may have been able to defeat opponents of his era, but they may have all had unevolved techniques. He may have been the best with the techniques used in his day. There is too little footage of him to really tell.

 

Why were the fighters he faced so good? Because you have read that they were. Why is he condidered so good? You read that he was.

I said it is unfair to call against people like this. If you call for them, you are just going by legend.

Valuev's record is pretty good. Do you consider him an all time great. Oh, wait. You have filmed footage against the guys he's faced to downgrade them. What about Michalczewski? Oh yeah, more footage.

I think that Bigfoot takes Greb with no problems. You have about as much footage of Bigfoot on film to judge this.

 

fighters like loughran and tunney look pretty good on film and greb beat them,he must have been good at neutralising his opponents strengths,another who looks pretty good is mickey walker,i've got the fight report with greb and mickey takes a beating.stylistically from loughran to walker there is a huge difference and he bettered both.

 

But we know how good his opponents were because we have film of them.

Could Marvin Hagler beat Harry Greb?

Theoreticaly yes.

Could Marvin Hagler beat Gene Tunney?

Almost certainly not.

 

Okay guys. I'll go along with your thoughts. Styles don't make fights, records do. You don't need to see a fighter on film to be able to judge how they match up with another fighter. You can just say oh, Greb beat this guy so he can beat Marvin too. I read Greb can slip a south paw jab, must be so.

Foreman could easily handle Norton and Frazier, so he should be able to take Ali too.

Vargas got the decision over Wright in a close, but disputed fight. Trinidad was able to beat Vargas by Ko in a fight Trinidad was winning on points. Sounds like a competative match up to think about Trinidad vs. Wright.

Vargas had a close decision over Wright. Vargs lost in the eyes of many, but got the win. Vargas beat Ike Quartey. Quartey lost to Forrest, but most observers thought he won. Forrest and Wright have to convincing wins over Shane Mosley. Vargas should be favored over Mosley because Vargas' loss to De la Hoya is negated by his wins over Wright and Quartey.

If you judge soley on records, and not style match ups, these things sound perfectly logical.

When you have someone's record to compare with another's, you can compare how dominant each other were. You have to have video to really compare their styles. Why is that point not valid?

Greb may have been able to take Marvin, but you can't look at anything he has done and compare it to Hagler. You can read about what he's done, and compare. There is a difference.

If you can pick a fight that way so be it. I'll take Figg over Sullivan, Sullivan over Broughton. Mendoza can take them all.

 

There is no reason why you should not try to predict the outcom of Figg vs Sullivan or Mendoza vs Broughton provided you make it clear what asumptions your prediction rests on.

 

There are very very few middleweights I would pick over Hagler,but Greb would be one of them,by u dec.

 

Because the assumptions you base it on are written accounts. You can't see these people fight. So you are really debating legend vs. legend.

I think Robert Maynard would not have been able to outsword fight Edward Teach. I believe that Teach was distracted, and that was how Maynard cut him bad enought that he finally bled to death. Maynard was a tough guy, but not mean enough for Teach.