Compare Robinson and Grebs resumes.

Robinson was superior at welterweight than middleweight. Robinson was THE best welterweight of all time. As a middleweight, though, he wasn't as consistant at the weight as Greb. Greb fought from middleweight to heavyweight, but for the majority of his career he was dominating the middleweight division. Robinson cant quite say the same. At middleweight, Greb is the man. P4P Greb still is arguably better than Robinson, for he defeated Tunney and never did get a shot at Jack Dempsey for the HW title. Robinson failed to take the title from Maxim.

 

1. What do you mean Walcott wasnt as good as Tunney? He looks to have better skills and more tricks on film, plus he was prime, Tunney was likely pre-prime and inexperienced against the best. Charles was giving up 14lbs against Walcott, Greb gave up 7-13lbs against Tunney. How exactly did Charles give up greater weight

Ray we cant see on film, but he beat Walcott, and had 20lbs of ripped muscle on Charles :deal

2. Fair play pretty much SDs, I wonder if a white high volume fighter in those times got more favour?

3. I can only work with what I've read, if you have other reports post them

4. Yes but newspapers dont necessarily have more knowledge than fans, they might actually have less knowledge. Thats the problem with the sources and not being able to see the fights.

5. The bottom line is Charles opponents look better on film and by quite a margin. Not just in terms of them being devastating punchers, but in terms of movement, defense, speed.

6. No, just that Charles was further past prime post Walcott than Greb every became

 

Thats wh yFrazier was so crap, who knows the extent of Grebs injuries but it wasnt full on blindness in 1 eye. Who knows what injuries his lesser publisised opponents had?

 

If older opponents like the Gibbons brothers had equal or worse injuries it levels the playing field. Same with Fields who had near the same number of fights. Who knows if their hands were shot, they had more brain damage, eye damage etc etc

 

To RicardoParker, who wanted some info on the Greb-Tunney fights;

Quotes from The Fearless Harry Greb, itself with multiple citations and is only drawn from newspaper reports.

'Greb landed a powerful left hook directly onto Tunneys nose, instantly drawing blood. It was only seconds into the fight and Greb already had Tunney bleeding. The punch was said to have broken Tunney's nose in two places, and the blood would continue to pour for the rest of the contest'.

Pre-prime Tunney or not, Greb had one eye.

They fought again. The 2nd fight was supposed to have been in Grebs favour also. The New York Herald (Tunney was considered a 'New York fighter') wrote that the decision was 'probably the most outrageous decision ever rendered in New York' . Chicago Tribune supposed that 'most of the fans seemed to be of the opinion that that a draw would have been more equitable', but the Chairman of the New York State Athletic Commission, which were thought by Greb to be pro-Tunney before the bout as they were eager to tell Greb what he could and couldn't do within the rules, said 'I thought Greb should have received the decision after his determined fight'. A close fight, as they all seemed to be, I don't feel either 'got the better' of their series but that Greb did the biggest number either did on each other over the five fights.

I also feel Greb may get underrated for his punching power. we all know with Greb he would just outpunch you (more than one opponent described him as like 'fighting a gloved octopus') but Mickey Walker claimed a shot in the 14th round in his fight with Greb:
'i saw his right hand coming....I raised my left shoulder to protect my chin, confident I could block the blow. But somehow, it slipped past and landed high on my jaw, I was knocked ragtime, not off my feet, but I was silly'. He also claimed the punch 'had me on ***** street for a half hour after the fight'.

 

Pretty much, how do you know they didnt have worse injuries when you know little about them, other than they had just as had schedules as Greb and supposedy werent as good, so they should by law of averages have similar or worse injuries, not to mention other less successful opponents simply starving due to the poor economic climate and lesser earnings

Langford was blind for plenty of his fights too, Frazier too, but most opponents dont have the same level of attention of these men, so obviously they are all in perfect condition? BS

Fans of old timers really arent friends with maths and logic

 

I'm glad I decided to call that one off. Dude is on some other ****.

 

So what are you saying exactly? That we know more of the fighters in the era before Greb and Fraziers era, or less? and why? Clutching at straws?

This argument aside I could actually really do with your insight on a thread I started as you're good with conditioning. I think you could really help out:good

As could anyone. Its a theory thats been done before no doubt, but hopefully the main question posed will create some interesting debate and odd occurences.

 

You give Greb the benefit of the doubt, yet not his opponents you know nothing about, I'd say thats unfair. We know Miske was dying Im not sure how advanced his disease was. Who knows what other fighters with lesser defensive ability had wrong with them, it is fair to say a fighter with lesser defensive ability will pick up more damage is it not? For all you know Greb may have been BS'ing about his eye injury or the extent of it. Your making an example of Grebs injury without researching what injuries his opponents may have had, fair, I dont think so

BTW watched the new star treck that was supposed to be decent, BS, not recommended

 

PowerPuncher, although you love a heated argument, your weird references to Star Trek and that are out of character. Are you having a breakdown?