FANTASY FIGHT: Harry Greb vs Joe Calzaghe (15 Rounds/Poll)

Perhaps, but they are the exception, not the rule. On average, more modern boxers are more skilled.

B-Hop was very skilled.

I agree, but how can I do that if we have no footage of Greb fighting ??!
All we have is descriptions which to me mean very little. I have nothing to go by.

 

Tunney boxed with low hands with his chin in the air. Calzaghe wouldn't be able to miss him and would absolutely school him, at the minimum 8-4, probably wider. A Joe with good hands (rare) stops him.

 

Tunney only lost 1 fight in his career. I'm no Tunney fan boy, but saying Calzaghe Schools him is nonsense. I guess Joe schools Ali who kept his left hand low.

 

Fighters back in the day honed their skills during the fifty to a hundred fights they had back then.
Now you can be a champion in just a handful of fights therefore it is common sense to assume the old fighters absorbed so much more knowledge during their careers compared to modern fighters.This convinces me that the old fighters were far more skillful than todays and in my opinion its not even close
Regarding the lack of footge of Greb i suggest you do your research and read up on him,then get back to me

 

BHOPs was one of the best combinations of skill and tactics ever in boxing. What's your point? Do you think Greb boxed anyone as skilled

 

BHop, whom I'm no fan of, is often cited as a throwback type fighter, subtle moves in Defence & Neutralising an Opponent... for me he was too much of a Spoiler, so chuck in a little more 'Controlled Aggression' then you've got the Old Fighters.

You DON'T Need Film of any fighter when you got Film of Plenty Others,
some of which are Greb's very opponents.

Any Fighter's Record says more than enough, especially if they were beating or even losing close & competitive battles against those they were Fighting that were Filmed, or even better, Fighters that weren't quite as good as them, Greb or others, fighters that weren't quite as good as them Filmed too and don't look too bad.

There IS PLENTY of Good & Great comparable Film Footage to realistically get a feel on damn near all fighters from the 1920s and beyond.

Lastly, and it should be an Automatic Understanding for most people - A lot of Old footage isn't Right, in fact it's Crap... but thank God there is enough Old Bits & Bites showing these old Fighters looking No Diff than fighters today, except of course, they, the old fighters did it a 100 times or more.

late 30s & 1940 here... NO Diff to todays fighters.

This content is protected

 

Not enough credit is given to Joe for his wins over Roy and Bernard. Hopkins was a young 43 who went on to beat Pavlik, Pascal, Jones, Cloud and Murat after losing to Joe. Jones was coming off a solid win over Trinidad that same year and went on to beat Sheika and Lacy after losing to Joe. Calzaghe himself was 36 when he fought them, not exactly prime himself.

Now how does Joe stack up against Greb? Greb's best wins include Tunney, Flowers, Gibbons, Loughran, Miske, Brennan, Levinsky, Walker, McTigue, Norfolk, Wilson, Rosenbloom and several others.

I find it hard to believe Joe could show Greb anything he hadn't already seen in the fighters he defeated. Question is, in which era to they fight? Modern day rules where Greb's excessive clinching and rough tactics wouldn't be tolerated and perhaps penalized? Or Greb's era of gritty, grinding, gouging fights where almost anything goes? Joe handled Hopkins dirty tactics quite well. I suspect Joe thrives more in the Greb era than Harry would in the modern era. I would not want to put money on this fight.

 

Tunney only boxed at world level for 5 years while drawing the color line and then he quit. He was very good for his time but he was protected and boxing developed to a higher level after the 1920s. His key wins are a much smaller Greb and Loughran he had 10lbs on and Dempsey who was innacitive. Only decent guy he beat that was prime and the same size was Gibbons. All good wins granted but I don't know how people can claim Calzaghe didn't fight all comers when you compare him to Tunney of all people

Ali would have problems with some boxers because of his low hands and it's why Frazier beat him

 

I just saw a video where Joe admits having to lose 38 pounds for the Kessler fight. He deliberately starved himself to avoid fighting in a reasonable division i.e. LHW or CW. He was a lifetime weight bully. So yes, it's a valid argument that he didn't fight all comers.

 

Of course they’re exceptions.


He was skilled, but he spoiled a lot at that stage too.

Did Greb not fight better, more skilled guys overall?


That’s fine.

There’s numerous respected sources of how Greb fought, but I get what you’re saying.


I haven’t got an issue with anyone picking Joe.

My only issue, would be if they’d just automatically have picked him, just solely on the grounds that he was the more modern fighter.

 

Greb fought a number of technically skilled fighters.

 

Roy hadn’t had a top level win in 5 years.

Before they fought, Joe had labelled Roy as being a shot fighter, even saying that fighting him would be pointless.


Tito hadn’t fought in around 3 years, and he struggled to make their catch-weight, which was set at LHW.

Sheika was a low level fighter, and Lacy was completely shot at that point.


Roy could only beat low level fighters at that stage.

He was no longer a world level fighter.

Just a year after fighting Joe, he went on his second 3 fight losing streak.


Joe deserves zero credit for having fought Roy. And especially as he wouldn’t fight him when he was still great.

 

He quite often came down from 196-200 pounds to 168.


He should have been at LHW years ago.


I’ve pointed this out numerous times.

I then get labelled as being a hater.

 

Nevertheless Roy put Joe down in the opening round.

 

He did.

But it was a mistimed shot.