Greb beat better fighters than Robinson!

I disagree. What else is new?

 

Charles beat Archie Moore 3x, Charley Burley 2x, Jersey Joe Walcott 2x, Jimmy Bivins 4x, Lloyd Marshall 2x, Joey Maxim 5x, Joe Louis, Elmer Ray, Teddy Yarosz, Rex Layne 2x, Bob Satterfield. I think that is better.


Look lets be real here, Charles opponents on film look better than grebs opponents. Much more modernly developed boxing styles, better techniques, they just plain LOOK better on film.

 

Charles was a naturally bigger guy so he is EXPECTED to be more competetive against heavyweights. How many heavyweights knocked Greb out?:nono

 

Not until after his wife died. :nono

 

How many heavyweight punchers did greb take on? Zero. He never got in the ring with the big heavyweights of his era who could punch like Wills, Firpo, Willard, Mcvea, Godfrey, Fulton, Morris, etc. He is untested. Charles fought some of the better punchers of his era that also had size like Nino Valdez, Joe Louis, Colley Wallace, Rex Layne, Johnny Haynes and took there best punches.

 

REALLY??? He never fought a heavyweight who could punch? I seem to recall him not losing a single round in FOUR fights against 200+ pound KNOCKOUT Bill Brennan. He fought Miske 3 times without ever going down. He fought Gibbons in 1922 when Gibbons was knocking out every heavyweight he met and had something like 21 KOs in his 22 previous fights. He fought Tunney five times without once going down yet Tunney was able to drop Dempsey, and knockout Gibbons, Carp, Heeney, Spalla etc. I could go on but the idea that greb never faced a puncher at HW is ridiculous. And if you want to take one step further Charles has about a third as many fights as Greb yet a hell of a lot more losses, official or otherwise, despite fighting competition that was nowhere near as good as Greb's. Its rivisionist history for people who think Charles was P4P. He wasnt. He was boring and much of his current standing is due to the recent belief that Burley was the greatest thing since sliced bread and Charles beat him. Ask any old timer in Pittsburgh who was better and I can almost promise you that they wont say Burley was better than Greb... Charles definately wasnt.

And for the record Greb tried to fight Firpo but Firpos people wanted none of him. They knew Firpo would get outboxed easily. Morris??? He was a nobody by the time Greb was big. Godfrey couldnt get fights with anyone during Greb's career and was known primarily as a sparring partner. Willard was one of Greb's biggest fans and said often that Greb was the only man who could have beaten Dempsey during his reign. This is all academic though considering of the heavyweights you listed on Charles resume that he beat only one is in the Hall. Several that Greb beat are not only in the Hall but considered great. Finally, Dempsey, the supposed man-killer wanted no part of Greb a guy he outweighed by nearly 30 pounds who couldnt punch. That says enough for me.

 

Since when is not getting knocked out the criterion, though? Charles fought much better hitters and i think SuzieQ has a point when he states Ezzard's great wins.

Greb's win over Tunney is fantastic, no doubt, but let's not forget that Tunney beat him also, in fact he beat him more often and won the series.

 

Tunney did not beat Greb more often. Greb won the first, won the second but was robbed and nearly every paper in New York (Tunneys hometown) covering the fight said so, he lost the third, won the fourth and lost the fifth. Furthermore, the point is that Charles was a natural light heavy/heavy, he was supposed to be more competetive with the big guys. Greb was a natural middleweight who turned pro just above the lightweight limit. Ezzard Charles turned pro weighing TWENTY pounds more than Greb. The fact that Greb was competetive with and dominant over the best of his era in three divisions DESPITE ONLY BEING A MIDDLEWEIGHT gives him extra points. Furthermore, as stated above, Charles had less fights over a much longer career against lesser competition and still posts a less impressive record than Greb. The heavyweight champion of the world was less dominant over Greb's opposition than Greb was for god sakes and refused to fight him despite having supported eliminations bout between Greb and several people. As I said, thats enough for me.

 

Well he officially lost only one, perhaps two but i've also seen reports that thought the Tunney victory in their second bout was just; at any rate it was close. The same thing goes to the forth, which you just as blindly hand to Greb. Tunney won 3-1-1. Maybe one of those draws or wins could be reversed, but two would seem a bit unfair considering both were close fights.

So, he has a losing record vs Tunney. As for Charles being larger and supposed to be more competitive with the big guys: he was. He beat much better heavyweights than Greb and had to deal with much better opponents in general. Not just because gloved boxing was much better developed by that time, but also because the heavyweight division was much, much deeper. In Greb's day, half of the heavyweight contenders were lightheavyweights.

And yes, Greb had more fights, but most of those were against opposition that had no business with him in the ring. I understand that that's how things went in pre-televised boxing, but at the same time i hardly think he should rank higher than Charles because he beat up on 80 more cab drivers and firemen.

Greb may have performed better against the opposition around than did the heavyweight champion, but Charles WAS the HW champion! Can't really blame Greb for being ducked by Dempsey (though the color line supporters here have a lot of sympathy for it), but in the end, he didn't prove being HW champ while Charles did.

 

"The same thing goes to the forth, which you just as blindly hand to Greb."

Ok, where are your sources for the decision in the fourth bout?

"Tunney won 3-1-1. Maybe one of those draws or wins could be reversed, but two would seem a bit unfair considering both were close fights."

Not nearly as unfair as getting robbed in a concensus victory.

"And yes, Greb had more fights, but most of those were against opposition t"hat had no business with him in the ring. I understand that that's how things went in pre-televised boxing, but at the same time i hardly think he should rank higher than Charles because he beat up on 80 more cab drivers and firemen. "

Really? What a distorted view you have considering Greb has nearly half as many fights against champions and hall of famers than Charles has fights and thats not even including fights against stellar contenders such as Jeff Smith, Bob Moha, Jackie Clarke, Jimmy Delaney, Kid Norfolk, Jack Renault, Billy Miske, Bill Brennan, Leo Houck, Kid Graves, Eddie McGoorty, Gunboat Smith, Augie Ratner, and many MANY more. If you added up the fights Greb had against champions, HOFers, and legit top ten or top five contenders you would find he had more fights against those men than Charles had in his whole career EASILY. Your argument is ignorent and makes you look so. There is a reason Greb is consistently rated in the top 1, 2, or 3 P4P and Charles isnt.

 

Suddenly McGoorty and Smith are "STELLAR" HOF's..

They didn't sound like anything creditable whilst debating Les Darcy...

Back to you, Mr. Klomps....

 

I didnt say either were hall of famers, I said they were stellar contenders which they were and considering even the Australians at the time admitted McGoorty threw his first fight with Darcy for gambling reasons and Jeff Smith technically knocked Darcy out in their first fight and was criminally DQd for no reason at all by Darcy's promoters brother in the second Id say your argument is a bit flimsy. Its kind of sad that the only thing you can do is bring factually inaccurate, starry eyed arguments about Darcy into every thread. A guy who was beaten by a welterweight (Holland), knocked out by a bodyshot from a smallish middleweight (Smith) got a gift decision against a face first slugger in KO Brown, and had his management fix his fight with Buck Crouse who he shouldnt have had much trouble with to begin with. Darcy wasnt unbeatable and that fact would have been proven had he gotten a chance to not fight in his own backyard with EVERY advantage behind him. Guess he shouldnt have slipped away like a thief in the night. Maybe if he had actually tried to serve his country his life may have been different... and longer.

 

In fairness, Darcy is a dark horse candidate for top 10 middleweight of all time, and certainly could make a top 20 list, based on his domination of the class prior to his premature death. So there's no shame in that, really.