"Greb one of the truly great middles...his record at this weight below Fitz & Ketch."

This is interesting, it is form the Miami News, 1925. The opinion of this writer is that Greb is one of the greatest fighters that ever lived, but hasn't caught Fitz or Ketchel at the weight most modern observers seem to view as his best. This has become my way of thinking also. But I think this article also seems to indicate that these two are ranked higher p4p than Greb also?

There's other cool stuff, Ketchel-Johnson and Ketchel-Langford regarded as a fix, the huge regard for Ketchel's mw competition (I agree with this too) and Demspey's possible duck of Greb.

Anyway, here are some highlights:

"Greb must surely be listed as one of the truly great middleweights. His record at this poundage is below that of Bob Fitzsimmons. It is not quite so sensational as that of Stanley Ketchel. Yet it is but a little below either of those when al-around performances are considered.

Fitzsimmons stands alone. He was sometimes scarcely more than a middle, as the type is scaled today, when he whipped the best heavyweights of his period, bar one - Jeffries. And Fitz scaled but 168 in the last memorable battle between the two. That is but eight pounds more than Harry Greb weighted when he recently thrashed MIckey Walker.

Let it be added that Fiz whipped one of the greatest middleweight champins when he stopped Jack Dempsey, the nonpareil, in 13 rounds. Dempsey was on the down grade, 'tis true. But few who witnessed the Cornishman's display doubted he would have taken the wonderful Dempsey even in the latter's prime.

Undoubtedly second place must be afforded to Stanley Ketchel. This picturesque ring type defeated more talented middleweights than has Harry Greb, on reason being there were more of this brand to be found a few years back.

Greb excepting Jack Dillon and Bob Moha has never been called upon to face such as Joe Tomas, Billy Papke, Willlie Lewis, Hugo Kelly, Tony Caponi, Frank Klaus, Mike Sulivan - that is as middleweights. Nor has he turned in a performance quite as impressive as Ketchel's famous KO of Jack O'Brien.

Greb has shown more brilliantly against the heavies than did Ketchel. Ketchel fought but two realy big men - Jack Johnson and Sam Langford. And these may well be scratched for neither was strictly "on the level." Johnson admitted his affair with Ketchel was a "Frame."

As has been said, Greb did better against the big men than Ketchel. And while little more than a middleweight, he has been amazingly successful. He has whipped Tom Gibbons, Billy Miske, Bill Brennan, Willie Meehan, Bat Levinsky, Gunboat Smith, Charley Weinert, Bartley Madden and Gene Tunney.

Fitzsimmons alone has excelled Harry Greb's achievements in te matter of winning from bigger, stronger fellows. And Greb resembles Fitz in another way. Fitz fought and whipped a heavyweight champion (Corbett) for the championship. Greb was wiling to essay such a task but was never accorded the opportunity. He repeatedly challenged Dempsey, but the latter passed the offer up...Willie Meehan twicce obtained decisions over Dempsey in four round bouts. Meehan was a clown though Dempsey never saw anything funny about him. Meehan was too much of a puzzle to afford any good humour to Jack.

Greb's style would have been just the tactics to confuse Dempsey. Harry's is the most unregulation technique the ring has ever witnessed. He shoots blows from any and all angles.

Greb is one of the real marvels of the ring. No doubt about that."

 

Certainly on my list, a lock in fact.

I think it's interesting that in 1925 a major newspaper would publish a contrary opinion though. Of course, this guy could just be a bit of a header. Some nice work overall though.

 

Nah, Seaums, it's not "just an opinion piece", or it is and it isn't, but that's never really true of 1920's journalism which was usually extremely conservative. This would have gone through two desks at least, sports and editorial I guess and both would have ok'd it. No way to know who they were though. Could have been experts or known absolutely **** all. But. This isn't just one guys opinion, it was passed by other people before it hit print.

Not that this makes it necessarily more or less valid, but this wasn't an internet editorial policy where maybe a guy does not even look at the article before it goes up.

 

Miami News.

I think the proof is in the pudding personally. I have a more extended version of it here but even in the bits i've posted you can see he knows the sport, whose who, who was who back then. He knows some details of some fights that leads me to believe he knows his stuff a little bit.

Could be that he just nicked it all though.

 

It depends upon your definition of major I suppose.

From Wiki:

"During the Florida land boom of the 1920s, The Miami Herald was the largest newspaper in the world as measured by lines of advertising."