Greb vs Louis. What type of chance does Greb have?

1. I didn't mean to imply Greb wasn't consistent. He obviously was. My point was only that he he was not as consistent as Conn was (and I meant after Conn reached his 18th birthday).

2. Some seem to think I am trying to trash Greb. I would rate him in the top five p4p fighters (higher than Conn for certain) and I would agree that one could make a strong case for Greb as the #1 p4p fighter.

3. I just think the bigger Conn was better at heavyweight and taking on the 27 year old ATG Louis, giving away 25 pounds, and doing as well as he did is really an amazing feat. Had he held on to win, it would have been the most impressive win of the 20th century, in my judgement. I think it a slight stretch to think the 165 lb Greb could have done as well. I don't think think Tunney and Gibbons and the rest of Greb's "big man" resume were really in the same class as the 27 year old, 200 lb Louis.


**Just as an aside--I have no idea where that post #90 came from or what it is about. Is it a computer glitch?

 

Let me remind you OF that Billy Conn weighed 168 pounds for the Louis bout..So if Greb would weigh 165 pounds, and as you state, was a superior fighter alltime, why would not Greb do as well or better ?
Logic dictates so, I believe...

 

This is certainly a strongly argued and passionate post with many solid points. I disagree with some of them, though.

1. Conn-Bettina fight-----The film shows Conn winning, in my judgement. He stabs Bettina silly when the two are at a distance. When Bettina gets in close, Conn show a very good inside left hook to the body. I just don't think this unanimous decision is very controversial. Bettina was awkward, and probably difficult to fight, but his mauling didn't look all that effective.

2. Conn had achived more at 24--He had fought 11 champions and defeated 10 of them. The 11th was a 27 year old prime Joe Louis whom he gave a terrific fight and seemed like a possible winner despite giving away 25 pounds. Conn's career all but ended at this point, but yes, he had done better than Greb to this age, or to put it another way, I don't see Greb matching this performance at the same age.

3. 2nd Tunney fight--"The second fight was called by the vast majority of people who witnessed it a terrible robbery, and one of the worst in NY history, etc, etc-----Vast Majority? Tunney recieved a five minute standing ovation from the "majority" who witnessed the fight---

New York Times, Feb 24, 1923:

"There verdict was greeted with a demonstration of mingled acclaim and disapproval by the great crowd which witnessed the struggle. The admirers of Tunney, in an overwhelming majority, rocked the garden with their cheers. Grebs admirers, however, made themselves heard in the outburst with a forceful demonstration of disapproval."

"Greb was not even accorded the reception that usually greets defeated champions when they leave the ring. He was booed by the partisan crowd, while Tunney stood in the ring amid the thunderous acclaim of his admirers, who gave themselves over to an outburst which lasted for fully five minutes."

Off this, fans of Tunney thought Tunney won. Fans of Greb thought Greb won. But Tunney had by far the majority of the fans in the 15,000 in attendance.

What about the experts?

New York Times, Feb 24, 1923:

"The majority of ringside critics approved the decision. However, they were not undivided. Like the spectators, the critics were not unanimous. While the majority thought the decision justified, there were several who expressed disapproval."

Jack Cavanaugh in his bio of Tunney:

"Of the writers surveyed by the New York Tribune, four voted for Greb while the same number had Tunney ahead at the end. Five others scored the bout a draw."

Cavanaugh quotes Regis Welch of the Pittsburgh Post, that Tunney had been "the beneficiary of the most high-handed robbery ever seen anywhere in the fistic world."

Cavanaugh also quotes the respected Hype Igoe of the New York World who agreed with the decision--"Discounting Greb's rough-housing, his eternal clinching, the butting and holding, the clear work, straight hitting and honest fighting was done by Tunney."

**My take--hardly a terrible decision. It seems to have been a very close fight which could have been scored either way. There is no reason to think it was clearly a Greb victory. As for the "vast majority", they seem to have thought Tunney won, but, in fairness, they were Tunney partisans.

 

Oh, come on! That would be as silly as knocking Langford, Greb and Frazier for losing when they were blind in one eye!

 

Fair enough point.

By the way, do we have any MEDICAL knowledge of when Greb's eye went out?



*I have to leave for several days. I will check this thread when I come back next Wednesday or Thursday, to see if anyone carried it on.

 

His confidential medical records would make for fascinating reading. What we do have is this:

http://www.harrygreb.com/blind_eye_chronology.html

My preference is to go back to before his vision may have been compromised. If sight had been an issue during WW I, he would have been rejected for Navy service.

See you when you get back!

 

Why people insist on quoting the NY Times as the be all and end all paper for that era is beyond me.

All of these decisions were rendered by papers directly from ringside, not wire reports:

NY Morning Telegraph: Greb won 10 of 15 rounds
NY Evening Mail: "Decision depriving Greb of LHW Crown Calls for Sweeping Inquiry"
Newark Star Eagle: Gave Tunney only the 14th round
Newark Evening News: Greb gave Tunney as bad a beating as the first fight, it was one of the worst decisions handed out since the Walker Law
Jersey Journal: The only round Tunney won decisively was the 14th.
Standard Union:After weird decision Tunney is LHW Champion: Judges decide against Greb who had lead on points
NY Sun: Gave Tunney the fight because Tunney scored more points yet then states that Greb scored more points but that the writer took points away because Greb clinched too often...
The NY Evening Telegram: Gave the fight to Tunney
NY American: gave it to Tunney
NY Times: gave it to Tunney
NY Evening World: Scored it a Draw and added that Tunney did not deserve the victory despite the writer stating he was a great admirer of Tunneys
NY Tribune: called it a draw stating the decision met with much disapproval, writing for the same paper Grantland Rice called it a poor decision
NY Herald: Gave it to Greb, another writer for the paper called it a draw
Evening Journal: Gave it to Greb
Evening Mail: Gave it to Greb
Philly Ledger: Gave it to Greb
NY Daily News: Stated a draw would have been a better decision.
Pittsburgh Post: Gave Tunney only two rounds.
Pittsburgh Gazette Times: Gave it to Greb
Pittsburgh Press: Gave it Greb

Bill Muldoon chairman of the NYSAC stated it was a bad decision.

Thats 4 votes for Tunney, 15 votes for Greb, and 4 votes for a draw. So in essence 19 of 23 ringside opinions listed above believed Greb should not have left the ring without his crown. Thats pretty overwhelming particularly considering the strong words used in most of those articles saying things like "robbery" and calling for an investigation, etc. Lets also keep in mind that this was Tunney's hometown and the majority of those papers were hometown papers for Tunney.

Most reports state that when the decision was announced the audience sat stunned and a low murmur was heard throughout, confused by the decision. This was evident even among sections rooting for Tunney. It wasnt until after Greb left the ring and Tunney started out of the ring that he was given his ovation and the paper states this was given to him by his fans, not the entire audience, many of which hooted, hissed, and shouted robbery.

Here is a direct quote from Tunney on the decision: "Realizing there was some justice in Greb's claim of a bad decision, I offered him a return engagement." -Gene Tunney, A Man Must Fight, P. 162

Tunney is being a bit generous here about "giving" Greb a rematch. Greb went to the NYSAC the following day and filed a formal challenge binding it with a substantial foreit.

I also have the poll that Cavanaugh is referring to and either he is lying or is confused because of the people polled 5 gave the fight to Greb, 3 gave it to Tunney, and 4 voted it a draw. So thats some nice spin but once again even by Cavanaughs flawed poll you can see that 9 out of 12 people polled thought Greb should have left with his title.


As for Greb's tactics, a majority of those papers who voted for him state that Tunney was every bit as dirty as Greb. His chief offenses being low blows, clinching, and wrestling.

 

not much of a chance, louis would dispose of him quickly

 

The man could be a thug, hardly a clean Gene. (Some of this may well have been picked up from the first tangle with Greb.) Tunney won the heavyweight title by "out Dempseying Dempsey" as Graham McNamee phrased it from his broadcast position, and he brutalized Heeney on the inside. Dempsey admired Louis for being more of a gentleman in the ring than he himself ever was, but Joe was perfectly capable of a retaliatory raking of the laces when provoked. (There's a lovely still photograph of Louis doing exactly that, probably against Galento.) If you want a choir boy heavyweight champion, you can have Patterson.

 

Wow...outstanding post. If only someone had had this kind of info spelled out so clearly BEFORE the "Tunney had Greb's number after their first bout" myth started.

 

Add another to that list, Clay Moyle was just kind enough to send me Clarence Gillespies ringside account of the fight written for Boxing Blade. He felt Greb won as well. Make the tally: 4 Tunney, 16 Greb, 4 a draw. So in short four times more ringsideres polled had the bout for Greb and 20 of 24 felt he at least should have retained his title. If that isnt overwhelming I dont know what is. Even in this day and age with watered down media and robbery cries nearly every week you dont see that kind of division one way or the other unless its a pretty damn rotten decision. We arent talking a one or two round swing here like Martinez-Williams...

 

I heard that Dan Lyohe of NY Globe and Hype Igoe of NY Morning World scored for Tunney as well.

 

add this as well: The earlier verdict of ten rounds for Greb quoted from the NY Morning Telegraph was from Sam Taub, James Sinnot, writing for the same paper also gave it to Greb by a margin of 8 rnds Greb, 5 Tunney, and 2 even. He added that a draw would have been an injustice. Joe Lynch, then bantamweight champion, interviewed by the Sun felt Greb won it.

The bout is listed on Boxrec as a Unanimous Decision but this was not officially announced as in those days generally only the winner was announced. Two days after the fight the New York Tribune wrote that the decision had been a split decision with 2 votes for Tunney and 1 for Greb.

So now our tally is (excluding Joe Lynch and one of the judges): 6 for Tunney, 17 for Greb, and 4 a draw. or 21 of 27 (77%) who felt Greb should have kept his crown. More than three fourths of some of the most respected boxing minds in the country (that we know witnessed the fight) felt Tunney DID NOT deserve the decision.

 

I gotta say, these threads are the best on the whole god damn internet. Pure gold.

From watching the Conn-Louis fight, Louis gets tagged increasingly more as the fight progresses, and at times is made to look very ordinary. Now obviously Conn and Greb had opposite styles, but I do wonder if Louis can hold off against all action, bullet proof Harry Greb and finish him like he did Conn. Louis is quite flustered by Conn's shot's getting through, it seems to be setting him off balance and off rhythm. Something Greb was an expert at doing remember.

Greb was tougher than Conn, and had more ring smarts.

Greb most certainly does not have zero chance I feel.

 

And lest we forget..Tunney had about 7-8 pounds on the smaller and past peak
Harry Greb.And one extra eye to boot..
Greb was just ASTOUNDING...