Harry Greb vs. Ray Robinson

There are two things relevant to this thread that I don't believe:

1. that Greb was unstoppable.
2. that Klompton understands the rudiments of effective argument.

This paragraph is poor. First of all, I stated an opinion based on evidence that working Greb's body can be effective. Benny Leonard saw it and stated it. Tunney performed better against Greb when he went downstairs more. Loughren got a win with the help of the same tactic. That's good enough for me.

Then you have a problem with my "equating" that with Robinson. Robinson was a murderous body puncher and went downstairs very well. If you think that such things wouldn't be a factor then you are engaging in blind hero-worship and should go take a nap.

Dismissing Robinson as one "who couldn't even defeat a very featherfisted LHW in Maxim" screams a lack of knowledge about the fight and about Maxim.

Greb was still developing in his 80th professional fight? I'd bet that you can explain away every one of Greb's losses (---with increasing drama and flimsiness).

What? You are new out here so I will try to patient with you. When analyzing what would happen, you look at strengths, weaknesses, and styles among other factors. You don't look at it narrowly... like "Greb beat Tunney handily the first time out, therefore he would beat the Ray Robinson who beat LaMotta". That is overly-simplified enough to be worthless. It is also an invalid "if/than" argument.

Looking at what worked or seemed to work against Greb is what you want to do and then consider the opponents tendencies in the ring and effectiveness with those hints.

Arguments like these are not "silly"... you may disagree, but to dismiss them outright with a bad retort like this tells me that you are starting from an assumption.

Thank you for filling in the blanks. So for the record, Greb went 0-1 against O'Dowd with mitigaing factors preventing his avenging the loss.

I don't think so. You totally misunderstand the importance of keeping an open mind and avoiding beginning an analysis on a preceding assumption. In fact, I think it is becoming very clear that your assumption is the following: Greb was God and therefore omnipotent.

Hero-worship.
And distortions. Who the hell said "he just stood and took unnecessary punishment"? Who the hell said that "he gets hit all the time"?

Do tell... if it is "debatable and not a definite" that Robinson was faster than Greb then why do you "totally disagree that Robinson was faster than Greb"?

Do tell.

Hero worship.

And still more distortions. Who the hell said that "Greb never faced any guys who were fast"?

No, I didn't. It was said by someone else, and I qualified it.

Hero-worship.
And there are more fallacious arguments here than I can keep track of. Your argument against Robinson is just plain silly. Here it is, boiled down to its inherent nonsense:

"Robinson couldn't beat Maxim, and Greb was beating bigger guys all the time, therefore Robinson couldn't beat Greb."

Tell me, did I spin that?

To say that Maxim was a poor LHW is off the wall. And by the way, Robinson wasn't 'in his prime' against Maxim.

To say that Robinson would give Greb nothing he didn't see before is outlandish. Robinson was the most complete fighter ever seen on film according to the overwhelming majority of fighters, trainers, analysts, and historians in the sport. You have a very romantic view of Greb taking on 'Robinson equivalents' throughout his career. And you are not just wrong, you are incredibly wrong.

You not only overstate your case against the consensus choice of the greatest boxer who ever lived --you do so with scant film of Greb or his conquests.

 

Your right. Greb would have been destroyed in one round by a beefed up welterweight despite his record of fighting the greatest fighters from welterweight to heavyweight across two or three generations while rarely losing a round much less a decision... :nut

"I take exception with your statement that Maxim was a 'relatively poor' light heavyweight...I cannot fathom how a person who studies boxing history can make an assessment like that considering Maxim fought among others; Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott, Jimmy Bivins,Willie Pastrano, Floyd Patterson, Lloyd Marshall, Gus Lesnevich, Freddie Mills, Eddie Machen, Curtis Sheppard, Nate Bolden...."

He was a poor champion, a weak champion, and of the thirteen fighters you listed that he fought he lost all of his fights to Charles, Moore, Pastrano, and Machen, two of three to Walcott, 1 of two to Bivins, his lone fight to Marshall and one of three to Sheppard (who wasnt exactly a great fighter anyway). Its my opinion that Patterson was robbed against Maxim but if you are impressed in a 100+ fight veteran former champ winning a close decision over a 13 fight prospect that says more about what impresses you than Maxim's relative ability. As for Mills and Lesnevich it was their last and second to last fights respectively and both fighters were ringworn and over the hill. I know a lot more about Maxim than you give me credit for and Im not impressed by him.

Oh and by the way Stone, as far as me being "new here" is concerned. I was writing articles for this website back in 2000 when it was still in its infancy and quit because back then it was a eurocentric pro-klitchko propaganda site. I wrote an article detailing Klitchkos loss to Ross Purity because at the time most people in the United States hadnt seen that fight. The editor at the time didnt want to publish it because he took offense to an article showing a european fighter in a bad light and I refused to write for them anymore. Furthermore, look at my join date and look at yours. Just because I dont post often doesnt mean Im new here. Another example of you writing before checking your facts...

 

It sure is ...because you are telling us about news accounts that were written by someone else. And since it is painfully clear that you began from a parti pris, you are anything but a reliable source to begin with.

Referee stated he would have ruled a draw;
Lima News (AP) called it a draw, but reported that many ringsiders, including those from Pittsburgh thought Tunney had the edge;
Lincoln State Journal stated majority of ringside reporters had it a draw;
Zanesville Signal (INS wire) gave edge to Greb 5-4-1; Oakland Tribune said majority thought it a draw, although Tunney "possibly entitled to the shade";
Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune (United News wire) said newspapermen gave Greb "all but the tenth round"​

--that's right off of boxrec, Klompton. Or did they "pay off the ref"? Your credibility is sinking like lead, so please consider recusing yourself.

I think I'll leave the rest of this post to simmer in its own poorly prepared stew.

 

I think these guys could split a few if they fought 5 times but I rate a prime Greb above Robinson in a close close 1

 

None of the reports you list from Boxrec are from a ringside source. Period! Now who is quoting heresay. Wire reports, as all of those are and clearly state (INS wire, AP wire, United News wire) were notoriously faulty in those days and more often than not originated from one of the managers of the participating fighters. Or did you not know that? thats the problem with Boxrec, anyon can buy a subscription to newspaper.com or ancestry.com and read wire reports all day long. It takes a little effort to actually track down papers originating from named ringside reporters in the town where the fight took place. Maybe you should get out of your armchair, try to do some detective work, and actually post the three ringside accounts from Cleveland. You wont because that takes work and would sink your little theory that the Cleveland fight was a draw. Its easier for you to quote people as lazy as you and not upset the apple cart by stating something that might go against accepted boxing folklore.

 

... I forgot, if Klompton doesn't report it, it ain't true.

Your bias has crucified your credibility.

 

Tell me, do you use emoticons in your upcoming book?

...and you continue to distort the record. Where did I say that Greb would have been destroyed in one round? I clearly stated that I'd favor Robinson -slightly.

Please inform me when/if your book is published, so I can be sure not to buy it.

Thank you for the correction. If you remember, my statement about your being new was followed by an expressed willingness to be patient with the myriad deficiencies in your argument. Now I won't be.

I also see that you are hypocrite. Accusing this site of eurocentrism and propaganda is raising many eyebrows right now from many who read your literary fellation of Harry Greb.

Feel free to send me copies of the article you wrote on Klitschko. I'd be happy to publically shred that too.

(...It may have helped your credibility if you knew how to spell Klitschko's name. Now run along before you get klompt* again.)



* klompt: (v) to expose the flimsy arguments of biased, hero-worshipping hypocrites who should be chased out of ESB for purposes of quality control.

 

Although I may favor Robinson in the rematch, I think the initial fight would most likely lead to a Greb win with his previously stated "shock and awe" strategy. Stonehands you effectively do point out the factors necessary to deal with Greb, straight right hands, and a body attack. Due to Robinson's abilities all around he would of course have great skill in both, but judging by the way Robinson fought I don't know if he could initially identify these as the key factors to slowing Greb down. In a rematch Robinson may very well beat Greb but in the initial fight I see him dealing with Greb as he did with most come forward pressure fighters. Moving, sticking out his great jab, timing those incredible combinations at mid range, and throwing those LONG right hooks to the body. The problem is that this is a horrible way to fight Greb. Greb was affected most by short hooking shots to the chest and straight right hands as he entered range. Robinson would most likely be trying to keep him off with his jab and movement or trying to time those short mid-range punches as Greb came in. I see this giving Greb the advantage as none of these techniques specifically gave him trouble. I say he gets inside and overwhelms Robinson with his speed and strength. In a rematch however, I can see Robinson changing his style to maybe adapt and beat Greb. Essentially, I believe Robinson does have the tools to MAYBE beat Greb, again Robinson is fighting Greb at middle weight not light heavy, but on the initial match I'm not quite sure he would use them correctly.

 

It was being repeated that Robinson was rather poor at in-fighting, throughout his career. In-fighting is a huge part of the game, to be poor at it means being very far from complete. Robinson was great at offense and at long-range fighting, only at that he was one of the most complete fighters in history.
Every time Robinson fought LaMotta, he was going to the head most of the time, he wasn't going to the body, because with his lack of head movement and rolling with punches and blocking skills, he didn't want to give LaMotta a chance, with those wild swings. Whenever Robinson was able to stun LaMotta (he did several times almost every time they fought), it was by punches to the head. At close range Robinson also didn't go to the body too often with LaMotta, preferring to clinch or just cover up.
In all, citing that unnamed "overwhelming majority" sounds very poor, especially with the "on film" remark (considering his major bouts at welter weren't preserved on film).

 

Let's sum this up:

"Robinson was rather poor at infighting."

"Robinson did not go to the body very well because he concentrated on LaMotta's head during their sixth bout."

"Robinson was not really one of the most complete fighters in history."

"Robinson cannot be rightfully considered the consensus pick as the greatest fighter who ever lived."

...

 

I see Robinson as more adaptable in there than you, but your analysis is fair. Good stuff.

 

[yt]3fK2Cc2mxNA&feature=related[/yt]

 

Muhammad Ali was very far from being complete boxer, that doesn't prevent him from being a consensus Top 3 heavyweight of all time.