How do people have the nerve to say Harry Greb would be competitive in any era?

the main guy in middle weight he has trouble with is chavez jr, purely for the fact he is like 180-190lbs come fight time, dont take that sparing as how he fought, theres no way he beat the guys he did, such as prime gene tunney with shots like that, also remember he was blind in one eye and beat the very best of his day, give him modern training, 12 round fights and safer gloves to stop hand breaks, a mouth gaurd, but then again, he might be a SMW or LHW, and then again if he was round today he might just have a normal job and watch it on tv.

 

Yes, history shows Greb had trouble with men who weighed that much. Man, I wish I could fathom how well Chavez Jr would do at heavyweight.

 

atsch :rofl

 

This.

 

How do you rate these two?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuLIfVJDCDw[/ame]

 

Stupid old *******s, I'd knock the pair of 'em....oh, wait....:scaredas:

 

jaja o amigo
there are my idols,im dont know how to rate,because im dont like rankings....but there are both ATG

 

Post of the Day.

:happy

This should have been the first response to this thread.

The modern equivalents arguments was always a flimsy one that had very little relevance to fighters in weight classes below Heavyweight. Considering how many HOFs are on his win column I have to question exactly how you came to his this conclusion?

You have gotta to be Joking. Willard stopped Johnson in the 26th Round. Whereas Tyson as early as the first round had an injury and was tired by the 4th. Johnson had far more left in the tank than Mike did.

You are selling Floyd Mayweather short. I think he's a brilliant fighter who would be among the elite in any era.

 

Johnson didn't have much in the tank by the 26th round

 

Don't delude yourself.

Williams was a Commonwealth grade fighter and nothing more.

He didn't beat Tyson because he went from being British level to world class overnight, and back again overnight.

He beat Tyson because Tyson realy was that shot.

If you put him in with a great lineal champion close to the top of their game, or even a good one, he is only ever going to be outclassed.

 

This gets brought up a good bit, and I always answer it the same way - we can all verify that track times have gotten lower over the years. In fact, Jesse Owen's Olympic-winning 100 yard time is matched by high-school students every year. Would Jesse Owens, therefore, be only a High School varsity-level sprinter in 2006?

You tell me. Jesse Owens ran in leather shoes with metal spikes on the soles. He ran on a cinder track, and he had to dig his own starting divot when he took his mark.

Given these fairly significant changes in track conditions, is it really fair to compare track records from the 1930s to those of today? Clearly Owens was saddled with inferior shoes compared to today's ultralight models. His track surface certainly wasn't as uniform or resilient as modern composite tracks. Having a firmly-fixed tailor made starting block rather than a self-dug divot should be worth several fractions of a second as well.

With all of the myriad advances we've had in terms of equipment for sprinting, the most basic of all sports, the actual gains have been surprisingly small - the following official times are for the 100 meter race:

First under 10.5: 10.4 Charles Paddock USA 1921
(For comparison, Owens ran a 10.2 in 1936)
First under 10.00: 9.95 Jim Hines 1968
First under 9.95: 9.93 Calvin Smith USA 1983
First under 9.90: 9.86 Carl Lewis 1991
First under 9.80: 9.79 Maurice Greene USA 1999


With all of the numerous technological advances in running shoes, superior track surfaces, and a pharmacopia of performance-enhancing compounds (the spectre of which hangs over nearly every elite sprinter of the past 25 years) we're looking at about a 6% gain in speed since 1921. Far easier, in my mind, to attribute these small increases in speed to superior equipment and the miracles of pharmacology than to any natural evolutionary pressure towards faster humans.

All this is completely irrelevant to boxing however because it is not a sport where results depend entirely on athletic ability.

I mean how many world class track runners have there been with a waistline like James Toney? The fact that a man like that, a former middleweight can eat himself into a world class contender at Heavyweight in this modern age tells you all you need to know about what improvements in nutrition and sports science have done for boxing.
Absolutely nothing.
So we are left with skill that is the major determining factor. In terms of skills there is absolutely no argument possible. In fact it is quite apparent from even an elementary viewing that except for the occasional genius (one or two a decade) that have ATG skills, the average talent pool and skill set peaked in the 30s-40s and has been clearly on the decline since the 70s-80s.
To argue that every day in every way boxers are getting better and better is insane.
If you actually believed that you would have to logically affirm the proposition that today’s ring magazine top 10 is the ALL TIME TOP 10 for every weight class.


Now it is apparent that the truth is quite the opposite in fact. Many divisions in boxing today must acknowledge they are in a weak era in the sport. And I'm telling you that you need to put today’s men BACK in time to evaluate them as MEN and as boxers. If your “game” has changed since the old days it is obviously not for the better and that is why MMA will relegate boxing to a 3rd rate 3rd world sport in the near future unless changes are made. If you want boxing to become relevant again here is the OLD SCHOOL recipe, the only one that could possibly work. The plan that undoes the modern abuses that have corrupted and SO softened the game.
Take away the BS cut up 17 weight classes and 6 world belts in each division. Who gives a RIP about the LightJuniorSuperFlyWeight Champion of the ABCDEFG? I propose a return to the original EIGHT +1 weight classes with Cruiser inserted between 175 and 201+. A return to ONE governing body with ONE world champ in each weight class – we have only got ONE World right? A “Same Hour” weigh-in so Welters don’t enter the ring north of 160 for crying out loud. An across the board testing program for drugs and steroids and a LIFETIME ban for the FIRST offense. A mandatory title defense against the number one challenger with a fixed 60/40 split every FOUR months. Refuse to defend? Then fight your way back into contention again from OUTSIDE the top 10.
Make it tough to be a champion again – don’t get caught up in the ”hype” of what passes now for a world title. And realize that what you are watching that passes for world champion boxing today Harry Greb would laugh at far harder than you are laughing at him.

Hat tip to those old timers who have argued many pieces of this amalgamation over the years - I gathered so many of these pearls over time from so many knowledgeable posters in the Classic section. I can't remember who exactly said what but you know who you are. The mistakes, if there are any, I claim for myself.

 

I could only hope to be as eloquent, informative, and entertaining as Chaney and Vockerman.

Props to you.

 

I don't quite hold Greb on the same pedestal as some on here do...but with that said, the difference of opinion is in only speculating Greb and how he would do against a select few at middleweight on a H2H basis...Greb's record tells me he fought the very best of his era, and he won on a very consistant basis...for a very long time. Due to his record, Harry Greb is one of the very best of all time.