How good was Grebs comp?

To be fair though Ali didnt think much of Dempsey or Willard here lol made me laugh I must say: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPiLGbDrGnw&feature=related[/ame]

This is interesting:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByPfB2Cy7rg[/ame]

 

your a good poster Janitor, but this is a seriously bull**** post.

no need to go that far and dismiss all time great fighters (both Marvin and Tommy are a nightmare for any fighter in history even a Lighthevy),

just because some guy is trolling

 

I defy anyone who watches those two videos to say tunney and loughran were primitive.
In fact both look fantastic,tunney especially.
And janitor is right,tunney would beat hagler,hearns,leonard,hopkins,benn and duran on the same night.
I would add a further pertinent point,if some ignorant folks just saw videos of joe calzaghe they might conclude he was an unskilled primitive,what with the wild clubs,'slaps',and such like. But they would miss the supreme judgement of distance,the adaptability,speed,awesome ring generalship and above all the 'mighty will to win'. (which left him46-0.)
Now,i see Harold Greb as being joe calzaghe on rocket fuel,with the added ring smarts of an einstein,the physical toughness of a hercules,a bag of chips (fries!) and then some...
The more i muse on greb the more its clear that this man is better than robinson or any other you care to mention...

 

Enquirer, it had to be said, and you said it....
Gene Tunney was a great methodical boxer, intelligent, very fast on his feet, great jab, and a punishing puncher...He didn't have the GLITZ of Ali, but he was just as effective, no doubt...
When we talk about the amazing career of Harry Greb, we extoll his great virtues, rightfully so... But we sometimes FORGET, that the vast majority of his great victory's were against men who were 15- 50 pounds HEAVIER
than Greb was....To put this in perspective visualize the great Ray Robinson fighting heavier men as Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Lloyd Marshall, Harold Johnson etc almost weekly, and winning... Of course not ...Ray knew his limitations....Harry Greb had no limitations...
We can never see his likes again....

 

I apologize for overstating my case.

What I will say is the Gene Tunney is a verry bad sort of fighter to be giving up weight to.

Technicians can match smaller fighters on the atributes that they would most rely on to win. They can also find that their power suddenly become prety good when up against sombody from a lower weight class.

I think that Tunney could have been verry destructive against some middleweights.

 

Burt,that is why i am saying greb is better than robinson. Greb gave away stacks of weight and height reguarly,and was still dominant. No way do i see ray doing anything in the lt heavy divison against greats.

Janitor,i dont think you overstated your case,i love the FAB four,but tunney would whip them all.
Im not in any way a 'lover of old timers', (duran is my number one,monzon,leonard,ali,sweet pea,are also top of the class.) but with certain guys its not about whether they are old or new,its that they are clearly 'timeless' greats'.
I dont care if grebs style was ugly or offended the purist,he clearly is the best 160-175 man in history,with only a select few close.

 

enquirer, how can any serious boxing fan dispute what you say about Greb, being the greatest 160 pound fighter in history ? As we cant match fighters of different era's, my criteria is simple and to the point...
What 160 pound fighter in history can whip Gene Tunney, Tommy Gibbons, Tommy Loughran, Jack Dillon, Gunboat Smith, Battling Levinsky, Maxie Rosenbloom, Bill Brennan [four times], Brennan at 195 pounds was as good or better in record than Jerry Quarry was years later ?Little old 5.8 160 pound Greb with one eye to boot, accomplished this amazing record, that could never be duplicated again....My dad ,as I have posted saw the first Greb/ Tunney bloodbath in 1922, MSG...He rooted for the bigger Tunney, but became Greb's biggest supporter after watching the tigerish Greb, do what he did best...Punching from all angles, at all times and never tiring...
Not for nothing did they call Greb the " Pittsburgh Windmill "...b.b.

 

Its a crying shame their is no footage of Grebby.
Ive just got a slight quibble with you Burt. Do you think Greb was better as a middleweight or at 175?
I definately think he is the best 160-175 guy.
Was greb comfortable enough to stay at 160 his whole career?
This is why i think monzon could be tops at 160. Though im very open to changing that opinion.
Oh,and in answer to your question nobody could top Grebs resume or beat the guys he did.
Maybe fitz or langford could come close?

 

Yes we have a "quibble".What made Harry Greb 's record almost surreal was that he was a middleweight, a 160 pounder...A year before he died Greb at 159 whipped the great mickey Walker in 1925...He was an old 31 years in 1925 ,[who wouldn't be with almost 300 bouts], but still made the 160 pound weight... He defended his 160 crown when he needed to ,but he fought so many bigger greats non title shots so Harry would gain weight over thge 160 pounds...All fighters have walking around weight , pounds over their fighting weight...Why not ?
Why would you rave about Greb's amazing record at 160 pounds, and then say , Monzon was tops at 160 lbs..?Would Monzon have even attempted to beat the great Lightheavies that Greb did..? Of course not...
Greb stopped a tremendous punching 175 lb Gunboat Smith ,as tall as Monzon and 15 pounds heavier, who previously stopped an older Sam Langford...Greb absolutely loved fighters like Monzon ,who was too slow for Greb's whirlwind style...
If you had to pick a Middleweight why not Ray Robinson, past his welter peak ? Robinson 's tremendous speed flurries would negate Monzon's slower right hand...
As far as Fitz, he was a 165 pound physical marvel.A freak of nature, gigantic heavyweight shoulders atop a very thin waist and pipestem legs..Thus the 165 pounds...
Sam Langford another giant killer, but his later weight was 175 or abouts....
i regard Greb, Fitz, and Langford as best P4P , because of the great weight they gave their opponents...
Ray Robinson who I saw in prime, was the absolute best fighter I ever saw live..., Take care..b.b.

 

Cheers for that Burt.
I easily concede that monzon could never do what greb did.
Nowadays i state that Greb could beat any guy at 160 in history.
I see that harry could always make 160,so i would now have to reevaluate and put harry tops followed by monzon.

 

You can only fight the opposition of the time. And you have to compare like with like - e.g. if we swapped boxers from that era with boxers today, then today's guys would be smaller, weaker etc back then too because they'd be on 1920s diets; the old-schoolers would be on modern diets, genetics would be better etc. So that argument is a flawed one.

Secondly, even if Greb's opposition was bad objectively, these "bad" boxers still managed to compile great records against everyone else. So the only argument you have is the "bad era" one, which I have already comprehensively refuted, and even if it were true, there is nothing a boxer can do about it so it's silly to downrate him on that basis.

 

Greb could beat any 175lbs guy from history. He might not be favourite against a few of them, but he would be a serious danger all the same. He beat Tunney who is a top 20 P4P ATG and top 3 LHW.

FWIW I think Monzon could do ok at LHW. He was a *big* middleweight with height, reach, and a large frame, he could have moved up, whereas someone like Hagler was a bit small to IMO.

 

oh there's no question about it, he's a great fighter :good

 

Based on what?

 

Marvin (chin, boxing abilty, inside fighting abilty, stamina, ring genralship, southpaw jab, and great parrying ability)

Tommy (Long powerful jab, power, speed, boxing ability, ring genralship, one of the hardest straight rights in history)

make these guys a nightmare for anyone win or lose