[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBqV_7Vm2IY[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO2dTnFl2Z0[/ame] I don't know .. 300 plus fights .. stopped maybe once as a kid ... regularly fought much bigger men from three weight divisions , never ducked anyone ... I'll take a huge risk and say pretty fu-king strong ...
Look at Robinson, at his peak 128-1. THe best fighter of the past 80 years, there hasn't been anyone like him since his WW prime, probably one of the fastest fighters we have on film and hardest punching (for his size) we have on film. Was he strong? No. In fact Robinson was noted to look "frail" of newspaper reports when a young kid at WW, did it take away from his performace, no? Robinson was generally known as a fighter who was not very strong, yet he still fought guys much stronger than him, Lamotta, Turpin and beat them which means strength was not all that important in beating fighters if you have other skills. Just because Greb had an amzaing run does not mean he was freakiskly strong, like klompton said, it could be that his speed and stamina was eneough to beat the guys he fought. But he probably was strong for his weight, I wanted to know if he was in the league of guys like Jeffries, Johnson, Langford when it came to strentgh.
b, two points to make about Greb: 1- I have seen many photos of Greb where his biceps and upper arm structure,were like a budding grapefruit,considering his weight... 2-The fact is in most of his fights,he was a physical force in close,where roughness prevailed.He was a master at this game,and tugging,and muscling in close when necessary,requires strength when you are occasionally in close combat with Greb's heavier opponents. Thus natural strength is required IMO. Cheers...