If Greb footage is found and it is mediocre how would it change your view of his opposition??

I think you would need to see footage of a number of fights to get a fair representation of him. And just seeing a few bits where he's not all that would not reflect his whole career either, every fighter has had moments in their career where they might not have looked that special but others where they blow you away. But as others have said footage of his opponents already exist.

 

Honestly not much. It is very very difficult for me to rate a man who we don't have actual footage of them fighting. As unpopular an opinion that is on here.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Klompton said that Greb started to fight dirty later on his career, due to vision/eye problems.
So ir order to form a proper opinion on the man, we'd need footage from his prime, say 1919 for example, when he won 40+ fights if I'm not mistaken.

 

I agree with this. Ill give a couple of examples. Freddie Steele looks great on film. However, the longest film we have of him which is the theatrical version of Steele-Risko which is most of the fight. Steele doesnt look as good as he does against Lesnevich and Dundee because in that fight he opted to play it safe, fight very conservatively in order to ensure a title victory, and some say he carried Risko on the orders of Riskos mob handlers. If that was the only film of Steele, and you didnt have any context around it you might have a lower opinion of Steele. Likewise, Texdy Yarosz has a very good record and is highly thought of. He doesnt look that good in the complete film of his fight with Dundee and yet even his hometown papers described that fight as a subpar performance for Yarosz. The two most likely films to survive of Greb are Mickey Walker and Ted Moore. The Walker fight was supposed to be a great fight and great performance by Greb. The Moore fight was considered a relatively uninteresting and uninspired performance. If you are ONLY basing an opinion of Greb on what you see (which is ridiculous if you ate throwing out all of the other evidence) then your opinion would largely be colored by which of those fights you saw.

 

Getting footage of 1919 Greb would definitely be best case scenario, however it seems unlikely. His biggest fights, publicity wise, were in the 20s and long after his eye was damaged. However, his spar with Dempsey in 1920 was filmed. If we somehow get footage of that, it's likely the only prime Greb footage we would have.

 

Greb must have still been an amazing fighter for at least the first half of the 20's. I can't imagine good quality footage of his dominance over my #12 P4P all time Mickey Walker in1925 revealing Greb to be anything other than an insanely effective fighter, let alone his trouncing of Tunney in 1922.

 

Of course it's difficult to rate him.

There is zero film of his fights ...

The vast majority of his fights (roughly two-thirds of them) didn't even have official judges sitting there scoring ...

And nearly all of those fights went the distance ... meaning since there was no knockout, no one officially won and no one's hand was raised at the end.

Considering most of his fights didn't even have judges, some footage would be nice to determine the objectivity of folks like his hometown sports writers.

It would clear up a lot.

 

Mystified? C'mon Steve.

Fights today have three judges. Not Zero judges ... as was the case in the vast majority of Greb fights.

Those three judges are placed around the ring opposite press row to get three different vantage points. They aren't grouped all together on the same side of the ring talking to each other like they are in the media section.

Judges, for the most part, score on the 10-point must system - 10 points for the winner of a round. 9 points or less for the loser of the round.

If you foul, you are warned. If you foul flagrantly, a point is taken away. If you foul flagrantly again, another point is taken. If you foul fragrantly a third time, you can be disqualified.

When you can only win by KO and there are no judges and no scoring via points or rounds, you don't deduct points (or rounds) for fouls because there are no points to deduct AND no cards to deduct them from.

And in fights then and now, you can foul quite a bit before you'll get disqualified.

At least today, you lose points (which affects you if it goes to the cards ... and Greb went the distance an awful lot) for fouls. And there are rules in place today for how many points are deducted before you get DQed.

There aren't a lot of fights these days with no judges, no points system, no point deductions for fouls and where no one's hand is raised if there isn't a KO, but whoever happens to show up writing an article ringside has the ultimate say in who wins, are there?

The rules for fights and how a winner is determined couldn't be more different today than they were for no-decison fights. And two-thirds of Greb's fights were no-decison fights.

In the no-decision era, newspaper reporters had basically the only say in who was viewed as the winner.

Today, writers have zero official say in who wins.

It couldn't be more different.

Let us know if you find some film. I'll happily contribute to purchasing it. I'm sure many here will.

Who knows, maybe he was the best ever on film, too.

 

Beyond why your logic has already been completely debunked in numerous posts by me that anyone can search:

Greb beat these hall of famers in decision fights:

Tommy Gibbons
Leo Houck
Battling Levinsky
Tommy Loughran
Jimmy Slattery
Jeff Smith
Gene Tunney
Mickey Walker

He beat these champions in decision fights:

George Chip
Al McCoy
Johnny Wilson
Bryan Downey

He beat these top contenders in decision fights:

Jackie Clarke
Gus Christie
Augie Ratner
Eddie McGoorty
Bill Brennan
Bob Roper
Gunboat Smith
Charlie Weinert
Frank Moody
Ted Moore
Tony Marullo
Roland Todd
Jimmy Delaney
Allentown Joe Gans

Among others.

Did he just get lucky in those fights?

His remarkable consistency crushes any argument that Greb's no decision fights arent somehow indicative of his ability. Nevermind the fact that EVERYONE in that era took no decision fights seriously. Titles changed hands in no decision fights, title shots were awarded based on fighters performance in no decision fights. Wagers were made on the basis of the outcome of no decision fights. Fighters suffered broken bones, black eyes, bruises, and even death in no decision fights. If fighters were seen to not be trying in no decision fights they could be DQd and their purses withheld. Your bizarre idea that no decision fights are illegitimate ignores the entire context of that era. The idea that somehow a judges decision today is somehow more infallible than a consensus of boxing writers of that era is equally bizarre. Practically every weekend people ***** and complain about how bad judges decisions are and rely more heavily of the consensus opinion of experts when arguing their case. If you havent seen a fight and you hear everyone bitching about a bad decision dont tell me you dont read various articles to see what the experts say. We all do. Or are you pretending you are the one boxing fan who just blindly accepts whatever the judges say and refuses to hear any difference of opinion on the matter? Please. I wont even get into the nearly ridiculous monotony at which the newspaper accounts are in lock step on Greb's performances. If you think we should just throw out every newspaper result and completely ignore those fights as if they never happened then you are in a very eccentric minority.

You say some film footage would be nice to determine the objectivity of his hometown writers but the problem with that statement is that it completely ignores how often Greb fought in his opponents hometown or on neutral ground to excellent reviews. Indeed, most of Greb's most important fights were fought OUTSIDE of Pittsburgh. Despite losing the decision to Tunney in the second fight a majority of Tunney's hometown experts stated Greb won the fight. When you factor in those papers who thought the fight should have been a draw, the VAST majority thought Greb should have retained his title. Leo Houck was a god in Lancaster. The Lancaster papers all said Greb dominated him. Conversely in Pittsburgh when Greb fought Tommy Gibbons for the first time in 1920 the papers had Greb losing. I could give examples such as this all day but it just serves to show that you start your argument with these points that have no basis in fact.

And finally, and back to the original point you thought you were addressing: Regardless of the newspaper or judges decisions ALL fights Greb fought under were conducted under some form of modified Marquis of Queensbury rules, just as they are today. Greb fighting under today's rules would hardly be likely to hamper him more than the rules under which he fought and indeed, with 36 hour rehydration periods, air conditioned venues, etc. hed likely excel given that he showed he could fight the best men of his era from 147 to over 200 pounds under less than optimal conditions. When he fought Mike ODowd he was so anxious to make weight in order to be able to win the title IN A NO DECISION BOUT, that he spent all night in a turkish bath, came in weighing 155 pounds, and in his weakened state O'Dowds hometown papers were split on who won that fight. Ya think maybe a 36 hour rehydration period might have helped him? We could go on and on but there are numerous posts on this forum explaining how wrongheaded your views on the no decision era are.

 

You are not actually *hearing* what I keep saying. Once again:

1) I just said I do not have accounts that have provenance I can cite: I only read some stuff about him casually, largely-& at first-in the many years I have been on this website.
Maybe you are confusing me with others or feel in combat mode with some so react as if I am someone you have tension with-or just a dispute on the subject. But please follow what I actually say.

2) I am saying that citing sources that establish him as fighting honorably until the injury & then not that bad afterwards IS claiming something.
Not that this means you may not be completely right; I respect your pursuit of the truth & scholarship on the man.

But let us say I claim the world is round-which I do, with the marginal caveat that it is not a Platonic ideal of a three dimensional circle, because there are "bumps" such as mountains, & we are slightly oblong due to being wider in diameter at the equator than around the poles...

If I cite those highly convincing sources that the world is round, if I discredit or give no credibility to theories & groups like the absurd "flat earthc society", & make it clear that I believe the world is round...
That is making a claim about the matter.

Nothing wrong with any of that.

 

Wait, Leo Houck is a hall of famer? I get that he's underrated and all, but that's pretty surprising.

 

Even without any meaningful footage the evidence of Greb's greatness os overwhelming.
Nobody can overturn Klompton's points.'
But I want to stress how ridiculous it is to assume "looking bad" would necessarily resolve anything. For two (2) major reasons:

1) The footage could be very partial or represent something misleading, like fights when he or any fighter was way past it, or fooling around, or even sparring-we can all think of even the best fighters who if we cherry-picked or happened to find footage of them when not trying hard or sub-par would look mediocre at best-even if they were All Time Greats!

2) It is a clinically insane argument that anyone must look either "pretty", &/or necessarily even conventionally skilled, to be anywhere from good to excellent-to theoretically the GOAT.

Anyone with boxing knowledge can think of many examples.
I'll use one from Basketball soon before the NBA title is resolved.
Jokic "Joker" is like Larry Bird.
Not very fast nor can he jump high & not explosive-especially for the NBA.
By those rarefied standards they are not even athletic!

But Bird was the best for years in a row in measurable advanced statistics of individual performance isolated from gaudy or misleading team & other context-dependent factors.
JOKER despite not getting the MVP this last year-due to a tantrum-like siccessful media campaign biving Aembid the award-is easily the best B-Ball player if the known universe for the last 3 years.

He looks awkward in movement & shooting often enough.
Although like Bird he is really tall, & strong, like Greb having a great engine & speed...

But the point remains that being fluid & athletic & aestehtically pleasing is NOT always necessary to accomplish great things.

 

Exactly. For my own rankings purposes, I respect the official decision of judges in close fights, even if I personally scored them differently. However, I assume the correct result in clear robberies, e.g. i consider Lewis as 2-0 vs Holyfield when evaluating his career. In the instance of their 1st fight, a couple of dozen newspaper verdicts would have done what 3 x official judges collectively failed to do, by rendering the correct verdict.

All other factors being equal, the higher the quantity of verdicts, the more likely the correct one is administered.

 

Did I or did I not say Greb was accused of fighting dirty later in his career? Did I or did I not also say that most of those accusations centered on him holding and hitting? Anyone who is curious about this and wants to see whether I did or didnt cite those sources can read my 700 page book on the matter but spoiler alert: I DID CITE THOSE SOURCES. But the people on here saying that footage of Greb would absolutely show him to be dirty and alter their opinion of his greatness are ignoring several factors: 1. There is no guarantee that it would show him to be overly dirty a la the four fights we have of Zivic. 2. Any footage we find of Greb would almost certainly be taken when he was well past his prime and blind in one eye. Hardly an example of what he could of done in his prime and more akin to watching a still great but not as effective post comeback Sugar Ray Robinson. 3. The argument that such footage would show him to be less effective under todays rules due to his style or supposed dirtiness ignores the fact that any such footage taken of him would almost certainly be a decision fight that was fought under near identical rules today and fought in New York (not his hometown) so the officiating, barring the fact that the ref got a vote, wouldnt be overtly favorable to him.

 

Saying someone from a bygone era like Greb’s wsa a Hall of Famer (and those so-and-so beat X number of hall of famers) isn’t comparable to saying someone of more recent vintage did the same.

That’s because there’s an old-timers category and a lot of fighters from way, way back get into the hall of fame by the back or side door on this, or were among large groups who get invited in after the first-tier hall of famers from their time have been admitted.

There are, because of the structure of halls of fame, always more fighters (or athletes if we’re talking football, baseball or other halls of fame) from longer ago in because of that structure. Whereas a fighter in the 1980s 0r ‘90s for instance just isn’t going to have as many fall of famers on his resume because the scrutiny and voting structure of ‘modern era’ admissions is tougher — only a few get admitted every year and guys for longer ago in the old-timers category have had many, many more bites at the apple.

I wouldn’t be surprised 100 years from now to find fighters from say the 1980s that we who grew up watching them considered to be good but not great have finally found their way in as old-timers.