Is there no film whatsoever of Harry Greb in an actual fight?

And I think it is beyond ridiculous to claim a guy you never saw fight a single time is among two best fighters who ever lived.

I can easily say I've seen fights of the guys who beat Greb, and I didn't think they were the best ever, and based on how and when they did beat him, it's clear Greb wasn't close to being the best ever.

That comment is just as valid.

We critique the careers of guys down to such detail that people claim they can pinpoint to the exact fight and sometimes the round when a fighter was fighting at his very best.

With Greb, it's "well, a reporter I never heard of 90 years ago said this happened, so that's what happened. Discussion closed."

Read 10 online recaps of the last fight you watched on television, say Jennings and Perez, and see how wildly they differ.

If any film of any Greb fight appeared, I believe this discussion would be closed for good. And, at the end, there wouldn't be many ranking him the second best ever. Most of the guys back then who thought he was didn't live long enough to see the best fighters over the last half century.

 

Thank you.

 

What is ridiculous is Greb's record against Hall of Fame fighters, many of whom have surviving footage. His record reads like science fiction. It is that astounding. It is a complete anomaly in the sport... and I generally don't believe in such things.

Who in particular?

 

If it reads like science fiction, it usually is. People always talk about how he did in big fights. How'd he do against everyone, bums included?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say if the only surviving film of Greb turned out to be his fight with Soldier Jones - the most journeyman of journeymen - nobody would even bring up the topic of Greb being the best ever again.

Read it ... if it's true.

Greb is flattened in the first, barely beats the count, get's flattened again in the first, gets up and barely survives the round. (Why didn't the ref stop it? Was it because they were fighting in Greb's hometown?) Greb comes out for the second, gets the hell beat out him again, barely survives the round. (Why didn't the ref stop it, Greb was obviously badly concussed?) Greb starts fighting back in the third. By the final round (the 10th) he's "winning easily" and battering Jones.

They give Greb the decision IN HIS HOMETOWN. Afterward, Greb reportedly said he couldn't even recall the first six rounds, he was in such bad shape.

Greb never scored any knockdowns. He was floored twice, the refs today probably would've stopped it, but of course that wasn't going to happen to Greb against some scrub in Greb's hometown.

Did Greb really win the next eight rounds? If Jones won one or two of those eight, it'd be hard to take it from him -- except for the fact that he was fighting a big star who everyone came to see in his hometown. Was anyone there writing about it except for the local hometown newspaper guy?

What if that's the fight that turns up?

Also, can you imagine if one of the top pound-for-pounders today fought a scrub with a losing record in the pound-for-pounder's hometown (think Andre Ward in Oakland), and Ward barely survived the first and second rounds and several knockdowns to win a 10-round decision -- and then never fought that guy again?

Not only would that modern-day boxer never be considered the best pound for pound NOW, that one fight of his would be brought up any time his name ever came up in discussions - and it would probably be brought up by guys in this thread defending Greb.

How many times did stuff like that happen in Greb's career? How many times did the ref not stop the fight when Greb was hurt? How many times did "the star" get several "gifts."

Tommy Loughran beat Greb right before that when Loughran was pretty much a novice. Did Loughran's win have lingering effects that led to the poor performance again Jones?

In between Loughran and Jones, Greb fought Lou Bogash. Greb's hometown paper said he won, and it's listed as a Newspaper win on his record. But the New York Times had Bogash winning.

How bad did Greb look in essentially that three-fight losing streak?

Why isn't crap like that brought up when talking about Greb being the second-best fighter ever?

Seeing these fights would turn this whole discussion around. Without these fights, people can just pretend they never happened. And most seem to do just that when talking about him.

Guys go through periods where they are burned out. I could imagine Greb got burned out a lot, fighting so much. I can also imagine he got a lot of favors and all those wins that people point to against greats and non-greats aren't necessarily ALL WINS. He was a human being.

A human being none of us have seen fight.

 

Wow. You select your critique of one fight out of over 300? Even if you find 30 bad fights, his victories still put him in the argument of the greatest ever. Again, he faced 45 or so Hall of Famers and beat damn near all of them.

If Ward were fighting 25 times or more a year, there would plenty of padding to his record, plenty of off nights. Your lack of context in these comparisons is astounding. It's a different game… and in many ways, a much easier game now.

Referees in the 1920's did not have hair triggers to stop fights. His opponents often got the same advantages. Contrary to what you suggest, Greb hurt most of his opponents. Tunney was put in the hospital for a week after their first fight, a grotesque mess. Why didn't Greb get the KO victory there? How many gifts and fixes and benefits of the doubt did Ali get in his career? Are you going to argue that he does not belong in the argument as greatest heavyweight?

 

We have no film of Abraham Lincoln but most rate him as our nations greatest president. Why? Because of what he accomplished. The fact that he was not photogenic which counts for so much today or that he had a high, whiny speaking voice with a southern accent does not diminish his accomplishments. Neither does the fact that there is no film of him.

Really? You can easily say that? Maybe, you can but at that moment most experts would start ignoring you as someone who lets his mouth overload his *******.

No it isnt because we can see in the easy manner in which Gene Tunney dominates every opponent we have of him on film that he was a great fighter and a great boxer. We can see from the numerous films of Mickey Walker that he was a versatile fighter who could box and slug equally well and do it against short stocky opponents, lanky opponents, or much bigger and strong opponents. He was clearly a fantastic fighter in any estimation. We can see Jeff Smiths great defense, turtle shell style, and textbook punching. We can see Tommy Loughran's famous rapier left hand and excellent judgement of distance. I could go on and on but if you think your point is valid then you need to switch to watching water polo because you dont know **** about boxing.

Ridiculous. Ive never made this claim and what the hell does it have to do with the price of tea in China?

Sadly for your argument the reports of what Greb did and how he did it are remarkably consistent. Its what makes it clear he was such an effective and dominant fighter. And while you ascert that reports today differ wildly, how wildly do they really differ? Do you consistently have 5 reports that say one guy won and 5 that say another guy did? Of all the fights that get heavy coverage the reporters opinion as to who wins does not vary anywhere near as much as you say. But lets say it does, that just makes my argument stronger seeing as how so many so consistently felt Greb won so often in such one sided manner against such a high level of opposition.

You can believe what you want but at the end of the day if Greb looks like an amateur on film he was still an amateur that damn near dominated three divisions over nearly a decade against the highest level of opposition humanly possible and was still looking for challenges. That aint gonna change.

Sooo now you are calling into question the truthfulness of hundreds of eye witness across the country who put pen to paper and recorded his deeds... Sounds like someone is a bit paranoid. Thats how ****ing good Greb was, some people cant even be brought to wrap their minds around it.

What a guy cant be floored hard twice and still win a ten rounder? Better go ask Joe Frazier about that. He might want to give up that first win against Bonavena. The bottom line is Greb was floored by Jones, a dynamite puncher just not a good fighter, twice and came back to give Jones the beating of his life. Every report in Pittsburgh agrees with that. If you doubt Greb was capable of this you can go look at the other time it happened against Jones in Toronto (if memory serves) not Greb's hometown and he came back and stopped Jones. This example you set forth clearly illustrates you dont understand the times or really know anything about this fight.

If it turns up I imagine it would be just what all of the papers describe. A sensational performance in which Greb got caught taking an opponent lightly, is dropped hard twice, and rallies in sensational fashion that had the crowd in an uproar to beat the holy hell out of his opponent. Who doesnt love that?

If fighters today fought between 20 and 50 times a year as Greb did you would see them fight "stay busy" opponents much more often. So yes, I can imagine it. And

Wait, so Greb ducked Jones? Is that what you are insinuating? You do realize that Greb fought Jones several times over the years and never once lost to him. Its not like he avoided the guy, but whatever, keep thinking that.

A poor performance nowadays is magnified because a guy fights maybe twice a year. Greb fought 17 times the year he faced Jones in addition to fighting 11 exhibition bouts, had his wife die, had his LHW title stolen in one of the worst robberies in boxing history, nearly had his arm amputated, won the middleweight title, fought 7 bouts against hall of famers, and

Every time. Every single time. Thats right Greb never won a fight on its merits... :roll: Ive got a better idea. You are the one who cant take his record at face value so show me all of these gift decisions and favortism he benefitted from. If you are calling his record into question the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise you are just trying to bolster your argument with supposition and imagination.

 

Again, if you understood the context you would understand this. But forget what Greb's hometown papers said and forget what the hostile New York press said. What about Newark, you know where the fight was actually held? Every paper in Newark said Greb beat Bogash.

Because smarter people than you know that A. Bogash didnt beat Greb. B. Loughran, who was a damn good fighter even at that point, won a close disputed decision over Greb (which bursts your theory that Greb always got the benefit of the doubt.) something he couldnt do in his own hometown or even in New York where they hated Greb. and C. Greb beat Jones. It also doesnt hurt Greb's legacy terribly in the context that Greb was already past his prime, blind in one eye, coming off arm surgery and the loss of his wife and the unjust loss of his title and, being human, wanting to live it up a little after finally winning a world championship. Smarter people than you look at the series he had with Loughran and realize he won it. Smarter people than you look at the series he had with Jones and realise he won it. Smarter people than you look at unbiased sources for Bogash and realise he won that fight. So, no, most people dont harp on that time of his career.

So basically you are saying that if we cherry pick a fighters worst performances and judge his entire career on those vastly smaller minority reports then we get an accurate representation of his legacy. Good luck with that. Thats like saying: "If the only film we had of Ali was his first fight with Spinks, or his fight with Larry Holmes wed never be calling him great." And everyone else in the room would be wondering when your nurse was coming to change your diaper.

Exactly, you imagine. You dont know so you imagine. Go do some homework because all of this only illustrates you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Greb faced 16 hall of fame fighters a total of something like 48 times and he has a dominant record against them. He crossed the color barrier and he fought in multiple divisions despite being the smaller fighter and won. I've seen footage of the men he has beaten like Tunney, Walker, Norfolk, Loughran, and so on, they still look good. There is more than enough evidence to suggest he is top 5 p4p all time. If not higher.
To try and cherry pick a fight he may have looked bad in, when he fought sometimes as much as every week, and has 300 professional contests shows to me, a clear bias against the man.

 

Yeah, he faced a lot of hall of famers and the vast majority of those fights resulted in no official verdict. How many did he actually win? Who knows? Nobody alive does. He also struggled with quite a few bums. How many of those did he lose? Who knows.

And, yes, people cherry pick fighters to death. Go to thread after thread on this site. You can't scroll for a second without coming across "Who would win between this one guy on this one night and this other guy on his best night?"

One guy thinks someone is great because he beat all these name fighters. Another poster will come and say those wins don't count because this guy was past his prime, this guy was green, this guy hadn't recovered from this fight, this guy was never the same after that one,, the referee messed up in that one, the judges screwed up in another.

With Harry Greb, it's "he fought these names, a writer at ringside said he won, so he's awesome." Done.

My point is simply, if we had film of him, he'd be rated lower than he is now ... just like all the guys of his era (many of whom beat him) are rated lower now than they were then ... because if we could see him, we'd pick away at his faults just like we do everyone else.

Since we don't have film of him, Harry Greb resides in the world where he was the greatest fighter who ever lived and any bad fights he may have had must be totally ignored ... and often are, because we never saw them, either.

This thread is proof of that.

 

Aren't all distance fights won because some dude (or a collection of dudes) at ringside say one fighter won? Or are they decided in the dark rooms of some amateur observer with a video tape who is concerned with how they look?

 

Jones was a nobody. Jones wasn't Oscar Bonavena.

I've been following boxing since 1975. I boxed myself. I've been collecting magazines since the 70s and films since the 80s.

I know sportswriters can get caught up in the emotions of events. I know sportswriters have their favorites. I know that prejudice exists now, and certainly did 90 years ago.

I've seen all the same guys you have and everybody else here has. I've read the same stuff ... 40 years worth.

I also know that hometown decisions happened then just like they do now. I know that crowd favorites got the benefit of the doubt then, like they do now. I know not to believe everything I read that's written today, just like I don't believe everything that was written 90 years ago.

The difference is, you seem to believe everything you've ever read that glorifies Greb, discount anything that doesn't, and fire personal insults at people who don't share your absolute beliefs.

I'm a realist. I'm sure Greb was one of the best fighters of his era. I'm sure he also got quite a few gift nods and help with the officials during his career, just like all top fighters did in every era.

I'm also sure, if we had film of him, he'd be criticized harshly, just like every fighter we "rate" is criticized harshly. As a result, I'm sure we'd view Greb like we do the other greats from his era ... lower down the list of the best ever.

Gotta go work on my "rapier jab."

Talk to you guys later.

 

No, this thread is proof that there are posters who refused to acknowledge that they are out of their league in a debate and are getting killed. You're trying to argue Greb's career (instead of asking questions as you should be doing) with the man who literally wrote THE book on Greb and left no stone unturned. You're trying to act like you know more than he does. You don't and that is obvious by every single post.

These are killing blows:

"What about Newark, you know where the fight was actually held? Every paper in Newark said Greb beat Bogash."

"Because smarter people than you know that A. Bogash didnt beat Greb. B. Loughran, who was a damn good fighter even at that point, won a close disputed decision over Greb (which bursts your theory that Greb always got the benefit of the doubt.) something he couldnt do in his own hometown or even in New York where they hated Greb. and C. Greb beat Jones. "

"It also doesnt hurt Greb's legacy terribly in the context that Greb was already past his prime, blind in one eye, coming off arm surgery and the loss of his wife and the unjust loss of his title and, being human, wanting to live it up a little after finally winning a world championship. Smarter people than you look at the series he had with Loughran and realize he won it. Smarter people than you look at the series he had with Jones and realise he won it. Smarter people than you look at unbiased sources for Bogash and realise he won that fight. So, no, most people dont harp on that time of his career."

"So basically you are saying that if we cherry pick a fighters worst performances and judge his entire career on those vastly smaller minority reports then we get an accurate representation of his legacy. Good luck with that."

"Exactly, you imagine. You dont know so you imagine. Go do some homework because all of this only illustrates you have no idea what you are talking about. "

"No it isnt because we can see in the easy manner in which Gene Tunney dominates every opponent we have of him on film that he was a great fighter and a great boxer. We can see from the numerous films of Mickey Walker that he was a versatile fighter who could box and slug equally well and do it against short stocky opponents, lanky opponents, or much bigger and strong opponents. He was clearly a fantastic fighter in any estimation. We can see Jeff Smiths great defense, turtle shell style, and textbook punching. We can see Tommy Loughran's famous rapier left hand and excellent judgement of distance. "

"I could go on and on but if you think your point is valid then you need to switch to watching water polo because you dont know **** about boxing."

"Sadly for your argument the reports of what Greb did and how he did it are remarkably consistent. Its what makes it clear he was such an effective and dominant fighter. And while you ascert that reports today differ wildly, how wildly do they really differ? Do you consistently have 5 reports that say one guy won and 5 that say another guy did? Of all the fights that get heavy coverage the reporters opinion as to who wins does not vary anywhere near as much as you say. "

"But lets say it does, that just makes my argument stronger seeing as how so many so consistently felt Greb won so often in such one sided manner against such a high level of opposition."

"Sooo now you are calling into question the truthfulness of hundreds of eye witness across the country who put pen to paper and recorded his deeds... Sounds like someone is a bit paranoid. Thats how ****ing good Greb was, some people cant even be brought to wrap their minds around it."

"What a guy cant be floored hard twice and still win a ten rounder? Better go ask Joe Frazier about that. He might want to give up that first win against Bonavena. The bottom line is Greb was floored by Jones, a dynamite puncher just not a good fighter, twice and came back to give Jones the beating of his life. Every report in Pittsburgh agrees with that. If you doubt Greb was capable of this you can go look at the other time it happened against Jones in Toronto (if memory serves) not Greb's hometown and he came back and stopped Jones. "

"This example you set forth clearly illustrates you dont understand the times or really know anything about this fight."

"Ive got a better idea. You are the one who cant take his record at face value so show me all of these gift decisions and favortism he benefitted from. If you are calling his record into question the burden of proof is on you."

You want to argue that film is important, then fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But when you start trying to talk about the Bogash, Jones and other fights, as well as about Greb's career, as if you know more than he does when it is so incredibly obvious that you don't, you just start looking like you're flailing in the dark.

Stop trying to assert what you think you know about Greb and start asking questions instead. You may learn some useful things about Greb :smoke

All the best.

 

If you're "sure" then you can surely do as Klompton asks and LIST these gift nods, yes?