Jim Corbett vs Harry Greb

What? Like

This content is protected

?

 

No, looking for something where the camera never pans. And from a lower ringside angle.

 

It's not only the angle. The film runs slow. I timed round one, and it was well over 3:00 minutes long. In addition, the frame rate is much lower, so it's not as smooth on the action.

If you know what you are watching, you can see Corbett's and Fitz's brillance.

As a side note, I helped Samuel Hawley a bit. He's writing a book about the Fitz vs Corbett fight. I send him a full blown by blow of my 27 minutes of the footage, as well as the tip to read Siler's book, "Inside Facts of Pugilism." Siler, of course, was the third man in the ring and talks about the match in detail in the book.

Other side notes of interest are why some films have blurry knockouts or knockdowns. According to Hawley, the people at the movies of the times would ask the operator to manually back up the film to see the major action points again. This gave extra wear and tear and explains why the most dramatic moments of older films are often the least visible. Some have missing frames or badly worn frames.

 

Klompton2

"You think Greb was comfortable at 160?"

I never said anything about Greb. This is my exact quote which you quoted--

"I rather think he fought Greb at weights that were comfortable for him at that point in his life."

I assumed that the reader would understand the "he" and "him" as referring to Tunney as Greb wouldn't be fighting himself.

Your question prompted me to take a closer look at Greb's weights.
I admit I'm picking fights here with top opponents rather than going through all of his myriad matches. Weights in parenthesis are opponent's weights.

1918
8-9-1918-----Clay Turner 165
9-21-1918-----Billy Miske 150 (174) This one shows that freakish weights are probably just errors. I don't buy that Greb dropped 15 pounds in five weeks to fight a 174 pounder.

1919
Battling Levinsky 165 (175)
Willie Meehan 166

1921
Jack Renault 165
Jack Renault 167
Bartley Madden 170

1922
Tommy Gibbons 164 (171)
Gene Tunney 162 (175)

1923
Tommy Loughran 168 (165)
Gene Tunney 166 (174)
Tommy Loughran 168 (165)
Gene Tunney 172 (175)
Tommy Loughran 168 (169)

1924
Kid Norfolk 173 (173)
Jimmy Slattery 164 (163)
Gene Tunney 166 (175)
Tommy Loughran 168 (168)

1925

Gene Tunney 168 (181)
Johnny Wilson 169 (165)

My conclusion looking at this weights is that Greb was most comfortable at the modern super-middleweight weight. The 162 for Tunney seems to have been unusually low for him. He is much more often in the 165-168 (or even a bit above) range.

The other conclusion I would draw is that Greb's name bigger opponents (Levinsky, Gibbons, Tunney, Loughran, Norfolk, Slattery) were light-heavies when they fought Greb, not heavies.

I think Mickey Walker with wins over King Levinsky and Paulino Uzcudun, and a draw with Jack Sharkey, is actually a bit more impressive against full-scale heavies (or modern cruisers) than Greb was.

 

The article I read on the Fitz-Corbett fight mentioned that there was generally a demand to rewind and replay the knockout as fans were trying to see if Earp was correct in his claim that Fitz should have been disqualified.

 

Why did Earp say Fitz should have been DQ?

It is plausible to think that many famous knockdowns such as Ketchel vs. Johnson had a high rewind demand at the times. This could explain why it's difficult to determine exactly where the shot landed today.

 

"If you can't accept weights and tales of the tape then why are you even commentating."

Weights should be accurate if the man actually gets on the scale.

Tales of the tape are for me a different matter.

Here are the tales of the tape for two heavyweight champions given in the 1976 Ring Record Book (page 83) (all in inches)

Fighter A

chest (normal)-----43
chest (expanded)--47
biceps--------------15
neck----------------17 1/2
waist---------------33 1/4
wrist----------------8
ankle---------------10
forearm------------12 3/4

Fighter B

chest (normal)-----42
chest (expanded)--44 1/2
biceps--------------15
neck----------------17
waist---------------34
wrist----------------7 1/2
ankle---------------9 1/2
forearm------------13 1/2

Seems this tale of the tape shows fighter A as an equally big or even a bigger man in the upper body. Fighter A is Max Schmeling. Fighter B is George Foreman. Hard for me to buy that Schmeling was really bigger.

Problems with tales of the tape--

1--what point in the fighter's life are the measurements taken? Are measurements from a young fighter recycled for fights when he is older and heavier?

2--was there any consistent standard for how to do these measurements over the generations.

Bottom line--I am skeptical of tales of the tape unless the two men are measured at the same time by the same man (men) using the same standards.

 

Earp claimed that Fitz hit Corbett with a left hook to the jaw when Corbett was down.

Corbett picked up the claim which of course spread it. Fitz denied it.

 

I reckon it would go the distance. Greb's greater activity wins him the nod.

 

From the body shot in the 14th? That is not on film.

 

I have read an article written by Fitz which says that his KO blow was a solarplexus punch followed by the left shift.

I would like to hear from Klompton, who i am guessing has a film that is much clearer than anyone on here has seen. Is it possible the Left hook was the KO final KO blow?

 

Corbett usually bullied middleweights at the time, plus there’s a good chance his speed matches Greb’s which was troubling for Harry when Norfolk had that combination of size and speed against him. Corbett didn’t have the power that Norfolk had to earn Greb’s respect though, Corbett was a “love-tapper” as Sullivan would say.

Corbett probably wins the early rounds, but inevitably his cardio will suffer due to the pace Greb sets. Corbett said that the pace of constant feinting and movement against Fitzsimmons was the most frantic pace he’s ever had in a fight, but Greb seemed to bring it like no other.