Jim Corbett vs Harry Greb

There should be "at heavyweight" after word "talent".

 

I am confused :?

Not even if Harry Greb is involved?

Is a draw not even a win if a heap of newspapers say it is a win?

What about Greb's 2-2 draw with Gibbons. Surely that draw was a win?

:rasta

 

Learn how to read, and please keep racists comments, such as the one you authored like there's something in Italians that makes them cheat to yourself!

If you read a detailed round by round report of Jackson vs Corbett, you will see Corbett won more rounds according to the press. The fight was ruled a draw because they did not score it by rounds, and it was stopped because both guys were out of gas.

By the way, Jackson had the edge in experience when they fought, not Corbett. As for Jackson's skills being modern, you can do your own homework. It's out there.

Now are you going to deny that news reports refer to Greb as amateurish? They most certainly did. Watch where you take a dump, because in this case you've got some brown on you.

 

Nice try but when did i ever say that? Cant find that anywhere? Didnt think so...

 

Its a well known fact you are a racist.

So the fight was not scored on a rounds basis, something that wasn't even widely implemented for almost 40 years but you want me to give Corbett credit for some kind of moral victory because in a fight he didn't win he might have won more rounds by the standards of today in a fight that he still wouldn't have won by todays standards... Talk about really trying to make a pathetic case for your argument.

And Im supposed to give Corbett all of this credit in a greater historical sense because he had less experience than Jackson but god forbid we mention Jackson went into the fight injured. Let not forget that...

The bottom line is Corbett never actually beat a great fighter on the level while they were great in his life. Period. He didn't. Fights, especially fights in that era, were scored as a sum total of their parts, not in segments. Thats why it doesn't matter if you think Corbett might have won more rounds. It was a finish fight and both fighters fought accordingly. For all you know Jackson was leaving something in reserve in the early rounds and his injury caught up with him before he could capitalize. In the end the end result is all that matters and both fighters agreed it was a draw. Period. You extrapolate whatever you want out of that to make yourself believe your guy won but he didn't.

And again, The only people who said Jackson's skills were modern were people who witnessed him and that's because they are the only ones who would know. What does "modern" mean in the 1890s? Corbett was also "modern" in the 1890s and we can see he looks decidedly amateurish in his prime in a film of him against another great fighter. You can read about that fight as well and see that nobody called Corbett sloppy or amateurish in that fight. They said he was clearly the more skilled fighter of the two so we have an accurate representation of Corbetts skills and they look archaic by even 1910s standards.

Im comfortable with the fact that boxing under the Queensberry rules was in its infancy at the time and given the lack of professional fighters, trainers, sparring partners, talent, and fights Corbett's relative lack of ability for a man who was considered a wonder of the age is understandable. He was modern at that point from the dreadnaughts who toed the line and blasted away at each other or bulled each other. When a guy who was a fat drunken pig can dominate the sport its no wonder a Corbett could come along and be considered a marvel. But the sport passed him by 20 years later and there were 100 or more Corbetts out there and for every one there was a guy who was even better because simply having a bunch of three round exhibitions, 20 real fights, etc was not going to get you the experience you needed to go anywhere near a championship by the 1910s/20s unless you were a 6' 6" giant named Jess Willard who was then and is now considered fairly inexperienced. Corbett couldn't rely on his size, even in his day he wasn't a whole lot bigger than Fitz who could make 154. Thats why its laughable that this inexperienced archaic guy would be thought to have a chance with a 165 pound prime Greb who fought a lot of guys who were more skilled than Corbett and every bit as big.

People here keep acting like Tunney is proof that Corbett could beat Greb. Well lets consider this. I'll put Tunney's skills up against Corbett's any day of the week and twice on Sunday and Tunney will come out ahead. Tunney and Greb met five times, every time they met Greb was past his prime. Every single time. You can make the argument that Tunney was pre prime but that's debateable since Tunney had already gained his first title, had been involved in the sport actively for 7 years and had more than twice the fights Corbett had in his career (almost three times as many) when he first met Greb, so if Tunney was inexperienced that would not bode well for Corbett's chances. So you have a fighter more skilled and with more experience than Corbett who at that point weighed 175 pounds, which he trained down to make weight (Corbett weighed 178 in his prime not having to make weight), stood 6' 1" (same as Corbett), had a 77" inch reach (four inches longer than Corbetts), had a 14 1/2" bicep, (Corbett had a 14 1/2" bicep), Tunney had a 16 1/2" neck (Corbett had a 17" neck), Tunnney had a 13 1/2" forearm, (Corbett had an 11" forearm), Tunney had a 7 3/4" wrist (Corbett had a 6 1/2" wrist), Tunney had a 38" chest, 42" expanded (Corbett had a 38" chest, 42" expanded), Tunney had a 33" waiste (Corbett had a 33" waiste) Tunney had a 20 1/2" thigh (Corbett had a 21" thigh), Tunney had a 13 3/4" calf (Corbett had a 14 1/2" calf), Tunney had an 8 1/2" ankle (Corbett had an 8 1/2" ankle). I took those measurements from Corbetts prime and from the tale of the tape before Tunney fought Greb. So you have a man who was almost exactly the same size a Corbett, a better boxer, and a more experienced fighter who was more durable and who hit harder who Greb just happened to beat. I think hed be fine against Corbett if you pluck Corbett right out of 1895 and place him in front of Greb in 1919. I think Greb would kick the living **** out of Corbett.

And no, I wont deny that the news described Greb as amateurish because the point is that Greb beat great fighters looking amateurish. Corbett, despite looking amateurish to us, was described FIGHTING IN THAT STYLE, as being a master boxer. So we can assume in his day he was what passed for excellent boxing skills BY ALL ACCOUNTS, and yet he looks like ****. So the point isn't that he achieved in spite of himself like Greb, the point is that he was considered the best of the best in his era, looking that bad, and so what exactly did the guys he beat look like or the average fighter? Pretty ****ing terrible. Whereas the guys Greb beat that we can watch, and we can watch enough to know, looked pretty damn good by comparison. So the point is that regardless of what style Greb fought in he was able to beat men who look much more advanced than Corbett who was considered the most scientific fighter of his era. Corbett, we can say, never beat anyone who was anywhere near as great or as accomplished, or as experienced, or even as modern as Greb (who by the way was also at times called a very classy scientific boxer, which just illustrates what a lot of opponent found out the hard way was that Greb fought in many different styles because he versatile. In fact one writer compared him to a changeup pitcher who would come out fighting different each round to confuse his opponent). So yeah, if you think you can make a case for Corbett go ahead. But I haven't seen it yet.

 

Hard to disagree with Klompton on this one.

 

Once again, this should be limited to heavyweights. There were fighters at lower weights who had better skills and were more clever than Corbett in the 1890s. Tommy Ryan, Young Griffo, Kid McCoy, Joe Gans (was touted from late 1890s already), as an example.

 

Yes, Corbett was a HW.

 

Klompton,

I'll leave your unprovable garbage and anti-Italian remark behind. I have never said anything derogatory here about a group of people for 10+ years, you sir have! Now to boxing...

1) You have never seen Gerb on film in the ring! So please stop quoting those who saw him as if they were 100% correct, because I can equally show you those who said Corbett was a master boxer too.

Do you think Jack Johnson was skilled? If you say yes, take note that Siler an expert and 3rmd man in the ring thinks Peter Jackson was better had than Johnson, as he puts it by long odds! That's how good Jaskson was.

2 ) You said Greb resembles Calzaghe. Ok, but you're a real fool if you think he resembles Mayorga:hi: Zivic would be a better choice IMO. Yes- Greb though not DQ'd often was dirty.

3 ) Yes, Tunney was pre-prime, and as he grew to 185 he beat Greb's @ss. Tunney wanted another match, Greb said no! Greb could not punch hard. Once Tunney matured he had little to worry about.

Are you suggesting Greb was passed his prime by age 27 when he first meet Tunney?

Gentleman Jim is a good in-fighter and clincher who would have 4 inches and 25+ pound on Greb. And Greb liked to mix it and fight on the inside. Advantage Corbett in the clinches.

4 ) If Corbett fought in the ND timeline or 10 or 12 round fights, he beats Fitzsimmons. Just saying. If his first fight with Jeffries was 10-12 rounds, he might have beaten him too. Many of Greb's opponents were 10 round fights and he didn't face puncher close to the level that Corbett did. Did Greb face many big punchers who might have caught up to him if the fights were 15-25 rounds? You tell me!

Who outboxed Corbett? Maybe no one until he was very old. Corbett had quick feet and an uncanny ability to avoid head shots.


***We are matching a small 5'8" middle vs a Cruiserweight here ***


Corbett's record vs smaller hall of fame level opponents that range from 160-175 is excellent. He blew out Charlie Mithcel, KO'd Choynski and hold a KO win over McCoy. Three smaller men, 3 KO wins. The film shows Choynski was fast even past his prime. McCoy ( Not a heavy ) was considered a good boxer of the times. So why can't we say Corbett beats a vs. a 5'8" middleweight with the little pop? Heck yes you can, and two of the three guys mentioned hit MUCH harder than Greb,

5 ) Corbett beat several hall of fame fighters. Not all of them were passed their prime as you mentioned before. Examples:

Kilrain was 31 years old and 19-0 in gloved fights!

Mitchel was 32 years old and 27-2 in gloved fights!

McCoy was 27 with a 71-4 record.

Source for all three is Box Rec.

6 ) If you want to use a tale of the tape, compare Corbett vs Greb. Without checking, I'd guess Corbett owns almost every measurement.

7 ) Which 185+ pound quality opponent did Greb beat? How about ZERO. So it's not even proven if he could!

8 ) I don't have time to fully research it yet, but Greb was not Roy Jones on the score cards. His style put him in harms way, and when faced vs a bigger skilled man ( Tunney as he matured, or Gibbons ) we saw the results.

 

Charley Mitchell was clearly past his prime (it's not just the age, but his way of living too, not healthy at all), and the victory over him was very controversial.
I'm not claiming myself to be Kid McCoy's expert, but I think I know enough about him and about Corbett to figure McCoy wasn't doing his best vs Corbett. I'm pretty certain he was faster than Corbett, both at footwork and handspeed, he was cleverer, and he was too good of a counter-puncher to be doing THAT bad vs Corbett. The fight was very likely fixed, or McCoy had to be in awful shape to be that bad.

 

The fight was action. Both guys down. You do not see back and forth the action in a fix often. McCoy was a trickster so perhaps this is why some felt it was tanked? McCoy faster than Corbett? Never heard of that.

Didn't Corbett blow out Mitchell?

Who is your pick between Corbett and Greb?

 

First of all no one really knows how great Corbett was. He certainly impressed those who watched him live in person. He impressed a prime Tunney when they sparred decades later when Corbett was in his mid 50's. Corbett was no bum and he was a remarkably well conditioned fighter.

There is no, zero film footage of prime Greb in a real fight so it's impossible to really assess his abilities.

Assuming everyone who saw both Greb and Corbett accurately portrayed their abilities one HAS to go with the hwt champion to beat the middleweight champion. How many 5'8 165 pound middleweights ever beat a hwt champion?

 

While I strongly disagree with Klompton's characterization of boxing skills in the 1890s, he's right that Corbett's style isn't built to succeed in Greb's era.

Corbett's style is actually built for London Prize Ring Rules. While late Victorian boxing was a very sophisticated system that had been developed by professional athletes over a 200 year stretch, it was not suited for gloves.

When Sullivan switched the lineal championship to Queensberry Rules, he destroyed the style that had evolved under LPR and forced professional boxers to optimize their approach for the new rules. The "American" style of ducking, weaving, glove parrying, and hooks took over. The process was about 2/3 of the way finished during Greb's prime.

Thing is, though, that Greb would have experienced some practitioners of Corbett's old-timey style (or mutated versions of it) throughout his career. It wouldn't surprise Greb in the way that it'd surprise a post-1940s boxer. So Corbett can't pull anything from his bag of tricks that Greb hasn't seen at least once.

The converse isn't true. Corbett wouldn't understand Greb's approach, and he'd be fighting with a style that wasn't built to win under Greb's rules.

Greb beat a version of Tunney who hadn't yet made the (relatively) smaller adjustments to his style that he needed to win. It still took Tunney a lot of time and obsessive planning to overcome Greb -- and Tunney came from the same era. The shock will be much greater for Corbett, who will have to adapt to all the unfamiliar habits and assumptions that undergird 1910s/1920s boxing in addition to figuring out Greb specifically.

Greb wins.

 

Oh, I agree. Corbett is a magnificent representative of late LPR boxing (although he only fought gloved). His style is absolutely textbook.

Fitzsimmons. :hey

(Well, give or take a couple inches in height.)

 

^^^This. And Greb was a weak puncher, so he doesn;t have a puncher's chance to turn the tides like Fitzsimmons does

Anyone who watched a slow-moving and blurry film of Corbett vs Fitzsimmons can see Corbett's skills.

Corbett was a mover type, tough to catch with quick reflexes and head movement. On offense, Corbett could quickly bend and deliver a straight to the body with either hand, then get out of the way. The combination Corbett floored Fitz with was a very good one.

In the clinches, Corbett was better than Fitz, who was bigger than Greb.

As I said once Tunney matured and gained weight, Greb couldn't do much with him and Tunney when he fought Greb at his highest weight was 181 pounds, still a few behind Corbett at 185-188.

The ironic part of this thread is Klompton's " attempt " to degrade boxers from 20 years before. He's never seen Greb on film, but will admit as I pointed out that those who saw him used the word amateurish.

This actually suggests Greb might have had a style like more like the fighters he's incorrectly degrading!