Kid Norfolk

Norfolk beat Greb 2 times

In both he was 15-20 lbs heavier than Greb. First could go either way as reports say. It is said that Greb suffered major eye injury during this fight making him blind in that eye rest of the career.

Second was brutal foul filled brawl in which Norfolk won by DQ and I wouldn't say that Greb was in his prime then.

Norfolk never was a champion because he was black. That's pretty clear.

He was immpresive fighter, he looked so modern against Tate. And his resume is great to.

 

There was no decision in their first fight. Some thought Greb won, others thought Norfolk. Referee Yock Henniger, who was closest to the action, said he would have given it to Greb.

Their second fight was a DQ. By most reliable accounts Norfolk should have been DQ'd at several points during the fight. The ref was roundly criticized after the bout for losing control.

So Norfolk owns a DQ win over Greb. He never actually "beat" Harry.

Klompton can give a more detailed analysis of these bouts. I defer to him.

 

Norfolk did not beat Greb in their first fight. Period. The accounts are split evenly as two who win but all agree that Greb came on over the last half of the fight, wore Norfolk down, and was battering him at the final bell. Norfolk weighed 20 pounds more than Greb in that fight.

In the rematch Greb was out of shape and had been partying hard. He came in at one of his highest weights. Most accounts agree that Norfolk was in control but all accounts agree that it was less a boxing match and more a wrestling match with both fighters fouling liberally. BOTH. After what would be the final round Norfolk hit Greb when Greb turned his back and began to walk to his corner. Greb went nuts and attacked Norfolk. All hell broke loose and Greb was disqualified despite the concensus that it was Norfolk's actions that precipitated the riot.

Frankly, if you are a 180 lb fighter and your claim to fame is "beating" a 160 lb fighter thats a pretty tenuous claim, especially if you are supposed to be as great as some rate Norfolk. I think today hes become a bit overrated. Ive studied his career from its beginnings as a battle royal fighter in Maryland through Panama, and on into his contender status. At every stage of his career he was beaten by fighters that if he was as great as some rate him he should have lost to. At his best he was inconsistant. In Panama, where he began to make a name for himself, he was struggling with Abe the Newsboy who was no more than a welterweight when Norfolk could easily weigh above 175 and losing to Tommy Conners. People who are only familiar with Norfolk's boxrec record will say these were when he was just starting out but Norfolk had been fighting for at least 4 or 5 years when these fights took place. When he came back to the states and was touted as the HW champion of Panama he started to make a name for himself and then fought Gunboat Smith and Gus Christie back to back. Both fights were razor thin and some thought he lost both. Christie knocked a bunch of Norfolk's teeth out in the process. He then built himself back up a bit by beating Miske only to get stopped in two by an aged and half blind Langford. Then he builds himself back up a little only to struggle with an aging and balding Joe Jeannette and get beat by very pedestrian Clay Turner. He knocked Turner out in a rematch but then lost the rubber match. Over the next two or three years he had his best run but when you examine his competition it wasnt that great. Even names like Jeff Clark were past their best at this point. He then loses to basically unknown Lee Anderson by TKO and two fights later struggles with Greb who he outweighed by 20 lbs. He knocked out Tiger Flowers (horribly style matchup for Flowers) but then was knocked out by Wills (horrible style matchup for Norfolk). Then from that point on is really his most important run where he was knocking out Flowers, beating Siki, and winning a DQ over Greb (which may or may not have been justified). After that it was downhill for Norfolk. He has some good wins and some accomplishments. He was certainly a good fighter. I just dont know if he was legitimately great and the one fighter that people always trumpet as proof of his greatness is Greb, a guy he could easily be 0-2 against despite being bigger guy.

 

Lest we forget. Kid Norfolk was kayoed by Frank Moody and Tommy Gibbons, who 160 pound Greb whipped ...And we must bear in mind Kid
Norfolk ,a tough hombre, was 20 pounds heavier than Harry Greb...
As a youngster I stood a few feet from the grey haired Kid Norfolk, who
was a spectator at Stillmans gym in the 1940s...I didn't realize his
significance in boxing history at that time ...Sure do now...

 

It depends where you're rating him, light heavyweight or heavyweight ... Langford flattened anyone he could hit and he caught Norfolk. Wills was a heavyweight. Jeannette was a heavyweight. Gunboat was a heavyweight. AS far as beating Greb, a huge part of the Greb legend was how well he did against larger men. He did not do well with Norfolk and that is to Norfolk's credit.

 

How do you figure he didnt do well against Norfolk? He could arguably be 2-0 against him. The point isnt that Langford could or couldnt flatten Norfolk if he hit him, the point is that Norfolk should have never been hit by Langford at that stage in his career. Gunboat Smith was not a HW, at least not in literal terms. He could comfortably weigh in at 175 pounds. More to the point, with the exception of Wills all of those HWs you name that beat Norfolk were past their prime when fighting an in his prime Norfolk. Gus Christie and Clay Turner were not HWs either and both gave Norfolk ten kinds of hell despite never really rising above journeyman status. Tommy Conners was lower even on the pugilistic ladder than both of those guys when he defeated Norfolk in handy fashion in Panama. Panama drew a lot of ham and egg fighters who couldnt make it in the states but were stars down there because it was easy to get fights and the talent wasnt that deep. Thats why Abe the Newsboy, who was never much better than trial horse in the USA was such a huge hit down there, as well as Conners, Bill Scott, and a ton of other fighters youve never heard of.


In re: to Burts comments: In fairness to Norfolk when he lost to Moody and Gibbons he was way past his prime and nearly blind. Gibbons had literally been avoiding a match with Norfolk since at least 1917 and maybe as early as 1916. By the time he chose to face Norfolk it was common knowledge that Norfolk was blind in one eye and fading fast.

 

True k, When Norfolk fought Harry Greb in 1924, he was 31 years old at the time, while Greb was one year younger at 30 years of age...Only
six months later Tommy Gibbons,who was two years older than Kid norfolk,
kod Norfolk;in 1924...So the three of them were roughly the same age...
It is true that kid Norfolk at that time had sight in one eye,and Greb
was losing his sight about 1925. It is also true that Harry Greb ,was 20
pounds lighter than Kid Norfolk, and had more than twice as much fights under his belt than Kid Norfolk..Greb was clearly more shopworn by that time, and was the greatest fighter of the trio...

 

Harry Greb wasnt just losing the sight in one eye by 1925, he had lost it in the summer/fall of 1921. Thats pretty well established, regardless of what revisionist history states.

While Norfolk, Gibbons, and Greb were all roughly the same age they all had differents sets of mileage. Norfolk had been fighting since at least 1910 and its anyones guess how many fights he actually had as coverage of black fighters was not very good in that era, particularly for fighters who werent considered top class which Norfolk wouldnt attain for nearly ten years. Gibbons, despite being close in age to both Greb and Norfolk had significantly less mileage on his tank due in part to his relative lack of activity compared to Greb and to his style. Which was very defensive minded and very economical in terms of punch output and energy conservation.

I make an interesting point in my book discussing the first Greb-Gibbons fight that while Greb had more fights, Gibbons was actually a more polished and more experienced fighter due in large part because he was tutored by and served as chief sparring partner to his elder brother Mike who at that time, in 1915 was considered the greatest fighter in the world and one of the most talented technical boxers the sport had ever seen.

Had Gibbons and Norfolk met when promoters first started trying to match them its anyones guess who would have won but my suspicion is that Gibbons would have had a much more difficult time than when he faced Norfolk all those years later. That being said he could have just beaten fairly easily. Gibbons was a hell of a fighter and a good puncher too. He had a good chin and was big enough that Norfolk would not have appreciated the same size advantages that he did in some of his more important fights like Greb and Flowers. Gibbons also showed that he was far more consistant, and rarely if ever struggled with the second tier fighters that Norfolk did such as Christie, Turner, etc.

 

klompt - what is your book?

 

He lost one flat out. The other was wildly disputed. Greb did have anywhere near the degree of success he did with all the other men he fought which is a huge part of his legend. You spit hairs about the others but the fighters I mentioned earned their reps at heavyweight. I also always found in intetersting that Greb never got in the ring with Langford, a luxury a fighter like the Kid did not have. Also like Greb, Kid had eye issues as well later in his career. As a light heavyweight Norfolk was a terrific fighter.

 

Losing on a disputed DQ is hardly a definitive conclusion.

Why is it so interesting that Greb never fought Langford? That fight was never called for or even close to being talked about in any quarter anywhere, ever.

 

Kid laid a beating on Billie Miske 2 times over that convinced Dempsey never to cross gloves with him, even as sparring partner.

 

I already answered your first question.

Your second point sounds a bit nutty ...