Marvin Hagler v.s Harry Greb

True to some extent...But a limited plodder tough though he was gave Marvin Hagler two very tough bouts...I am talking about Vito antuofermo,
who is not to be mentioned innthe same breath as Harry Greb, who was twice as fast,hand and foot, never facial cuts, through barrages of punches from every angle,and would confuse EVERY opponent nhe fought
up to heavyweghts...
I go by this standard--Could Marvin Hagler at 160lbs, lick the likes of such larger [175 lb.s and UP ]as Tunney, Loughran, Gibbons, Jack Dillon, Gunboat Smith, Maxie Rosenbloom, Battling Levinsky, Big Bill Brennan etc.
Of course the answer has to be NO...Could Harry Greb lick Marvin Haglers
opponents were they to have met...A resounding yes, I believe...
Being that Greb and Hagler never met, their respective records, and
logic must prevail...Greb had a unique style, never duplicated before or
since in 299 bouts, againbst everyone and everywhere...His likes we will
never see again....

 

If the written accounts are accurate, then we can certainly form a judgement based on them. If boxing experts at the time, as well as his opponents, all said Greb was extremely fast and had an enormous punch output, then we can make some reasonable assumptions based on that. It's not as good as seeing it on film, but it is still solid evidence.

We've seen Marvin on film and we've seen he has trouble against speed and a high work rate (e.g. Leonard, Vito). So there's reason to believe he'd have trouble with a guy like Greb.

We also know that Greb beat Gene Tunney, who on film looks faster and at least as skilled as Hagler, not to mention a bigger harder-hitting man.

 

You could make the same criticism of footage - it just gives you the impression of a fight, it doesn't tell you how hard the punches were, how tough someone's chin was, how tired each fighter was, how strong they were in the clinch etc. So by your own argument, you can't judge Hagler based on film, you can only judge him if you were in the ring with him.

Also, if you can't judge fighters who've never fought on film, then you can't say Harry Greb would beat an average street punk, or even an 80 year old woman. Since that's obvious bollocks, so is this theory.

 

If we go by resumea's which we have too in this case, then the clear choice is Greb.

 

well then look at Jimmy Young's record. Does that tell everything? No. Hell, even if you looked at Tyson's record, and you knew nothing about him, he could be a terrible fighter, based on the singular reason that he lost to Douglas, Williams, and McBride...

 

I just wish we had some footage of Greb in action in order to better decide how he would do against men like Hagler, Robinson, Leonard etc. No doubt the man was great and would hold his own or better but it's difficult to break it down by comparing the stylistic differences, strengths and weaknesses, tendencies and general skill levels of two different fighters when you have absolutely no footage of one of them. No bettor in his right mind would try to handicap and lay odds on such a contest and word of mouth or written reports just wouldn't suffice. We have plenty of film of Hagler vs. many different opponents to draw a "line" so to speak but nothing on Greb. Might he have a glaring weakness that Hagler could capitalize on? Who can say? There's no footage of the man in actual combat. How the hell is there no footage of a man who fought 300 f-----g fights?!! Obviously the guy was special and as tough as nails but no one knows what he looked like or what his particular style of fighting was in battle. That's crazy! Could Hagler have been his kryptonite? Or vice versa? We can only guess and guessing is not a good way to handicap a match between these two atg's in my opinion.

 

This is some interesting stuff, does anyone have this article?

 

I was called out for suggesting Hagler is over-rated the other day. Feel like this thread is my closing argument.

He is not going to beat Greb, period.