Langford was the better fighter overall. He could punch hard enough to knock out anyone. Greb could not. Let's say they both fought. I could see one fight in which Greb would win a decision, outhustling Langford, and I could see a rematch in which Langford knocks him out. I'd prefer to be the guy administering the knockout rather than the guy winning the decision. If they both fought the same guys, I could see Greb winning more often than Langford, by decision, but I think Langford would knock more of them out, and more of them out in rematches even if he lost a decision. Whereas Greb can only win via decision, though he might lose less often. I also think Langford could do better with the really big powerful men, more so than Greb, who was naturally less thick and strong. But then again Greb seemed to do well with everyone, regardless of size or style. Langford had a tendency to get outboxed by taller longer guys on occasion (though he fought even bigger men than Greb did - and could knock them out). So I guess take what you like.
I agree with the above but let's not under sell Greb's potential for administering punishment, even against larger opponents. What he did to Tunney in their first fight is legendary. And I believe he had Brennan hurt and ready to go twice in their fights. On the converse, how Greb avoided getting KO'd essentially ever is what perplexes me most about him. Without footage, I just can't imagine a fighter so active and busy not getting lit up at least once in 300 or so fights against so much top opposition (excepting of course his early loss to Chip).
They are my two favorite boxers, with Joe "The Barbados Demon" Walcott number three. Gotta go with Langford. He could knock your ass out, whereas Greb out hustled you. In a close fight I'll take the guy with the power.
Let's just put it this way, if you asked folks from that era, who had seen both, to give their nonracially biased viewpoints, they would say that Langford was the better pound for pound fighter. They likely also would pick Langford to beat Greb. But then again, a lot of folks underestimated and underappreciated Greb.
Are there any reports on that? The only one I ever recall coming across (to be frank, I never looked hard) was a poster here or over at the Boxrec forums who stated that this hypothetical matchup was proposed to Nat Fleischer in an old Ring magazine. Fleischer responded by saying that Langford would not be able to catch up to Greb. I guess Nat believed Harry was simply too quick of hand and foot. I cannot recall what issue this may have been, however, so do not take my word for it.
We're talking two all time exceptional fighters .. I favor Langford and feel the distinction would be even clearer if Sam stayed between 160 and 175 but didn't because he simply could not get the fights against the top men ..
Both have incredible records. The thing that puts Langford above Greb for me is the fact that there is no footage whatsoever of a Greb fight, just sparring, so it's very hard to gauge how he boxed.
Two of the greatest, I think that Greb's resume and consistency is a bit better overall but Langford's P4P accomplishements are overwordly. As shame that we can only watch one of them fighting. Langford looks absolutely spectacular in fights we have, he wasn't one dimensional puncher at all.
Langford was only really a Middleweight, yet so rattled Jack Johnson when they fought that Johnson, once he became Champion, wouldn't hear of Sam as a challenger.
