Why Is SRR Commonly Ranked Ahead of Harry Greb?

Funny enough you just lost a lot of credibility with this post that stretches the truth quite a lot. Greb didn't beat them ALL while weighing under 160 pounds. That is complete and utter trash. He beat most of them while while WEIGHING ABOVE THE MIDDLE WEIGHT LIMIT. It was generally around 166 pounds. Now, one could argue that he was still considered a middle weight even though he was over the limit as things were different back then... what we couldn't say is that greb weighed below the 160 limits for most of his weight climbing fights let alone all. So, I'm starting to think your 14 year old does know more about boxing than you.

Point is, Greb does have a great resume... problem is... he was in a ND era of fights. When looking at primary sources one can give him credit for victories in a retrospective way. Again though, you're having to rely upon other people's opinion on a fight and how they saw it going with their bias on scoring and bias totally unrelated to boxing. So, you're goign to tell me that you're able to reach more a sound conclusion about fights you didn't see.. based on testimony of people that you have no clue if they score fights the same as you or even if they were proficient at it? That is the definition of illogical nor is it conclusive.

The fact of the matter is this.. both greb and robinson have great resumes. Probably the best in the business. one we can see and one we can't... it's really THAT cut and dry.

 

Johnny Dundee, Memphis Pal Moore.

 

Ken overlin?

 

Ken Overlin was called "the poor man's Harry Greb " by boxing people in his time...When he was deemed that honor, he exclaimed to the press " I am convinced that Harry Greb would have beaten me and my top contender both on the same night with no time between bouts ". Heady words indeed...

 

You can when you compare their records. The names on Greb's ledger far outstrip Robinson's. Plus we have film of several of the fighters Greb beat (Walker, Tunney, Loughran, Gibbons, Norfolk, etc). All you need to know is that Greb beat them. Doesn't matter how he did it. He did it.

Probably not, but we will never know. Greb had power, but he chose early in his career to forgo power and concentrate on volume punching. Thus he was able to utilize his tremendous stamina and preserve his hands. Greb was fighting practically every week. When you're doing that it's easy to damage your hands. Back in Greb's era, when boxing was a trade, your hands were your tools and you darn well had better take care of them.

There was a story about Greb's manager (either Mason or Engel) yelling at him in the corner to finish a second-rate fighter he was fighting and had hurt. Greb shot back "I'm not gonna risk breaking my hands on this bum! I got a fight with a contender this weekend!"

Puts a new perspective on things, huh?

 

To take away the accomplishments of Harry Greb coming in above 160 pounds when facing bigger stronger men and diminish his spectacular wins is silly...Why wouldn't Greb and any other MW not enjoy the luxury of not having to dry yourself out to make 160 pounds,when fighting guys who weighed 175 pounds or more ? Those days you weighed in the same morning of your bout and if Greb weighed in at 165, SO WHAT ? Today's MWS enter the ring at 170 quite often as they weigh in a day before...
But for your info whenever Harry Greb had to defend his title and come in at below 160, he always made that weight...Even in his bouts with Mickey Walker he came in at 158 lbs old and creaky just before he retired..He also made under 160 in his last two bouts with the tough southpaw Tiger Flowers,just TWO MONTHS before his tragic death...Greb was almost 4 inches shorter than Ray Robinson and was a middleweight pure and simple
as well as a Hagler, Monzon, who walked around at 165 or more pounds....
The difference is K, Harry Greb had the cojones to tackle anyweight, any color, southpaws etc. Give this immortal fighter his due...
One more point : Harry Greb's forte was unbridled speed of hand and foot.
He was NOT a better fighter at 165 lbs, but who can deny a guy who fought an average of every 10 days, the luxury of not denying yourself an etra
beer or desert ?. Not I...

 

No I suppose you can't - LOL

 

Don't disagree with much of what you said Burt.. the problem is.. that wasn't the point. HE said greb beat people well above him while being LESS THAN 160 pounds. I was merely pointing out that couldn't be further from the truth.. nothing more.

 

Yeah, my daughter thinks she knows more about boxing than I do also - and I'm getting the feeling that you and she are about on the same level. Youth is generally ignorant and arrogant...

So now that we have established that you can at least use BOXREC when properly motivated you either can't interpret what you see or you live up to your handle (corrupt) because while admitting I was right >QUOTE Now, one could argue that he was still considered a middle weight END QUOTE< you want to dispute what middleweights are (which is 160) and that is where Greb fought the vast majority of his fights and that includes his very last fight which was for the middle weight title 8-19-1926 and he didn't come in at 275 for that one either. When you fight Lightheavys, especially for the title, which he won, (BTW an accomplishment Robinson didn't get in his only attempt against Joey Maxim) - you can go up to 175 and for Heavyweights you can weigh what you like but if you try to tell me Harry Greb isn't a career middleweight (160) well, you are the one whose lack of credibility clearly shows, not that I gave you credit for much to begin with...
SOURCE: Wikipedia> Some boxing historians consider Greb the greatest middleweight in history he is also considered one of the 10 or 20 best light heavyweights of all-time, despite being a natural 160-pounder.<

The IBRO seems to think he was a middleweight also - the best in history

Middleweight

Posted by Dan Cuoco on 9/07/06 • Categorized as All Time Rankings

Updated June 2005

#1 Harry Greb


>QUOTE So, you're goign to tell me that you're able to reach more a sound conclusion about fights you didn't see.. based on testimony of people that you have no clue if they score fights the same as you or even if they were proficient at it? That is the definition of illogical nor is it conclusive. <END QUOTE

And now I want to hold you to YOUR OWN STANDARD
Throw out EVERY boxing decision that EVER went to the cards in ALL HISTORY and you rescore them. I mean after all you have no clue if the judges score the fights same as you right? Or even if they were proficient at it? Right? The modern era is especially littered with KuRuPT judging. Why are you willing to take anyone's word for who was better on a given night? Don't let their bias influence you!
Just think how many errors you can correct in the record, how many injustices you could remedy and how many places in the historical rankings you could change with the proper verdicts?
I suppose you really shouldn't post until you get all that done, as there would be nothing to talk about... Because by your own logic nothing is reliable till you see it yourself - and just ignore every fight you can't get film of...

OR is that the definition of illogical?
And it wouldn't be conclusive at all would it?
What if everyone wanted what you want - to judge with their own eyes? To take no one's word for what they witnessed? Who then would take YOUR word for what you see? Everyone might score a fight differently than you do.
IT IS THAT CUT AND DRY

Seriously though, I would like to offer a real project, please tell me your list of who in Boxing history could have accomplished what Harry Greb did in 1919.
Find me a credible career middleweight who could reasonably be expected to do just that one year of his accomplishments in that same time frame and then maybe we can tone down the rhetoric and have something like a real discussion - That is if you want one...

Or we can jab at each other like Trolls with pitchforks, I can do this alll day.

 

V,so darn well said !:good:good:good

 

Wow very good points you brought up. Yes it put a new perspective on things...but of course I can state right back that without any footage of him he's still just a myth. I don't care if theres footage of all these people he beat, where the hell is footage of Greb?!

It also doesn't matter if he fought way more or had to protect his hands, SRR had a much longer win streak then Greb meaning he was way more dominant. SRR also had much more longetivity, as he fought into his 40s while Greb died in his 30s from fighting way too much. I hate to say it, but good management is also a big factor when it comes to being labeled the GOAT. Once again, there is NO footage of Greb...so he was either very very hated or managed very poorly.

Hope that puts a new perspective for you.

 

Oh my...Did SRR have 300 bouts.? Did SRR have 45 bouts in one year, winning them ALL ? So Greb should be penalized because he died at the age of 32 from an operation ? The cad ! By your misguided standards Jack Britton was a better WW than SRR. After all Britton had 344 bouts and was never kod in his last 335 fights...And horror of horror, Jack Britton also was never filmed in a fight as well as Maxie Rosenbloom who had 299 bouts...
So by your criteria a Greb, Britton ,Rosenbloom who had a total of 943 fights but none of their fight films exist are not worthy of the great esteem
thousands of boxing experts held them to because you S never saw them fight...! Well sir, I never saw Abraham Lincoln in person or on film, but I
consider him our greatest President by HIS DEEDS and accomplishments...

 

My friend, THIS is no myth: ********boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9019&cat=boxer

No, it means he didn't have the level of competition that Greb had. Would Robinson had kept that win streak alive if he were fighting (numerous times) Tunney, Loughran, Walker, Norfolk, Mike Gibbons, Tommy Gibbons, Maxie Rosenbloom, Jack Dillon, Jimmy Slattery, Tiger Flowers, Jeff Smith, Gunboat Smith, Battling Levinsky, Billy Miske, etc? Sometimes with a mere one week rest in between fights?

Or how about taking the fighters of his own era. Would his win streak have been intact if he had to fight, on numerous occasions, the likes of Charley Burley, Holman Williams, Cocoa Kid, Archie Moore, Lloyd Marshall, Ezzard Charles, Harold Johnson, Jack Chase, Bert Lytell, Teddy Yarosz, Dave Sands and Eduardo Lausse? Could he whip Burley and then one week later whip Archie Moore? Because that's the type of feat he would have to accomplish if he wanted to keep up with the type of schedule Greb had.

Look how often Harry FOUGHT AND AT WHAT LEVEL. HE PACKED MUCH MORE ACTION INTO A MUCH SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME. ROBBY FOUGHT 1.403 ROUNDS IN A 25 YEAR CAREER. GREB FOUGHT 2,591 ROUNDS IN A 13 YEAR CAREER. THAT'S ALMOST TWICE AS MUCH IN HALF AS LONG (sorry, hit caps button by mistake).

And where exactly did that get him? Just a lot more losses than he should have had. In fact he had almost 100 fights LESS than Greb, yet two losses MORE than Harry. Harry got out at the right time. Robinson stayed in the game much longer than he should have. And I don't think the footage argument is relevant. SRR fought in the TV era, so we have a ton of footage of him. Greb fought in the grainy camera era and in Pittsburgh mostly, which was not exactly the media capital of the world (NY was). So management really had nothing to do with it.

 

HAH, management DOES have to do with it. Why wasn't Greb scheduled to fight in NY for more profits/film exposure? Because he was either very hated or poorly managed!