Would Film Of Greb Confirm His Legendary Status,Or Could It have An Adverse Effect?t

I've never seen Gans nor McFarand described as primitive by those who've seen film of them.

The only negative I've ever seen about Gans is his blatant dive against McGovern.

 

When you have a fighter with such a fabulous cartel as Greb, the lack of a film of one of his fights makes you build a image based on contemporary testimony, his opponents and newspaper reports ..... The consequence is that we have two Harry Greb: one designed by our imagination, a mythical fighter, and the other Harry Greb, the human being with his limitations. Therefore, the effect of the appearance of a film of a Greb fight would only affect the first Harry Greb, the one built by our imagination, by revealing the flaws that all fighter has. But the real Greb, the one that interests us, will remain unscathed, with its unmatched record. There is no perfect fighter, and the appearance of a Greb film is of interest to anyone who enjoys boxing, to study the evolution of boxing technique and see the arguably greatest fighter P4P to ever set foot in the ring.

 

Your description of Harry Greb is very similar to how the likes of, Henry Armstrong and Jimmy Wilde were described in old boxing books. Yet film does those two legendary fighters an injustice, their legend would be on a par or even greater than Greb's, if no film footage was available of them both. I often feel Greb is overrated, and find it difficult to understand how, if he was so brilliant there is no footage of his fights. Yet fight-film of many, many fighters who fought before Greb and around the same time as Greb fought, exists still to this day. IMO he is overrated.

 

No they wouldn't.

Neither of them came close to beating as many elite fighters as Greb.

The availability of film footage has nothing to do with it.

 

Both Armstrong and Wilde are rated vastly superior than Harry Greb, by every boxing historian i have ever came across. Henry Armstrong was universally accepted as Top 3 Greatest of all time P4P for over 60yrs, by every boxing historian and commentator who was worth his salt. Jimmy Wilde has been universally acknowledged as, not only Britains greatest ever fighter. But also The Greatest Flyweight champion who ever lived... Now then, what did you make claim of Harry Greb being?.... You can read thousands of pre-1960 boxing books, and you will virtually never come across a single historian who rates Harry Greb anywhere near where he is rated today. I happen to own over 1500+ boxing books, most being pre-1960. Harry Greb is mentioned on a scale no greater than any other fighter of his era. In fact he is mentioned far less than many fighters from his era.

 

There seems to be a general leaning on here that Greb might not be aesthetically pleasing and the question being his style when viewed might effect his historical standing.
On the other hand swarming styles even with technical deficiencies have mainly proved popular over the decades with fans, especially the casual fans.
Just look at the popularity of Marciano, Armstrong and dare I even say Ricky Hatton.
Greb's reputation might even be enhanced if he was seen on film.

 

By the 1920's the film quality was generally good. When you watch film of a fighter for the first time his speed technique and power are what you see first.

Greb had great speed , little power and was described as amateurish. So the casual observer might not be impressed unless he watches the full film.

His long suits were stamina, durability and defense. These attributes are best apprise acted over the course of a fight.

Some consider him a dirty fighter. That would be a negative as I believe he could be dirty.

My thoughts are unless he was in there vs a top opponent, he would be slightly downgraded.