# Anyone Rating Harry Greb Over Henry Armstrong here?



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Greb has sometimes multiple Hall Of Fame Wins over Rosenbloom, Dillon, Levinsky, Tunney, Walker, Flowers, Gibbons, Norfolk, Loughran and Slattery. The only man to beat Tunney convincingly, take note.

Armstrong has maybe the best achievement of holding titles in 3 original weights simultaneously. Never really viewed as #1 at the weight ATG wise due to class jumping (a lot rate Greb #1 MW for instance) with wins over Ross, Angott, Zivic, Larkin, Ambers.


:bluesuit


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

If you count no-decisions, Greb has the greater volume of quality wins IMO, and also greater longevity at the top level.

Greb has a case for being the #1 GOAT. I know some people will say the same for Armstrong, but I don't agree - I think his comparatively brief peak hurts him in comparison with other ATGs like Greb, Robinson, and Langford.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Sittin Sonny said:


> If you count no-decisions, Greb has the greater volume of quality wins IMO, and also greater longevity at the top level.
> 
> Greb has a case for being the #1 GOAT. I know some people will say the same for Armstrong, but I don't agree - I think his comparatively brief peak hurts him in comparison with other ATGs like Greb, Robinson, and Langford.


Of course NWS wins are included SS. Greb's resume is insane I was really getting down to who did more and what better at their weights. It's a shame Greb couldn't get a Heavyweight title shot.


----------



## RollinShots (Jun 6, 2013)

greb by a cunt hair tbh


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Bump.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

*crickets*


----------



## Rattler (May 16, 2013)

Sittin Sonny said:


> If you count no-decisions, Greb has the greater volume of quality wins IMO, and also greater longevity at the top level.
> 
> Greb has a case for being the #1 GOAT. I know some people will say the same for Armstrong, but I don't agree - I think his comparatively brief peak hurts him in comparison with other ATGs like Greb, Robinson, and Langford.


I'm not sure you fully appreciate what Armstrong did - in two years, he went 41-0 (36 KO's - including 27 in a row) and won THE (not a fraction of... the) World Championship at Featherweight, Lightweight & Welterweight (an accomplishment that NOBODY in the history of the sport can touch. Not Greb, not Robinson, not Leonard, nobody). A three division champion, when the claim really meant something, simultaneously - including a victory over a future Middleweight champ in Ceferino Garcia (who many would say that Armstrong beat for the title a few years later, which would've made him a four time world champion from Featherweight to Middleweight).

I rate Greb higher, because he fought a little better competition, but when you do something that nobody else in the history of a sport has ever done, that gives you a card up your sleeve that you can play in situation's like this and have it be worth a good deal on your behalf.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Greb has sometimes multiple Hall Of Fame Wins over Rosenbloom, Dillon, Levinsky, Tunney, Walker, Flowers, Gibbons, Norfolk, Loughran and Slattery. The only man to beat Tunney convincingly, take note.
> 
> Armstrong has maybe the best achievement of holding titles in 3 original weights simultaneously. Never really viewed as #1 at the weight ATG wise due to class jumping (a lot rate Greb #1 MW for instance) with wins over Ross, Angott, Zivic, Larkin, Ambers.
> 
> :bluesuit


P4P I rate Greb number 1.


----------



## Bladerunner (Oct 22, 2012)

I do but not by much.

I have both in my top three.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

I rate Armstrong higher. I can see Armstrong in action, with Greg all I can really do is watch walker and tunney and know hr bested them. Makes him good but I can't assume he's as good as hank.


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

Greb, without a shadow of a doubt. Armstrong is terribly, terribly great, but I'd never be truly comfortable labeling him the greatest boxer to ever live, whereas Greb is my P4P #1 lock at the moment.

Still, I wouldn't argue if somebody had it the other way with different criteria and the like, but achievement-wise, I've always rated Greb higher. Armstrong's P4P accolades are still ridiculous though.

EDIT: Also, when I say shadow of a doubt, I don't mean the gulf in class between them is necessarily wide, just clear to me. It's a razor-thin decision. My top five all-time is probably something like;

1: Harry Greb
2: Sugar Ray Robinson
3: Sam Langford
4: Henry Armstrong
5: Ezzard Charles

Or thereabouts.


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

Rattler said:


> I'm not sure you fully appreciate what Armstrong did - in two years, he went 41-0 (36 KO's - including 27 in a row) and won THE (not a fraction of... the) World Championship at Featherweight, Lightweight & Welterweight (an accomplishment that NOBODY in the history of the sport can touch. Not Greb, not Robinson, not Leonard, nobody). A three division champion, when the claim really meant something, simultaneously - including a victory over a future Middleweight champ in Ceferino Garcia (who many would say that Armstrong beat for the title a few years later, which would've made him a four time world champion from Featherweight to Middleweight).
> 
> I rate Greb higher, because he fought a little better competition, but when you do something that nobody else in the history of a sport has ever done, that gives you a card up your sleeve that you can play in situation's like this and have it be worth a good deal on your behalf.


Indeed, good post. Armstrong's weight climbing prowess was absolutely legendary in a sense that no other fighter has ever achieved. He would have become world champion in _half the weight divisions_ with a win over Garcia; a fight many felt Armstrong was the victor in. It's unprecedented.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

But Armstrong is one of few great Native American boxers B)


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

01. Ray Robinson
02. *Henry Armstrong*
03. *Harry Greb*
04. Sam Langford
05. Ezzard Charles



turbotime said:


> But Armstrong is one of few great Native American boxers B)


:lol:

Cute. What about _Canadian_ Sam Langford?


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> 01. Ray Robinson
> 02. *Henry Armstrong*
> 03. *Harry Greb*
> 04. Sam Langford
> ...


:deal

I know right? I should be hugging these dudes to no end


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

turbotime said:


> :deal
> 
> I know right? I should be hugging these dudes to no end


I should be hugging Greb to no end. That's just not our M.O.

On many days, I feel like his record almost overwhelms Ray and Henry but the lack of film is just so damn profound for me. Robinson is one of the five best fighters I've ever seen PLUS a nearly insurmountable record. Henry has I think the greatest achievement in boxing history. If it ain't the greatest, it's definitely the coolest and possibly most unique :lol: Like I said before, DOB: December 12, 1912. He was born to be Mr. Triple Crown :smoke


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Where the hell are all of the documentaries/biographies on Henry Armstrong? The lack of coverage and attention he's gotten up to this point is really disheartening unless I've completely missed something (and I looked a few months back). Greb is getting the Royal Treatment from klompton and already has a full length book done on him. Clay Moyle built a monument for Langford. Only Ali and Tyson have garnered more interest than Robinson. What about Henry?


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> Where the hell are all of the documentaries/biographies on Henry Armstrong? The lack of coverage and attention he's gotten up to this point is really disheartening unless I've completely missed something (and I looked a few months back). Greb is getting the Royal Treatment from klompton and already has a full length book done on him. Clay Moyle built a monument for Langford. Only Ali and Tyson have garnered more interest than Robinson. What about Henry?


Seriously. It's one of the strangest things in sport IMO Who the hell wouldn't love an Armstrong doc? IMO that era wasn't heavily covered and when it was it was about Robinson's rise. He cast a big shadow.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Seriously. It's one of the strangest things in sport IMO Who the hell wouldn't love an Armstrong doc? IMO that era wasn't heavily covered and when it was it was about Robinson's rise. He cast a big shadow.


Joe Louis gets plenty coverage. :-(

It's an appalling injustice to one of the greatest athletes of all-time. That little 20 min ESPN piece doesn't do it for me.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Robinson
Greb
Armstrong
Charles
Langford

for me. You can interchange them though and I wouldn't worry, theres a lot of guys up the top end with not a lot between them.


----------



## The Sweet Science (Jun 5, 2013)

I rate Greb over Armstrong. Robinson is my #1, Greb #2 with Armstrong not too far behind.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> Joe Louis gets plenty coverage. :-(
> 
> It's an appalling injustice to one of the greatest athletes of all-time. That little 20 min ESPN piece doesn't do it for me.


He needed more Nazis to beat on :verysad


----------



## Rattler (May 16, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> Where the hell are all of the documentaries/biographies on Henry Armstrong? The lack of coverage and attention he's gotten up to this point is really disheartening unless I've completely missed something (and I looked a few months back). Greb is getting the Royal Treatment from klompton and already has a full length book done on him. Clay Moyle built a monument for Langford. Only Ali and Tyson have garnered more interest than Robinson. What about Henry?


1. He's not a heavyweight.
2. When he fought, one of the most memorable and acclaimed heavyweights of all time was in his prime, Joe Louis. That's a long shadow cast, in a sport where the average sports fan usually only knows who the top HW's are, except in cases where the division is weak (ala, right now).
3. He's black. That's always an element at play, when you consider that he fought in an era where black people weren't exactly the boon of a white sportswriter's existence (unless it was a Joe Louis, who probably filled that quota and then some).
4. He fought before television, so there isn't dozens of tapes for people to trade and pass the legend along with.
5. Boxing has a LONG history. There's a LOT of fighters to cover. Occasionally, considering the aforementioned points, a great fighter will get overlooked. Langford had a hell of a life... he's woefully under documented. Fitzsimmons, Charles, Gans, Benny Leonard, Archie Moore, Saddler, Burley, Wilde... on and on and on. You've got to make a moment that's not forgotten to be remembered long after you're gone. SRR had LaMotta. If that's all he'd done, he'd be remembered, because LaMotta is remembered. Who did Armstrong fight that captures the attention like a LaMotta?


----------



## Surf-Bat (Jun 6, 2013)

Greb by far.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Surf-Bat said:


> Greb by far.


You can do better than that :bart


----------



## Surf-Bat (Jun 6, 2013)

You already said it all in your first post, Turbs  I didn't think there was any need for me to elaborate.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

turbs. I like it :smoke


----------



## charlie harper (May 18, 2013)

Greb is arguably the GOAT. Arguably not.


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Rattler said:


> I'm not sure you fully appreciate what Armstrong did - in two years, he went 41-0 (36 KO's - including 27 in a row) and won THE (not a fraction of... the) World Championship at Featherweight, Lightweight & Welterweight (an accomplishment that NOBODY in the history of the sport can touch. Not Greb, not Robinson, not Leonard, nobody). A three division champion, when the claim really meant something, simultaneously - including a victory over a future Middleweight champ in Ceferino Garcia (who many would say that Armstrong beat for the title a few years later, which would've made him a four time world champion from Featherweight to Middleweight).
> 
> I rate Greb higher, because he fought a little better competition, but when you do something that nobody else in the history of a sport has ever done, that gives you a card up your sleeve that you can play in situation's like this and have it be worth a good deal on your behalf.


On the contrary, I very much appreciate what Armstrong did at his peak. But Greb also has a feat of his own that has probably never been duplicated: in 1919, he unofficially went *45-0 *_in just that single year_, against numerous top contenders and future HOFers from MW through HW. And I would argue that Greb faced consistently tougher competition in that single year, even though there were no titles on the line.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Surf-Bat said:


> Greb by far.


:lol:

Incredible, Surf.



turbotime said:


> Greb has sometimes multiple Hall Of Fame Wins over Rosenbloom, Dillon, Levinsky, Tunney, Walker, Flowers, Gibbons, Norfolk, Loughran and Slattery. The only man to beat Tunney convincingly, take note.
> 
> Armstrong has maybe the best achievement of holding titles in 3 original weights simultaneously. Never really viewed as #1 at the weight ATG wise due to class jumping (a lot rate Greb #1 MW for instance) with wins over Ross, Angott, Zivic, Larkin, Ambers.
> 
> :bluesuit


To revisit this great thread I don't even remember contributing to, the point in which Greb caught a lot of these guys is a trip. The activity and competition level of these fighters was rather insane and so losses - sometimes quite a few - were accrued along the way. Just look at the top guys on Robinson's ledger. Greb has plenty of them himself amongst all of the Hall of Famers defeated (such as Dillion and Levinsky). This is something that really didn't seriously cool off until the 1950s or so and yet, there's something so sexy and appealing about beating ATGs when they've hardly had or haven't had their cherry popped.

Gene Tunney [48-0] arguably twice, only guy to beat him, future HW Champ.

Tommy Gibbons x2 [49-0] and [75-1] respectively. Only other losses of his CAREER to Dempsey, Tunney and DQ to Miske. All after the Greb fights, who was obviously nowhere near any of these men size-wise.

Mike Gibbons [87-3] HOF MW

Maxie Rosenbloom [32-3], future LHW Champion

Tommy Loughran x4 [25-1] (first time around), future LHW Champion

Jimmy Slattery [48-1], future LHW Champion

This is straight up bullshit, flat out. :lol: I mean that in the best way. What is truly ridiculous though is the list of fighters whom Greb beat that got a crack at Jack Dempsey at one point or another, a slew of them for the Heavyweight title at that.

@turbotime :twisted


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

I still say Armstrong. His demolition of Ross is one of the best victories in filmed history.


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

Yeah.
1. Robinson
2. Greb
3. Armstrong
4. Langford
5. Charles


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

Luf said:


> I still say Armstrong. His demolition of Ross is one of the best victories in filmed history.


A great victory but it should be noted it wasn't a prime Ross. Then again Armstrong arguably held 4 titles (Robbed for his MW title) at a time when there was only 8. Crazy stuff.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

MadcapMaxie said:


> A great victory but it should be noted it wasn't a prime Ross. Then again Armstrong arguably held 4 titles (Robbed for his MW title) at a time when there was only 8. Crazy stuff.


I reckon it was a prime Ross to be fair. He just got destroyed by one of the goats.

I reckon when he fought Garcia he fought the best mw in the world, by then the division had become fractured though :-/


----------



## Drew101 (Jun 30, 2012)

Judgement call. Greb may have greater quantity over a longer period of time, but in his absolute prime, I believe he wasn't as destructive as Armstrong was during a gargantuan run that saw him go 27-0 (26 KO's) in 1937, and 60-2 during his championship years (which, for the sake of reference, begins from the time he splits two decisions against Richie Fontaine in '36).


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

MadcapMaxie said:


> A great victory but it should be noted it wasn't a prime Ross.


Probably not, but then again Ross was around 28 years old and the only defeat he'd suffered in the previous seven years leading up to the fight came at the hands of Jimmy McLarnin, whom Ross beat twice. He was overwhelmed.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Drew101 said:


> Judgement call. Greb may have greater quantity over a longer period of time, but in his absolute prime, I believe he wasn't as destructive as Armstrong was during a gargantuan run that saw him go 27-0 (26 KO's) in 1937, and 60-2 during his championship years (which, for the sake of reference, begins from the time he splits two decisions against Richie Fontaine in '36).


Soldier Bartfield isn't Greb's best win, Drew.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

turbotime said:


> He needed more Nazis to beat on :verysad





turbotime said:


> Toy Bulldog is dumb as shit.


:rofl :lol:


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> :lol:
> 
> Incredible, Surf.
> 
> ...


:happy :happy :happy

You need to get Klompton's book on Greb soon, I told my mom I was going to buy it and she went ahead and ordered it but now I don't get it till Christmas :twisted!!!


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

@Klompton was browsing this thread earlier.

I read McGrain's review of it Friday. :jjj


----------



## DonBoxer (Jun 6, 2012)

Greb, because i could justify ranking Greb as the GOAT but i couldnt do that for Armstrong.


----------



## Drew101 (Jun 30, 2012)

Hands of Iron said:


> Soldier Bartfield isn't Greb's best win, Drew.


Yeah, in truth I'd rate Greb a bit higher on an ATG list. But it's a margin measured in millimeters, 'cause Chalky Wright isn't Armstrong's best win, either.


----------



## Surf-Bat (Jun 6, 2013)

Drew101 said:


> Judgement call. Greb may have greater quantity over a longer period of time, but in his absolute prime, I believe he wasn't as destructive as Armstrong was during a gargantuan run that saw him go 27-0 (26 KO's) in 1937, and 60-2 during his championship years (which, for the sake of reference, begins from the time he splits two decisions against Richie Fontaine in '36).


But keep in mind that Greb was fighting FAR more often than Armstrong and against greater opposition. When you fight as often as Greb, broken hands are a major concern. You can't earn money when the tools of your trade are shattered. If Greb sat on his punches like Armstrong did then you would see a lot more knockouts on his record, but a lot less fights.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Drew101 said:


> Yeah, in truth I'd rate Greb a bit higher on an ATG list. But it's a margin measured in millimeters, 'cause Chalky Wright isn't Armstrong's best win, either.


Well, I actually voted for Armstrong on this when the thread was made in June for a few reasons mentioned by @Luf -- I'll stick with my top three for the time being but I do feel Greb has the best collection of both top wins and deepest overall record. Could easily put him at #1 on any given day because of that.

You think Petey Sarron has been snubbed out of the IBHOF?


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Surf-Bat said:


> But keep in mind that Greb was fighting FAR more often than Armstrong and against greater opposition. When you fight as often as Greb, broken hands are a major concern. You can't earn money when the tools of your trade are shattered. If Greb sat on his punches like Armstrong did then you would see a lot more knockouts on his record, but a lot less fights.


Surf I rarely disagree with you, but its not like Armstrong was fighting once a year. In '37 he was knocking someone out every other week.


----------



## Drew101 (Jun 30, 2012)

Hands of Iron said:


> You think Petey Sarron has been snubbed out of the IBHOF?


Oh, for sure. :nod

He's got good numbers, and a close series of fights with one of the top 10-15 featherweights in history (you could say the final fight, which Sarron won was the most decisive zult of the series). He was a serious player in one of the division's deepest periods, and definitely deserves to be credited for it, imo.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Greb has sometimes multiple Hall Of Fame Wins over Rosenbloom, Dillon, Levinsky, Tunney, Walker, Flowers, Gibbons, Norfolk, Loughran and Slattery. The only man to beat Tunney convincingly, take note.
> 
> Armstrong has maybe the best achievement of holding titles in 3 original weights simultaneously. Never really viewed as #1 at the weight ATG wise due to class jumping (a lot rate Greb #1 MW for instance) with wins over Ross, Angott, Zivic, Larkin, Ambers.
> 
> :bluesuit





Rattler said:


> I'm not sure you fully appreciate what Armstrong did - in two years, he went 41-0 (36 KO's - including 27 in a row) and won THE (not a fraction of... the) World Championship at Featherweight, Lightweight & Welterweight (an accomplishment that NOBODY in the history of the sport can touch. Not Greb, not Robinson, not Leonard, nobody). A three division champion, when the claim really meant something, simultaneously - including a victory over a future Middleweight champ in Ceferino Garcia (who many would say that Armstrong beat for the title a few years later, which would've made him a four time world champion from Featherweight to Middleweight).
> 
> I rate Greb higher, because he fought a little better competition, but when you do something that nobody else in the history of a sport has ever done, that gives you a card up your sleeve that you can play in situation's like this and have it be worth a good deal on your behalf.





Hands of Iron said:


> :lol:
> 
> Incredible, Surf.
> 
> ...





Drew101 said:


> Judgement call. Greb may have greater quantity over a longer period of time, but in his absolute prime, I believe he wasn't as destructive as Armstrong was during a gargantuan run that saw him go 27-0 (26 KO's) in 1937, and 60-2 during his championship years (which, for the sake of reference, begins from the time he splits two decisions against Richie Fontaine in '36).


 @JMP How do you split 'em? Almost an exercise in futility. Interchangeable as hell, really.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Drew101 said:


> Oh, for sure. :nod
> 
> He's got good numbers, and a close series of fights with one of the top 10-15 featherweights in history (you could say the final fight, which Sarron won was the most decisive zult of the series). He was a serious player in one of the division's deepest periods, and definitely deserves to be credited for it, imo.


I wish Henry had defended his Welterweight title and against more Welterweight contenders, Drew. It sort of flies though when you consider he wasn't anything of a true Welter and was still fighting top guys. Some of the best lightweights around :lol: Montanez, another win over Baby Arizmendi, Paul Junior, Davey Day, etc. The win over Pedro really seems to be under the radar


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Getting people to post in this topic is like pulling teeth :-( Where's @O59 and @the cobra @Lester1583


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

:lol:


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

I rate Greb over Armstrong but when you get to this level in the pantheon of greats does it really matter? You might as well say guys like Greb and Armstrong are 1a, 1b, 1c, etc.


----------



## the cobra (Jun 6, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> Getting people to post in this topic is like pulling teeth :-( Where's @*O59* and @*the cobra* @*Lester1583*


Your avatar is terrifying. Both of them. Both of them scare me.

Greb is greater than Armstrong.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

the cobra said:


> Your avatar is terrifying. Both of them. Both of them scare me.
> 
> Ezzard Charles is greater than Armstrong.


 @turbotime


----------



## Drew101 (Jun 30, 2012)

There's some quality to go along with insane quantity during that reign. Davey Day, Paul Junior, Arizmendi, Ernie Roderick, Montanez as you mentioned, Cerfino Garcia, Zanelli (who had never been stopped) were all decent enough contenders to face...especially in a two year period. Talk about ruling a division like a mother...fucking...boss. ::ibutt


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> @turbotime


Greater middleweight...... maybe.


----------



## jorodz (Sep 14, 2012)

got greb 1, armstrong 4 at the moment


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Drew101 said:


> There's some quality to go along with insane quantity during that reign. Davey Day, Paul Junior, Arizmendi, Ernie Roderick, Montanez as you mentioned, Cerfino Garcia, Zanelli (who had never been stopped) were all decent enough contenders to face...especially in a two year period. Talk about ruling a division like a mother...fucking...boss. ::ibutt


Ta bout his Featherweight ledger?

Baby Arizmendi
Petey Sarron
Midget Wolgast
Mike Belloise
Everett Rightmire
Tony Chavez



turbotime said:


> Greater middleweight...... maybe.


:lol:


----------



## DharmaBum (Jun 5, 2013)

charlie harper said:


> Greb is arguably the GOAT. Arguably not.


:think Hmm. Maybe.


----------



## Drew101 (Jun 30, 2012)

@Hands of Iron

Chalky Wright and Benny Bass, too.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Drew101 said:


> @Hands of Iron
> 
> Chalky Wright and Benny Bass, too.


Fucking A on Wright. atsch You'll have to excuse me Drew, it's been like eight months since I've really discussed any of this stuff like this, which is where the enthusiasm is coming from.

Benny Bass, not so much considering the time. Still impressive to stop him though. :smile


----------



## Rattler (May 16, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> Getting people to post in this topic is like pulling teeth :-( Where's @O59 and @the cobra @Lester1583


I can't speak for them, but one issue for me is that I've had this and many, many similar discussions over at the ESB Classic forum for so many years, that after awhile you get a bit tired of reiterating the same argument for the umpteenth time. That's why I rarely frequent the anti-American threads in the Lounge, because that horse has been beaten into paste so many times.

That may have something to do with it.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Rattler said:


> I can't speak for them, but one issue for me is that I've had this and many, many similar discussions over at the ESB Classic forum for so many years, that after awhile you get a bit tired of reiterating the same argument for the umpteenth time. That's why I rarely frequent the anti-American threads in the Lounge, because that horse has been beaten into paste so many times.
> 
> That may have something to do with it.


Yeah, that's partly why I took a break from it for about 2/3 of a year. It's all fascinating again coming back to it though


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

We'll do some new stuff. Promise.


----------



## the cobra (Jun 6, 2013)

Bitches...


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

jorodz said:


> got greb 1, armstrong 4 at the moment


:verysad


----------



## jorodz (Sep 14, 2012)

turbotime said:


> :verysad


:bart you're not mad, you're just dissapointed?


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> I read McGrain's review of it Friday. :jjj


Link jigga?


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Link jigga?


 http://www.boxing.com/live_fast_die_young_the_life_and_times_of_harry_greb.html

_It became something of an Ahab's Whale in certain corners of the internet, but at long last Steve Compton has produced his long promised tome on one Edward Harry Greb, and if the obsession didn't quite drag the author to his death, it should be noted by any would-be reader that Live Fast Die Young: The Life and Times of Harry Greb took eleven years to complete.

The author can perhaps comfort himself that this lost decade was given in exchange for that rarest of things in a time obsessed with a quick turnaround and a fast buck, namely a book that has been written totally without compromise. If the original goal was to produce the definitive work on one of boxing's true greats then that goal has been achieved. There will never be another book written on Harry Greb; this is it._

Christmas FFS :lol: :-( Right Now sounds about right. :deal

Gonna try and go back to sleep now.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

the cobra said:


> Bitches...


:lol:

Post more.

You've been shell shocked ever since Manny got brutally KO'ed. :-(


----------



## the cobra (Jun 6, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> :lol:
> 
> Post more.
> 
> You've been shell shocked ever since Manny got brutally KO'ed. :-(


:lol: that was just temporary.

I've been busier than I previously was is all. I shall though, I shall.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

the cobra said:


> :lol: that was just temporary.
> 
> I've been busier than I previously was is all. I shall though, I shall.


Can you imagine if Greb had been let loose and released into the 1940s and 50s? A nearly Endless list of mouthwatering fights that would've taken place. Ezzard and Archie put on notice, Greb fought the black murderers row last month, for the Lolz.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> :lol:
> 
> Post more.
> 
> You've been shell shocked ever since Manny got brutally KO'ed. :-(


What pactards weren't though?


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

jorodz said:


> :bart you're not mad, you're just dissapointed?


Has trouble seeing Henry anywhere outside of the top three


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

turbotime said:


> What pactards weren't though?


:lol: :conf


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

the cobra said:


> :lol: that was just temporary.
> 
> I've been busier than I previously was is all. I shall though, I shall.


Totally understandable man


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

turbotime said:


> :happy :happy :happy
> 
> You need to get Klompton's book on Greb soon, I told my mom I was going to buy it and she went ahead and ordered it but now I don't get it till Christmas :twisted!!!


It was Out of Stock on Amazon so went with Barnes and Noble. Done Deal. :deal


----------



## Scalinatella (Jan 12, 2013)

Luf got it right, in my opinion. Ross was not "past-prime" when he faced Armstrong, no way, no how. That's a feel-good myth perpetuated by boxing guys who love Ross. Ross (who was probably at the peak of his powers at 28!) spent the first few rounds fighting Armstrong exactly the way he should have --stepping inside Armstrong's hooks, countering and pivoting around him. He threw the shot that Zivic would pick up on later --right uppercuts designed to catch him coming in-- and it was working early on. Ross looked masterful until the Armstrong onslaught wore him out.

Armstrong is #3 in my estimation. But while he and Robinson and Charles can be something like interchangeable, Greb is off by himself. Greb is the greatest and the more you look at his accomplishments and his inhuman activity, the more he pulls away.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)




----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

That man!


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Langford stops both Charles and Moore.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> Langford stops both Charles and Moore.


Whoa now! Let's all calm down. No reason to be so hasty...


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Langford takes Ezzard's chin and splashes master pieces upon the canvas.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> Langford takes Ezzard's chin and splashes master pieces upon the canvas.


If tHE cOBRA were here he'd be in a tizzy. But it's not an unreasonable pick. Just so definitive.


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

Scalinatella said:


> Luf got it right, in my opinion. Ross was not "past-prime" when he faced Armstrong, no way, no how. That's a feel-good myth perpetuated by boxing guys who love Ross. Ross (who was probably at the peak of his powers at 28!) spent the first few rounds fighting Armstrong exactly the way he should have --stepping inside Armstrong's hooks, countering and pivoting around him. He threw the shot that Zivic would pick up on later --right uppercuts designed to catch him coming in-- and it was working early on. Ross looked masterful until the Armstrong onslaught wore him out.
> 
> Armstrong is #3 in my estimation. But while he and Robinson and Charles can be something like interchangeable, Greb is off by himself. Greb is the greatest and the more you look at his accomplishments and his inhuman activity, the more he pulls away.


And with that, I can finally begin posting here after having originally been the 268th poster to join CHB back in June last year. [I've been trying to get certain individuals on board since, and to become active posters here. Scalinatella was the last major catch on my fly casting list. Now, I've gotta start figuring out the differences between site usage here and my earlier haunt, since this is the only other site I've ever been a member of.]

No, Barney was not past prime, but he was a very clean boxer with limited power who was not considered great during his career in the way Canzi was, and Hank was a monster during this time. Ross elevated in stature through his Guadalcanal heroics and subsequent triumph over consequential addiction to morphine for his war wounds, but the full realization of his greatness as a boxer appears to have largely been a post career recognition which his gallantry with Armstrong ignited.

The readily available footage of Barney in action both in victory and defeat helps cement his stature today, but relatives of mine who were following boxing during his heyday have told me Ross only got full due in retrospect, not while he was competing. Regardless, he didn't seem to be declining leading up to Armstrong.

Why doesn't Hank get more attention than he does from some quarters? In retirement as a minister ("Once, I fought for glory. Today, I fight for God"), he wasn't the kind of personality like a Graziano, Robinson or LaMotta to invite attention like that. Even at the weigh-in for Pryor-Arguello I, when he was at Aaron's side and Alexis dedicated his attempt to Armstrong, it was striking to me how little attention he was drawing to himself, possessing a sincerely ministerial attitude towards vanity. He seemed to have no desire for iconic stature and idolatry in later life, no narcissistic lust for attention, acclaim, adulation and recognition.

Regarding Petey Sarron, he WILL eventually get enshrined in Canastota. That's an inevitability, but as a posthumous honor, it's not a matter of pressing urgency that it was for Jack Sharkey, Charley Burley, Eddie Perkins, Jimmy Bivins and others who were pressed in while still alive. [Petey died in the early 1990s, but his great rival Freddie Miller did not get his own posthumous induction until 1997. For Sarron's entry to precede Freddie's honestly cannot be justified. But Petey is certain to enter their ranks in due time. I also think Nel Tarlton gets in at some point.]


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Duodenum, one of ESB's finest.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

LittleRed said:


> If tHE cOBRA were here he'd be in a tizzy. But it's not an unreasonable pick. Just so definitive.


Things ain't what they used to be.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

LittleRed said:


> If tHE cOBRA were here he'd be in a tizzy. But it's not an unreasonable pick. Just so definitive.





Hands of Iron said:


> Things ain't what they used to be.


Classic stuff man :lol: @turbotime



Klompton said:


> Greb would kick the shit out of Robinson. He was far better and more dynamic in pretty much every sense of the word than LaMotta who ray struggled mightily with. Against Greb Ray wouldnt have his speed advantage either. He hit hard but did he hit as hard as heavyweights that Greb fought? What could the naturally smaller Robinson do that Greb had never seen? You name it Greb faced it and beat it. Greb wins a 15 round decision proving conclusively that Robinson is not the greatest p4p.





Burt Brooks said:


> Harry Greb beat larger fighters than Kid Gavilan ever would dream of tackling. If He had to Harry Greb had the physical strength to cope and manhandle heavyweights if necessary...Along with tremendous speed with his volleys and foot speed which was described as "rubberlike",in his ability to bounce away from danger when required...He was held in "AWE",by his peers, in a golden age of fighters who would fight almost every two weeks to earn a living,and he was the best P4P fighter of his times....





Bill Butcher said:


> I think you should sit down & actually watch the last fight between Lamotta & Robinson (the only fight they had at MW by the way) & you might switch the words `struggled mightily` with `badly outclassed & beat up`
> 
> Ive never seen Greb fight so cant annalyze this stylewise but Id pick that version of SRR vs anyone at 160... ANYONE.





Boilermaker said:


> Even Randy Turpin?





Burt Brooks said:


> Patently false statement itrymariti---As far as i can recall i have twice participated in a Fantasy match except for the Harry Greb /Ray Robinson H2H which I happen to believe Harry Greb with his strength and style would have prevailed over the equally great Ray Robinson----And when I chose Jack Dempsey [PRIME ],because of his Arturo Godoy somewhat style with enourmously more firing power,beating the great Joe Louis...Because of what I envision in my minds eye! My picks have NOTHING in the world to do with old timer nostalgia...For a good reason, I am only eighteen years old...





KuRuPT said:


> so of this Greb nonsense reach epic levels... WHICH HW did Greb "manhandle" around the ring.. are these the same "HW" that Jeffries manhandles around the ring? Robinson is not only the best fighter that EVER lived.... he would beat Greb more times than not... It's really that simple.





Burt Brooks said:


> K,you are full of baloney...Where did I ever use the term MANHANDLE to you referring to Greb beating heavyweights and "manhandling" them ? I never used that term to you and I can't recall ever posting with you prior at all. You accuse me of something that I NEVER said to you...What the dickens do you have to put words in my mouth for ? Just for Greb to get into the ring and face, let alone BEAT heavyweights is an act of bravery for any serious boxing poster...When I gave you a list of heavyweights that the MW Harry Greb defeated you too hide your small ego ,go nto a new level saying "but where did Greb "Manhandle" them , WHATEVER that means ? When I posted that Greb defeated Big Bill Brennan FOUR TIMES, and most likely NEVER LOST ONE round, according to all accounts, this fact I cite goes by the wayside, cause you want the facts conform to your wishes and biasis...Sir, you are not to be taking seriously...Good day...


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

I'd never pick greb in a fantasy fight because I've never seen him fight.

If someone is to ask me "who has the greatest resume" then sure, I could go along with having greb as number 1.

But someone is asking me "who is the greatest boxer" and there's no way, no how I can say "him that I never saw". Armstrong with his victory over Ross defeated one of the finest boxers in history. He did it in a brutal way, giving Ross a foothold before walking him down.

Armstrong was the champ from feather to welter. In a time when noone else disputed his claims as champion. Today that is the equivalent of having someone unify every division between feather and welter. He then challenged the guy many (at least those who trace such things) consider to be the lineal champ at mw. Anyone watching that fight surely concludes he did enough then also to stake his claim as the top mw.

The only negative to his claim is he sidestepped Burley, Williams and Chocolate. But even if we assume he loses to one of those, assume they took the place of Zivic that night and ended his reign, that takes absolutely nothing away from him. His time as king was short and sweet.

When I first delved into boxing history, amazed at the names fallen to greb, I would have ferociously argued greb's case as the top man. But here, today, I will argue that without seeing him, we cannot bestow upon him such a mantle.

Just to horrify some posters further, I am about to post my top 5 list right now:

Robinson
Whittaker
Jones Jr
Armstrong
Duran

Those 5 seem to me the most talented I can watch on film. For every rebuttal I can direct you to a fight of theirs were they look to be deserving of such a lofty ranking. With greb I cannot do that. Unearth the victories over Walker and Tunney and maybe then we can marvel together at his greatness.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

No one disputed Armstrong's claims? Dont tell that to Ambers. The first Ambers Armstrong bout was considered extremely close and somewhat controversial and the second bout Armstrong made Ambers sign a contract that his WW championship would not be on the line, otherwise Armstrong's run as WW champion would have ended right there.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Luf said:


> I'd never pick greb in a fantasy fight because I've never seen him fight.
> 
> If someone is to ask me "who has the greatest resume" then sure, I could go along with having greb as number 1.
> 
> ...


We're moving in opposite directions these days. I actually don't see Robinson beating Greb as a result that realistically plays out over a series of fights. I see him being overwhelmed by a fighter he has almost zero chance of stopping and that'll be almost equally as difficult to time with his punches (can't achieve the former without the latter). Too much activity, physicality and experience against ATGs much larger than Robinson himself. It just doesn't make sense.

Though I'll admit Ray has fallen just slightly out of favor personally from what I had previously thought him to be.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Hands of Iron said:


> We're moving in opposite directions these days. I actually don't see Robinson beating Greb as a result that realistically plays out over a series of fights. I see him being overwhelmed by a fighter he has almost zero chance of stopping and that'll be almost equally as difficult to time with his punches (can't achieve the former without the latter). Too much activity, physicality and experience against ATGs much larger than Robinson himself. It just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Though I'll admit Ray has fallen just slightly out of favor personally from what I had previously thought him to be.


noone on earth can I pick a man I've never seen over ray Robinson.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> We're moving in opposite directions these days. I actually don't see Robinson beating Greb as a result that realistically plays out over a series of fights. I see him being overwhelmed by a fighter he has almost zero chance of stopping and that'll be almost equally as difficult to time with his punches (can't achieve the former without the latter). Too much activity, physicality and experience against ATGs much larger than Robinson himself. It just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Though I'll admit Ray has fallen just slightly out of favor personally from what I had previously thought him to be.


Greb had more trouble with the quicker more skilful guys like O'Dowd, Flowers and maybe Bartfield who he had about 10lbs on.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> Greb had more trouble with the quicker more skilful guys like O'Dowd, Flowers and maybe Bartfield who he had about 10lbs on.


Its debateable how much "trouble" a prime Greb would have had with O'Dowd. As it was he overshot cutting weight, came in extremely low and drained for him, and still won half of the newspaper decisions in O'Dowd's hometown including that of George Barton who was considered the final word on officiating. Greb didnt even begin fighting Flowers until he was past his prime and even then he won their first bout and gave Flowers problems in their next two. Comparing the Greb of those fights with a prime Robinson is like comparing the Robinson of the Archer fight with the Greb of 1919. Bartfield won exactly 1 bout with Greb, their first, and Bartfield was a hell of a fighter (look at some of the scalps on his record: T.K. Lewis, M. Gibbons, Jack Britton. Combined with Greb not many fighters in history can boast four such wins) and one of the greatest spoilers of that era. Im not sure eaking out 1 newspaper decision out of 5 is a reflection of how Greb handles smaller fighters, especially in light of some of the beatings he laid on Bartfield later. It should also be remembered that shortly shortly after Bartfields win over Greb two of his favorite punches (the backhand punch and the kidney punch) were banned in New York and several states followed suit. Bartfield used these punches to great effect against Greb the first time around and when they fought again later he was heavily criticized for his now dirty tactics, particularly in Ohio, where he had fallen out of favor the previous month by beating Jack McCarron using such tactics. You have to look at the context of these fights and not just the result as it appears in boxrec. Thats like giving Jake LaMotta full credit for beating Robinson and saying all things were equal when in fact the time Jake beat Robinson he outweighed Sugar Ray by 16 pounds, the greatest disparity in weight of any of their 6 contests.


----------



## Surf-Bat (Jun 6, 2013)

And let's not forget that Chuck Wiggins was quite the speed demon himself, yet Greb consistently thrashed the guy.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Klompton said:


> Its debateable how much "trouble" a prime Greb would have had with O'Dowd. As it was he overshot cutting weight, came in extremely low and drained for him, and still won half of the newspaper decisions in O'Dowd's hometown including that of George Barton who was considered the final word on officiating..


What evidence is there of Greb being drained? Ultimately any fight with SRR is at middleweight and if he's drained for one middleweight bout it maybe he was drained at many middleweight bouts.



Klompton said:


> Greb didnt even begin fighting Flowers until he was past his prime and even then he won their first bout and gave Flowers problems in their next two. Comparing the Greb of those fights with a prime Robinson is like comparing the Robinson of the Archer fight with the Greb of 1919..


It's nothing alike, Greb retired aged 32 or there abouts, Robinson was in his mid 40s against Archer. This is a terrible comparison. Greb was past his best with battle scares but many of his best wins came when he was half blind, much like Joe Frazier who was also blind in 1 eye.



Klompton said:


> Bartfield won exactly 1 bout with Greb, their first, and Bartfield was a hell of a fighter (look at some of the scalps on his record: T.K. Lewis, M. Gibbons, Jack Britton. Combined with Greb not many fighters in history can boast four such wins) and one of the greatest spoilers of that era. Im not sure eaking out 1 newspaper decision out of 5 is a reflection of how Greb handles smaller fighters, especially in light of some of the beatings he laid on Bartfield later. It should also be remembered that shortly shortly after Bartfields win over Greb two of his favorite punches (the backhand punch and the kidney punch) were banned in New York and several states followed suit. Bartfield used these punches to great effect against Greb the first time around and when they fought again later he was heavily criticized for his now dirty tactics, particularly in Ohio, where he had fallen out of favor the previous month by beating Jack McCarron using such tactics. You have to look at the context of these fights and not just the result as it appears in boxrec. Thats like giving Jake LaMotta full credit for beating Robinson and saying all things were equal when in fact the time Jake beat Robinson he outweighed Sugar Ray by 16 pounds, the greatest disparity in weight of any of their 6 contests.


Bartfield picked up close fights and draws after that win though. As for the tactics, most top fighters look to use such tactics and Greb himself fouled plenty. It's part of the sport whether it's aloud or not.

And indeed I don't give Lamotta as much credit as most for beating a 140lb version of Robinson.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> Greb had more trouble with the quicker more skilful guys like O'Dowd, Flowers and maybe Bartfield who he had about 10lbs on.


Not absolute and why I mentioned a series of would-be fights. I definitely _lean_ towards Harry at this point in time. It is a massive credit to Greb though that some fights that occurred so deep into his career can be brought up and still be viewed as pretty relevant examples (at least where Flowers is concerned). Usually anything post-1951 is off limits for Robinson, not that 130-some odd bouts is a mere handful compared to most and it's both obvious and understandable.

Generally, I've always found Greb's career from 1922-26 as the most interesting portion By Far. Perhaps just because, perhaps due to the disabilities brought upon him, maybe because of instant recognizables such as Tunney, Walker, Loughran, Rosenbloom, T. Gibbons IV, Flowers, et al. (Though he did beat Mike Gibbons and Tommy Gibbons the first time prior to the period referenced) and because he was the Champion during this time.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Klompton said:


> Its debateable how much "trouble" a prime Greb would have had with O'Dowd. As it was he overshot cutting weight, came in extremely low and drained for him, and still won half of the newspaper decisions in O'Dowd's hometown including that of George Barton who was considered the final word on officiating. Greb didnt even begin fighting Flowers until he was past his prime and even then he won their first bout and gave Flowers problems in their next two. Comparing the Greb of those fights with a prime Robinson is like comparing the Robinson of the Archer fight with the Greb of 1919. Bartfield won exactly 1 bout with Greb, their first, and Bartfield was a hell of a fighter (look at some of the scalps on his record: T.K. Lewis, M. Gibbons, Jack Britton. Combined with Greb not many fighters in history can boast four such wins) and one of the greatest spoilers of that era. Im not sure eaking out 1 newspaper decision out of 5 is a reflection of how Greb handles smaller fighters, especially in light of some of the beatings he laid on Bartfield later. It should also be remembered that shortly shortly after Bartfields win over Greb two of his favorite punches (the backhand punch and the kidney punch) were banned in New York and several states followed suit. Bartfield used these punches to great effect against Greb the first time around and when they fought again later he was heavily criticized for his now dirty tactics, particularly in Ohio, where he had fallen out of favor the previous month by beating Jack McCarron using such tactics. *You have to look at the context of these fights and not just the result as it appears in boxrec.* Thats like giving Jake LaMotta full credit for beating Robinson and saying all things were equal when in fact the time Jake beat Robinson he outweighed Sugar Ray by 16 pounds, the greatest disparity in weight of any of their 6 contests.


Well, this is why it didnt take long for me to purchase your book once I found it was finally in stock (in the case of Amazon, it actually wasnt). You've already done all of that work on a major level :smile and hopefully get the deserved compensation for it. I hadn't visited a Historical or Classic boxing section in months to even be aware it was out.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> Not absolute and why I mentioned a series of would-be fights. I definitely _lean_ towards Harry at this point in time. It is a massive credit to Greb though that some fights that occurred so deep into his career can be brought up and still be viewed as pretty relevant examples (at least where Flowers is concerned). Usually anything post-1951 is off limits for Robinson, not that 130-some odd bouts is a mere handful compared to most and it's both obvious and understandable.
> 
> Generally, I've always found Greb's career from 1922-26 as the most interesting portion By Far. Perhaps just because, perhaps due to the disabilities brought upon him, maybe because of instant recognizables such as Tunney, Walker, Loughran, Rosenbloom, T. Gibbons IV, Flowers, et al. (Though he did beat Mike Gibbons and Tommy Gibbons the first time prior to the period referenced) and because he was the Champion during this time.


If you're talking about Robinson's poorer performances it's more anything post '55, when he was 34+ and coming out of a 3 year retirement. HE still did regain and then lose the MW championship a few times but he's clearly not quite the same fighter.

Comparatively Greb was retired at 32, tragically dying a few months later. So it's not really like we're drawing on a Greb who is significantly past prime.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> What evidence is there of Greb being drained? Ultimately any fight with SRR is at middleweight and if he's drained for one middleweight bout it maybe he was drained at many middleweight bouts.
> 
> It's nothing alike, Greb retired aged 32 or there abouts, Robinson was in his mid 40s against Archer. This is a terrible comparison. Greb was past his best with battle scares but many of his best wins came when he was half blind, much like Joe Frazier who was also blind in 1 eye.
> 
> ...


What evidence is there that he was drained? He weighed 155 for ODowd. FIFTEEN FULL POUNDS less than he weighed only one week before against Bob Moha. It had been over four years since he had weighed that low for a fight. Even ODowd's hometown newspaper's discussed him being weight drained for the fight. Thats all evidence enough for me. And that is besides the fact that half of those papers voted for Greb which pretty much eliminates the idea that a smaller and supposedly quicker ODowd beat Greb.

Are you really going to pretend that Greb at 32 with fully 100 more fights than Robinson's career total, blind in eye, and suffering a shitload of ringwear and out of the ring injuries was "prime" or that somehow he was nearly as good as he was in 1919? Please.

When Robinson was the same age as Greb when Greb died he had less than half of Greb's fights and less than half his ringwear. And lets not forget he retired after losing to Maxim who wasnt a pimple on Greb's ass, what would he have done when fighting Greb?

What fight did Bartfield pick up against Greb after their first fight? The more you talk, much of it clearly out of ignorance, the more biased you make yourself sound.


----------



## jorodz (Sep 14, 2012)

Luf said:


> I'd never pick greb in a fantasy fight because I've never seen him fight.
> 
> If someone is to ask me "who has the greatest resume" then sure, I could go along with having greb as number 1.
> 
> ...


i have jones jr in my top 10 as well. he's too good NOT to be


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Klompton said:


> What evidence is there that he was drained? He weighed 155 for ODowd. FIFTEEN FULL POUNDS less than he weighed only one week before against Bob Moha. It had been over four years since he had weighed that low for a fight. Even ODowd's hometown newspaper's discussed him being weight drained for the fight. Thats all evidence enough for me. And that is besides the fact that half of those papers voted for Greb which pretty much eliminates the idea that a smaller and supposedly quicker ODowd beat Greb.
> 
> Are you really going to pretend that Greb at 32 with fully 100 more fights than Robinson's career total, blind in eye, and suffering a shitload of ringwear and out of the ring injuries was "prime" or that somehow he was nearly as good as he was in 1919? Please.
> 
> ...


No cutting 15lbs doesn't mean you're necessarily significantly drained and many fighters cut that type of weight and regain it in a short space of time in modern boxing. Greb would regularly weigh 160 and would a couple of fights later. But if you have a newspaper report stating otherwise than fine, which paper is it? The below paper has his manager claiming in 1919, a year after the O'Dowd fight, that Greb can get down to 158 without problem.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...=2656,2266707&dq=soldier-bartfield+greb&hl=en

The newspapers were as you well know slightly in favour of O'Dowd, something like 3-2 and 1 drawn. I also love how you regularly point out that hometown papers are likely to be biased. I take it you put as much scrutiny on any possible bias in Greb's hometown papers? :lol:

As for Bartfield I stated Greb had close fights and draws after beating Greb but he did actually pick up the decision for 6 rounder from some newspaper reports, so he quite possibly has 2 wins against Greb

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...=4938,3705323&dq=soldier-bartfield+greb&hl=en

Yes Greb was blind in 1 eye and had many fights, but many of his best wins come after he became blind and he still didn't fight past an age that would be considered physical prime and was never considered shot or particularly past his best at the time.

You're not objectivity when it comes to Greb Klompton and I expect your book to be as biased, unbalanced and defensive as your posts.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

The book isn't.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

LittleRed said:


> The book isn't.


It needs to hurry up and get here already.


----------



## Surf-Bat (Jun 6, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Yes Greb was blind in 1 eye and had many fights, but many of his best wins come after he became blind and he still didn't fight past an age that would be considered physical prime *and was never considered shot or particularly past his best at the time. *
> .


Amazing, PP. It just amazes me that you can think that you know more or have done more research on Harry Greb than Klompton has. How much research on Greb have you done that you can confidently post such a statement? YES HE WAS considered past his prime at the time. And had been for years.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> No cutting 15lbs doesn't mean you're necessarily significantly drained and many fighters cut that type of weight and regain it in a short space of time in modern boxing. Greb would regularly weigh 160 and would a couple of fights later. But if you have a newspaper report stating otherwise than fine, which paper is it? The below paper has his manager claiming in 1919, a year after the O'Dowd fight, that Greb can get down to 158 without problem.
> 
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...=2656,2266707&dq=soldier-bartfield+greb&hl=en
> 
> ...


What you are writing is so obtuse its unbelievable. So in 1919 Greb is saying he can make 158 which somehow proves that melting down to 155 is no big deal? You realize that people in the sport fight for ounces at the weigh in and somehow 3 pounds isnt a big deal? THREE POUNDS?? Greb never NEVER made that low weight again but your going to sit here and tell me, when O'Dowd's hometown papers said otherwise, that Greb wasnt weight drained. GTFO!

Its hilarious that you post an article from a year later where Mason is desperately trying to get the point across that Greb can make 158 due to the fact that the public DID NOT BELIEVE he could make 158 as he had been fighting predominantly well into the 160s for over a year. But somehow another THREE POUNDS is not a big deal.

You are also going to educate me on what the newspapers said for the O'Dowd fight? LOL. The papers, O'Dowd's papers were split right down the middle. The one paper you refer to that you say said it was a draw actually said that if they had to choose a winner it would be Greb but that a draw "hurts noone" again, O'Dowd's hometown paper. So dont tell me they werent trying to lean towards him.

You said that Bartfield picked up wins and draws against Greb after their first bout. I asked for examples and you post a montreal wire report for a fight that took place in Philadelphia. Great work, excellent research. Let me help you out here: The Philadelphia Inquirer gave the fight to Bartfield by a hair noting that Greb was out of shape. The Philadelphia Press gave it to Bartfield 4 rounds to 2. The Public Ledger gave the fight to Greb 5 rounds to 1. The Philadelphia Evening Bulletin gave it to Greb by a margin of 5 rounds to 1. The Evening Public Ledger called it a draw. You can wiggle and say "maybe Bartfield won" but by that same token MAYBE GREB WON. A draw is what it should be called and it means Bartfield was never able to beat Greb after their first bout. Which says a lot about both Greb and Bartfield who has a handful of scalps on his record as good as anyone Robinson ever beat. I say again, how does this show that Greb would have difficulty with Robinson??

Its beyond ridiculous to suggest that a fighter who was blind in one eye and suffering ringwear from 300 fights was not post prime. Yet you want to pretend Im biased and unbalanced? Age doesnt have anything to do with the argument. Its not the age its the mileage and Greb had a lot more mileage at 32 than Robinson EVER GOT. You used the Flowers fights as an example of why Greb would have had trouble with Robinson and say that during those fights he wasnt particularly shot or past his prime. I beg to differ. Just go read what the witnesses said about Greb (I realise using actual sources isnt your forte) and come back here and tell me he wasnt shot (and still hung in there with one of the best fighters in the world which just shows what level Greb was on in his prime before sliding far downhill).


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)




----------



## techks (Jun 4, 2013)

I need to stop fucking around and get a Greb book. Both have cases why they're GOAT or top 3 but I prefer Greb. Greb and Robinson gonna be the guys I study most soon.


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

turbotime said:


>


Oh, come on now!

:jmm:deadmanny
Klompton.......................Powerpuncher

What kind of sadist are you? This is like Pipino Cuevas versus Stevie Wonder.

Yes, I give PP props for not ducking Klompton or taking a dive, or even knowing the fight was over at the contract signing, and he's still in there punching, but from this position:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wNrB_V3PFc


----------



## Surf-Bat (Jun 6, 2013)

I like Powerpuncher, but just the same I can't admire the audacity or courage of someone who wants to bring a knife to a bazooka fight and then argue that his knife is a more formidable weapon than the bazooka that's pointed at his head. It astounds me. Like the knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" still trying to fight after all his limbs have been chopped off. "Tis merely a flesh wound! Have at you!!" You gotta know when you're outgunned sometimes. 

I don't argue with Klompton about Greb. I ask him QUESTIONS because I know he has done the footwork and knows more about Harry than anyone on these boards. Quite frankly, probably better than anyone in the world. And that's no overstatement.


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

Damn you, Surf-Bat, now I'm going to have nightmares about the Rabbit of Caerbannog all over again! (It took me years and years of therapy to stop confusing Easter with Halloween after that.)

Also, thanks to you, I'm going to be afflicted with fantasies about the Pittsburgh Windmill versus the Legendary Black Beast of Aaaarrrrrggggghhhhh.

Thanks a lot, buddy! Now, I'm going to have to calm myself down with a nice hot bowl of Eel Soup! [No dose of clonazepam is going to help relieve the disturbing images you helped crawl back to the surface of my psyche!]


----------



## Surf-Bat (Jun 6, 2013)

Duo said:


> Damn you, Surf-Bat, now I'm going to have nightmares about the Rabbit of Caerbannog all over again! (It took me years and years of therapy to stop confusing Easter with Halloween after that.)
> 
> Also, thanks to you, I'm going to be afflicted with fantasies about the Pittsburgh Windmill versus the Legendary Black Beast of Aaaarrrrrggggghhhhh.
> 
> Thanks a lot, buddy! Now, I'm going to have to calm myself down with a nice hot bowl of Eel Soup! [No dose of clonazepam is going to help relieve the disturbing images you helped crawl back to the surface of my psyche!]


Sorry, Duo *chuckle* Glad to have you back


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

Surf-Bat said:


> Sorry, Duo *chuckle* Glad to have you back


How the hell would Greb deal with THIS?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg

Then again, how would Caerbannog deal with *THIS????*

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMA6Pd6tT3Q


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Klompton said:


> What you are writing is so obtuse its unbelievable. So in 1919 Greb is saying he can make 158 which somehow proves that melting down to 155 is no big deal? You realize that people in the sport fight for ounces at the weigh in and somehow 3 pounds isnt a big deal? THREE POUNDS?? Greb never NEVER made that low weight again but your going to sit here and tell me, when O'Dowd's hometown papers said otherwise, that Greb wasnt weight drained. GTFO!
> 
> Its hilarious that you post an article from a year later where Mason is desperately trying to get the point across that Greb can make 158 due to the fact that the public DID NOT BELIEVE he could make 158 as he had been fighting predominantly well into the 160s for over a year. But somehow another THREE POUNDS is not a big deal.
> 
> ...


You're not very academic are you Klompton. I asked you to quote a source and about Greb being weight drained and instead you just blabber on about a topic you don't understand such as weight making without producing a source on the matter. Boxers actually purposely come in light against quicker opponents, I suppose you hadn't considered that. Unless the fight was at a 155 catch weight, Greb chose to come in that light. Then again it would hurt your stance as a Greb apologist if you considered this.

You also have reading comprehension issues, here's what I actually said about Bartfield.



Powerpuncher said:


> Bartfield picked up close fights and draws after that win though.


I never said he'd won fights after his initial win, I said he had draws and close fights. I believe another match was once considered a draw on boxrec prior to being changed, but that maybe an oversight on my part. The sources I quote are merely sources that show you were initially distorting the truth while calling me ignorant?

As for your Flowers excuses, they first fought in a fight that could have gone either way in '24, a time when he is still competitive with an ever improving Tunney. 300 fights is allot and being blind in 1 eye is a hinderance, but many top amateurs have fought 300-500 fights and Frazier was also blind in 1 eye against Ali. I'm not saying Greb was at his absolute best, but to compare him to a man in his 40s is disingenuous.



Surf-Bat said:


> Amazing, PP. It just amazes me that you can think that you know more or have done more research on Harry Greb than Klompton has. How much research on Greb have you done that you can confidently post such a statement? YES HE WAS considered past his prime at the time. And had been for years.


Klompton's position is 1 of a evidence twisting Greb apologist with reading comprehension issues, so he maybe well researched but he's still questionable. Here's someone who questions newspaper reports as having a 'hometown bias' when talking about Greb's opponents but treating Greb's hometown papers as gospel. That isn't consistent.

If he does know more about the topic, he could have the good grace to state what he knows rather than take a pompus condescending stance. Doing a shedload of research on Greb doesn't mean he's intelligent or knows about the finer points of the sport.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> You're not very academic are you Klompton. I asked you to quote a source and about Greb being weight drained and instead you just blabber on about a topic you don't understand such as weight making without producing a source on the matter. Boxers actually purposely come in light against quicker opponents, I suppose you hadn't considered that. Unless the fight was at a 155 catch weight, Greb chose to come in that light. Then again it would hurt your stance as a Greb apologist if you considered this.
> 
> You also have reading comprehension issues, here's what I actually said about Bartfield.
> 
> ...


Once again you dont know what you are talking about. Greb didnt "choose" to come in at an unusually low weight. He was trying to win the title and had to weigh in at 158 to do this and in his inexperience overshot the mark. Fred Coburn of the Minneapolis Tribune stated "Greb surprised everybody by making 155 3/4 pounds at 3 o'clock, but in order to do this, for him, low poundage, it was said that he was compelled to spend the major portion of Sunday night in a Turkish bath. Greb's best weight is around 162 pounds..." Coburn added that the strain of making that low weight effected his punching power. Ed Shave of the Saint Paul Daily News stated "Greb weighed in at 3 o'clock at 155 3/4. O'Dowd weighed 156. It was said that Greb spent the night in a Turkish bath taking off weight. If so, he undoubtedly must have been weakened but nevertheless he kept going all the way." Harry Keck wrote an editorial questioning why Greb would come in so low as it was unnatural for him. George Barton, considered one of the finest authorities on boxing IN HISTORY noted from ringside that "The Pittsburgh Mauler undoubtedly weakened himself doing such a low figure all of which made his work last night all the more remarkable.

Greb won all of the other bouts against Bartfield clearly with the exception of the Philly fight. If you cant prove otherwise I can. I couldnt care less what Boxrec said BEFORE SOMEONE CORRECTED IT.

You can pretend that Greb lost to Flowers in their first fight. Which BTW took place in 1924, three full years after he was blinded in one eye and was well on the downhill, but the fact remains that the majority, by far, of newspapers ringside voted for Greb. Frazier had a cataract in one eye, he was not BLIND, he was borderline legally blind and he still won 1 out 3. Id say thats quite a hinderance. As for 300 bout amateurs we arent talking about 3 2 minute rounds with headgear and stoppages as soon as someone gets rocked. We are talking about 300 professional fights. Its laughable that you would even try to equate the 2.

If Im being pompous its because you come on here with absolutely no facts to back up your broad ascertions and then challenge someone who spent a decade researching the subject. I think that kind of ignorance deserves a "pompous" response. walk into a physics class and pretend you know more about the subject than the professor, if you did I promise you you would get a "pompous" response. School is dismissed, come back tomorrow for more education.


----------



## Boogle McDougal (Jun 8, 2012)

Somebody in Powerpuncher's corner needs to throw in the towel... he doesn't know when to stop and he's taking too much punishment..


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Boggle said:


> Somebody in Powerpuncher's corner needs to throw in the towel... he doesn't know when to stop and he's taking too much punishment..


Dont hold it against him too much. He came into the fight weight drained and its really effecting his performance.


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

Boggle said:


> Somebody in Powerpuncher's corner needs to throw in the towel... he doesn't know when to stop and he's taking too much punishment..


All right. This needs to be done. (Blame it all on Surf-Bat. His analogy, his idea):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Duo said:


> Oh, come on now!
> 
> :jmm:deadmanny
> Klompton.......................Powerpuncher
> ...


Those emoticons :lol:


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Klompton said:


> Once again you dont know what you are talking about. Greb didnt "choose" to come in at an unusually low weight. He was trying to win the title and had to weigh in at 158 to do this and in his inexperience overshot the mark. Fred Coburn of the Minneapolis Tribune stated "Greb surprised everybody by making 155 3/4 pounds at 3 o'clock, but in order to do this, for him, low poundage, it was said that he was compelled to spend the major portion of Sunday night in a Turkish bath. Greb's best weight is around 162 pounds..." Coburn added that the strain of making that low weight effected his punching power. Ed Shave of the Saint Paul Daily News stated "Greb weighed in at 3 o'clock at 155 3/4. O'Dowd weighed 156. It was said that Greb spent the night in a Turkish bath taking off weight. If so, he undoubtedly must have been weakened but nevertheless he kept going all the way." Harry Keck wrote an editorial questioning why Greb would come in so low as it was unnatural for him. George Barton, considered one of the finest authorities on boxing IN HISTORY noted from ringside that "The Pittsburgh Mauler undoubtedly weakened himself doing such a low figure all of which made his work last night all the more remarkable..


Ahh right so using a sauna to drop weight to beat up on a smaller guy makes for a good excuse for losing now :lol: Losing 10-20lbs with fasting and saunas has been part of the sport for most boxers for years. Most would laugh at you at bringing up this excuse.



Klompton said:


> Greb won all of the other bouts against Bartfield clearly with the exception of the Philly fight. If you cant prove otherwise I can. I couldnt care less what Boxrec said BEFORE SOMEONE CORRECTED IT...


Yes and this shows you aren't a historian but someone who simply wants to embellish Greb. Ironically detracting from his greatness by maligning his opponents



Klompton said:


> You can pretend that Greb lost to Flowers in their first fight. Which BTW took place in 1924, three full years after he was blinded in one eye and was well on the downhill, but the fact remains that the majority, by far, of newspapers ringside voted for Greb. ...


1. Plenty of newspapers did score it to Flowers in an era where blacks were discriminated against in sports, media and every facet of life. But you want to believe Flowers can't have won this fight despite this? Seriously? :lol:
2. Ahhh so despite other reports Greb didn't suffer any problems with his eyesight until 1927, after his last Flowers bout, well done on that biased bullshit argument backfiring on you :lol:



Klompton said:


> Frazier had a cataract in one eye, he was not BLIND, he was borderline legally blind and he still won 1 out 3. Id say thats quite a hinderance. As for 300 bout amateurs we arent talking about 3 2 minute rounds with headgear and stoppages as soon as someone gets rocked. We are talking about 300 professional fights. Its laughable that you would even try to equate the 2....


People close to Frazier have considered him blind in 1 eye, that goes against your agenda though but what do facts me to you Klompton?



Klompton said:


> If Im being pompous its because you come on here with absolutely no facts to back up your broad ascertions and then challenge someone who spent a decade researching the subject. I think that kind of ignorance deserves a "pompous" response. walk into a physics class and pretend you know more about the subject than the professor, if you did I promise you you would get a "pompous" response. School is dismissed, come back tomorrow for more education.


School dismissed? :lol: You know full well you've never boxed, how about you get a boxing education by visiting and training in a boxing gym and see if you can last 2 rounds against a 11yo. :lol: As for your research it may or may not be of interest to anyone who's got a reasonable understanding of the era. You're not really displaying yourself as an authority, but perhaps you're just not very good marketing yourself and that's why you need to be self published.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

:kwonooh


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

turbotime said:


> :kwonooh


This emoticon borders on overuse, but here.... :lol:


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Leave me alone :kwonwut


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Leave me alone :kwonwut


I can't! :-(


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> I can't! :-(


We be like


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

turbotime said:


> We be like


:lol: :lol:


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> :lol: :lol:


Even though you hate Forrest Gump :cry :cry


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Even though you hate Forrest Gump :cry :cry


:lol:

I really don't. :deal


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> Ahh right so using a sauna to drop weight to beat up on a smaller guy makes for a good excuse for losing now :lol: Losing 10-20lbs with fasting and saunas has been part of the sport for most boxers for years. Most would laugh at you at bringing up this excuse.
> 
> Yes and this shows you aren't a historian but someone who simply wants to embellish Greb. Ironically detracting from his greatness by maligning his opponents
> 
> ...


So being weight drained is not a legitimate reason for a subpar performance (that still garnered you an even split over the newspapers of a hometown boy)? I'll remember that the next some fighter trots it out. LOL, if this is the first time you are hearing that weight draining effects performance then why are we arguing? You are obviously a novice to the sport.

Oh wait, so now you agree that Bartfield never won another fight against Greb after their first but somehow me using facts to support my argument is maligning his opponents and biased in the face of you using incorrect information to malign Greb. Interesting argument, lets see how much traction that gets. Anyone who thinks Ive maligned Greb's opponents can read my book and see its actually as much about his opponents as it is about him. The opponents make the man and the simple fact is that Greb fought more top shelf opponents over a higher weight range than Robinson did (the original point) despite the fact that Robinson fought nearly twice as long as Greb. You may not like it but its a fact.

Were these racist newspapers the same ones that gave Flowers a world of credit for his showing in losing to Greb and hyped him up on that performance to contender status from being an unknown? Were these racist papers the same ones that voted for Flowers over Greb in their final two matches? No? I didnt think so, but lets not let facts get in our way. I mean if Greb wins the newspaper decision by a margin of greater than 2 to 1 then all of those papers who voted for Greb must be racist right?

1927? This again shows your ignorance on the subject... and your inability to follow the argument. I said that the Flowers fight took place 3 full years AFTER he was blinded in one eye. Greb was dead in 1927. You might want to rework your argument here as it makes no sense.

Frazier himself in his biography discusses his cataracts at great length. In fact he mentions wearing contacts into the ring in the second fight with George Foreman and that they got knocked out early on. Please tell me how a blind eye would benefit from contacts... I think Ill take Joe Frazier's word over yours.

If Im not displaying myself as an authority by correcting your numerous mistakes and erroneous claims then Id love to chat with the guy who is an authority in your eyes. Oh wait, a real authority to you is someone who can pull up boxrec and quote from the records there including quoting from the mistakes on records that support your argument while admitting that they are mistakes...


----------



## thistle1 (Jun 7, 2013)

both GREATS, but Armstrong fought in the more superior period in the sports history, stronger & better all round and in every division. 

this is generally a well perceived and noted boxing fact. Boxing evolved by the mid late 20s to the more skilful refined stylistic manner that we have grown used to, peaked mid 30s - late 50s/60s and likewise has deteriorated in recent years, through less numbers of fighters and true top comp.

again both greats but Hank fought in the better era.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

PowerPuncher once again acting an authority on something he knows nothing about. Oh well, it's provided me with a good laugh.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

thistle1 said:


> both GREATS, but Armstrong fought in the more superior period in the sports history, stronger & better all round and in every division.
> 
> this is generally a well perceived and noted boxing fact. Boxing evolved by the mid late 20s to the more skilful refined stylistic manner that we have grown used to, peaked mid 30s - late 50s/60s and likewise has deteriorated in recent years, through less numbers of fighters and true top comp.
> 
> again both greats but Hank fought in the better era.


Uhhhh.... No... To pretend Armstrong fought better fighters, more often, in a deeper era is simply ridiculous. Armstrong's record is much more one of quantity over quality. Not that his scalps arent quality but when people think of Armstrong they dont talk about this great fighter or that great fighter that he beat. They talk about HOW MANY titles he won at one time. They talk about HOW MANY WW defenses he had. Just compare the number of hall of famers Greb DEFEATED (and did so with relative ease) compared to those of Armstrong. Armstrong beat nine hall of famers, several of which got in to the hall by the skin of their teeth: Arizmendi, Bass, Angott, Ambers, Ross, Wright, Jenkins, Wolgast, and Zivic. Look closer and you see that against the hall of famers Armstrong beat was: 12-6. Throw in Robinson, who Armstrong didnt beat, and his record against HOFers is 12-7. Factor in that Wolgast and Bass were past their primes, Bass especially being ancient, and its hard to argue against Greb's record of 33-10-3 against 14 Hall of Famers (many of which were early HOF picks) such as Jack Dillon, Tiger Flowers, Mike Gibbons, Tommy Gibbons, L. Houck, Battling Levinsky, Tommy Loughran, Billy Miske, Kid Norfolk, Maxie Rosenbloom, Jimmy Slattery, Jeff Smith, Gene Tunney, and Mickey Walker. There is no comparison. Many of the HOFers Greb fought can stand on their own as some of the greatest pound for pound fighters in history and Greb accomplished what he did against them while having 120 more fights than Armstrong over a shorter period of time and fighting stiffer competition in between those marquee names. The idea that somehow Armstrong fought in a more talented era is ridiculous. Does anyone really want to argue that guys like Angott, an ancient Bass, a fading Midget Wolgast, etc. have reputations or skill sets that ripple through history like Gene Tunney, Mickey Walker, Jack Dillon, Tommy Loughran and Mike Gibbons, just to name a few? Ive got plenty of film on these guys, from both eras in discussion, and there is no doubt that guys like Walker, the Gibbons Brothers, Loughran, Tunney, Levinsky, Norfolk, Slattery and Jeff Smith were as skilled as anyone in the modern era. Thats to say nothing of fighters on Greb's resume that didnt make the HOF such as Ratner, Renault, Frank Moody, Larry Williams, Bill Brennan, Mike O'Dowd, Jimmy Delaney, and others we have film of. This of course ignores the fact that many of these old timers ended up becoming trainers and influenced the next generation, Armstrong's generation. Did these guys suddenly learn to box AFTER they retired? How is it then that former Greb victim Jack Blackburn, who turned pro in 1900, an era which by this logic would be akin to the caveman days, somehow fashioned the most technically proficient (to this day) heavyweight boxer in history: Joe Louis? Do you think Blackburn suddenly happened onto some sort of secret boxing knowledge? No. The fact is that these guys could fight and they could carry that knowledge into any era.


----------



## SouthPaw (May 24, 2013)

Powerpuncher EVT


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

SouthPaw said:


> Powerpuncher EVT


Places like this would be filled with boring, insufferable cunts if not for personalities like PP, Seamus, MRBILL or frankenfrank


----------



## jorodz (Sep 14, 2012)

Hands of Iron said:


> Places like this would be filled with boring, insufferable cunts if not for personalities like PP, Seamus, MRBILL or frankenfrank


amen brother. as long as i'm not one of the insufferable cunts....


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

I've been described as an asshole before.


----------



## jorodz (Sep 14, 2012)

LittleRed said:


> I've been described as an asshole before.


more curmudgeon than asshole


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

jorodz said:


> more curmudgeon than asshole


Thanks.

Jackass.


----------



## jorodz (Sep 14, 2012)

LittleRed said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Jackass.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

I... What?


----------



## SouthPaw (May 24, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> Places like this would be filled with boring, insufferable cunts if not for personalities like PP, Seamus, MRBILL or frankenfrank


The best part is the contrarian opinions are backed up with solid logic, if not a bit biased. Very good stuff and makes for readable troll free threads.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

jorodz said:


> amen brother. as long as i'm not one of the insufferable cunts....


Nah :lol:

I especially miss MRBILL from ESB though. That guy didnt take shit from anybody regarding his opinions and would fire back in such amusing ways with his little out of place quotations. Ended every post with his signature and a :deal :bbb


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

MrBILL would definitely agree with something such as

1991 Nunn/McCallum >>> Any pair on Hagler or Monzon's record.


He could see, you know. With his eyes.


----------



## jorodz (Sep 14, 2012)

Hands of Iron said:


> Nah :lol:
> 
> I especially miss MRBILL from ESB though. That guy didnt take shit from anybody regarding his opinions and would fire back in such amusing ways with his little out of place quotations. Ended every post with his signature and a :deal :bbb


hahaha damn i didn't realize he didn't come over


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Damn shame too. I dont think he'd been active on ESB for a while before that though.


----------



## Scalinatella (Jan 12, 2013)

Klompton said:


> No one disputed Armstrong's claims? Dont tell that to Ambers. The first Ambers Armstrong bout was considered extremely close and somewhat controversial and the second bout Armstrong made Ambers sign a contract that his WW championship would not be on the line, otherwise Armstrong's run as WW champion would have ended right there.


The more you know about Armstrong-Ambers I the more it looks like Ambers managed to put an end to Armstrong's peak. That was a grueling, vicious bout. And few men in history could come back from that kind of war and be the same. Greb is one of them.

Anyone stuck on Armstrong being over Greb (which doesn't even read right) needs to read "Live Fast, Die Young" by S.L. Compton and get informed. Honestly, anyone holding on to the error is information-deficient. They're guessing.


----------



## jorodz (Sep 14, 2012)

Scalinatella said:


> The more you know about Armstrong-Ambers I the more it looks like Ambers managed to put an end to Armstrong's peak. That was a grueling, vicious bout. And few men in history could come back from that kind of war and be the same. Greb is one of them.
> 
> Anyone stuck on Armstrong being over Greb (which doesn't even read right) needs to read "Live Fast, Die Young" by S.L. Compton and get informed. Honestly, anyone holding on to the error is information-deficient. They're guessing.


i agree that greb is closely but clearly ahead of armstrong. for me, 1 and 4 respectively. However i don't think the gap is that terribly large. and they both fought in absolutely brilliant eras. both beat tons of hall of famers. shit, they both have claim for the best year in boxing history...armstrong in 38, greb in 19


----------



## Scalinatella (Jan 12, 2013)

jorodz said:


> i agree that greb is closely but clearly ahead of armstrong. for me, 1 and 4 respectively. However i don't think the gap is that terribly large. and they both fought in absolutely brilliant eras. both beat tons of hall of famers. shit, they both have claim for the best year in boxing history...armstrong in 38, greb in 19


--I have Greb at 1 and Armstrong at #3 . But I do think the gap is large -not between Robinson (2) and Armstrong but between Greb and _everyone_.


----------



## jorodz (Sep 14, 2012)

Scalinatella said:


> --I have Greb at 1 and Armstrong at #3 . But I do think the gap is large -not between Robinson (2) and Armstrong but between Greb and _everyone_.


in recent years Greb has become a clear number one for ME, but I certainly think there's an argument for Robinson or Langford in that top spot as well


----------



## Scalinatella (Jan 12, 2013)

jorodz said:


> in recent years Greb has become a clear number one for ME, but I certainly think there's an argument for Robinson or Langford in that top spot as well


Langford, yes, but I count him in a different era when boxing was a essentially a different sport. I hear what you are saying, jorodz, and your opinion carries weight because of the source, but I no longer see the argument for Armstrong or Robinson over Greb. Just can't see it.

Greb fought 300x to Robinson's 200. He fought 15 HOF'ers to Robinson's ~12. He was a beast in 2 if not 3 weight classes -including heavies. Take a look at Dempsey's record and then see how Greb functioned as Dempsey's policeman of sorts. He was physically very strong, inhumanly fast, his stamina built as the fight wore on, he had a rock solid chin, he could box from the outside, and was a swarmer like no one else, including Armstrong, he went 45-0 in one year and beat damn-near every style in the book, he fought with fevers, boils, broken bones, and half-blind.

And finally, he fought anyone (Robinson just can't say that, man. He avoided three members of Murderers' Row and there is no argument against it. Armstrong can't say it either. He avoided Cocoa Kid when Cocoa Kid was at his peak and #1 at WW. Armstrong also avoided Burley.)

In sum, I've told a fighter or two that I trained that they can become the next Sugar Ray Robinson. I would never, ever tell any man that he could be the next Harry Greb. The standard he set is in outer space.


----------



## jorodz (Sep 14, 2012)

Scalinatella said:


> Langford, yes, but I count him in a different era when boxing was a essentially a different sport. I hear what you are saying, jorodz, and your opinion carries weight because of the source, but I no longer see the argument for Armstrong or Robinson over Greb. Just can't see it.
> 
> Greb fought 300x to Robinson's 200. He fought 15 HOF'ers to Robinson's ~12. He was a beast in 2 if not 3 weight classes -including heavies. Take a look at Dempsey's record and then see how Greb functioned as Dempsey's policeman of sorts. He was physically very strong, inhumanly fast, his stamina built as the fight wore on, he had a rock solid chin, he could box from the outside, and was a swarmer like no one else, including Armstrong, he went 45-0 in one year and beat damn-near every style in the book, he fought with fevers, boils, broken bones, and half-blind.
> 
> ...


Great great post. You summed up what makes greb a legend and unimitatible. Robinson has the privledge of being on film...Robinson's opponents have that same privledge. I will always wonder how we would look at greb if footage existed...better or worse? I think you said it in a way with Langford, the era is soooo different. The same can almost be said for greb. What matters is his record and achievements, which can only be assessed through studying history (and you clearly have done and klompton has done wonderfully). robinson may be the most PERFECT fighter ever, but I don't think i can say he's the best


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

jorodz said:


> in recent years Greb has become a clear number one for ME, but I certainly think there's an argument for Robinson or Langford in that top spot as well


Bringing up Langford opens up a new, pre WW I can of worms. Jack Blackburn fought an embryonic Greb, peak Gans and upsurging Langford, and deferred to Sam as the GOAT. Langford in turn always deferred to Joe Gans, while it seems Gans and Fitz deferred to each other. [Fitz's appears to have been the Old Master's idol.]


----------



## jorodz (Sep 14, 2012)

Duo said:


> Bringing up Langford opens up a new, pre WW I can of worms. Jack Blackburn fought an embryonic Greb, peak Gans and upsurging Langford, and deferred to Sam as the GOAT. Langford in turn always deferred to Joe Gans, while it seems Gans and Fitz deferred to each other. [Fitz's appears to have been the Old Master's idol.]


and again, we face the trouble of evaluating fighters with no or little footage. For fitz, i'm sure mcgrain and others will have plenty to say, i've never rated him all THAT highly. I think his weight jumping accomplishments get a bit overblown when looking at the actual size (and quality) of those fighters on an all time basis. much more impressed with what armstrong achieved


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

jorodz said:


> and again, we face the trouble of evaluating fighters with no or little footage. For fitz, i'm sure mcgrain and others will have plenty to say, i've never rated him all THAT highly. I think his weight jumping accomplishments get a bit overblown when looking at the actual size (and quality) of those fighters on an all time basis. much more impressed with what armstrong achieved


I don't buy Fitz being in that rarefied atmosphere, but Gans would have to be taken very seriously, especially if one considers McGovern a dive. Scalinatella compartmentalizes eras very sensibly though with a concrete 1920 delineation (correct me if I'm wrong, Triple SSS), while I tend to move back slightly further with a grayer and more nebulous WW I separation [which still gives Harry 1919, while Langford retains the filmed benefit of Jeannette X].


----------



## jorodz (Sep 14, 2012)

Duo said:


> I don't buy Fitz being in that rarefied atmosphere, but Gans would have to be taken very seriously, especially if one considers McGovern a dive. Scalinatella compartmentalizes eras very sensibly though with a concrete 1920 delineation (correct me if I'm wrong, Triple SSS), while I tend to move back slightly further with a grayer and more nebulous WW I separation [which still gives Harry 1919, while Langford retains the filmed benefit of Jeannette X].


:yep i love it, and i like your designations better. I always drew mine between pre-benny leonard and post-benny leonard. Kraft dinner is tasty


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

jorodz said:


> :yep i love it, and i like your designations better. I always drew mine between pre-benny leonard and post-benny leonard.


Because of the axiom, "As goes the heavyweights, so goes boxing," Dempsey-Willard is often cited as the marker defining the establishment of the "Modern" era in boxing, but Jack himself might tell you it was indeed the rise of Benny Leonard through America's neutrality during WW I that signaled the authentic switch, dethroning Freddie Welsh the month after the United States declared war on Germany.


----------



## Surf-Bat (Jun 6, 2013)

Scalinatella said:


> Langford, yes, but I count him in a different era when boxing was a essentially a different sport. I hear what you are saying, jorodz, and your opinion carries weight because of the source, but I no longer see the argument for Armstrong or Robinson over Greb. Just can't see it.
> 
> Greb fought 300x to Robinson's 200. He fought 15 HOF'ers to Robinson's ~12. He was a beast in 2 if not 3 weight classes -including heavies. Take a look at Dempsey's record and then see how Greb functioned as Dempsey's policeman of sorts. He was physically very strong, inhumanly fast, his stamina built as the fight wore on, he had a rock solid chin, he could box from the outside, and was a swarmer like no one else, including Armstrong, he went 45-0 in one year and beat damn-near every style in the book, he fought with fevers, boils, broken bones, and half-blind.
> 
> ...


A fantastic summation. Thanks for posting, amigo.

Robinson once said regarding the outstanding Australian MW contender Dave Sands "They would have to pay me a lot of money to fight that guy".

I cannot even imagine Harry Greb making such a statement. It would be more like "Get me that guy in 3 weeks. We'll pencil him in right after my fights with Gibbons, Loughran and Miske."


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

Surf-Bat said:


> A fantastic summation. Thanks for posting, amigo.
> 
> Robinson once said regarding the outstanding Australian MW contender Dave Sands "They would have to pay me a lot of money to fight that guy".
> 
> I cannot even imagine Harry Greb making such a statement. It would be more like "Get me that guy in 3 weeks. We'll pencil him in right after my fights with Gibbons, Loughran and Miske."


Robby had show business aspirations, and it apparently didn't occur to him that looking like Maxie Rosenbloom could open as many doors for him as looking like Corbett. Guys like Graziano would show off shiners and other facial damage like badges of honor. [Max Baer too, for that matter, while interviewed following his rematch win over Tommy Farr.]

Different era, when sunglasses after a contest were hardly a consideration. [Still, one didn't want to muss up Benny Leonard's hair!}


----------



## Scalinatella (Jan 12, 2013)

Duo said:


> I don't buy Fitz being in that rarefied atmosphere, but Gans would have to be taken very seriously, especially if one considers McGovern a dive. Scalinatella compartmentalizes eras very sensibly though with a concrete 1920 delineation (correct me if I'm wrong, Triple SSS), while I tend to move back slightly further with a grayer and more nebulous WW I separation [which still gives Harry 1919, while Langford retains the filmed benefit of Jeannette X].


Well, that 1920 makes more sense if only because of the Walker Law, which went into effect that year. The Walker Law essentially made boxing a legal -and regulated- sport. It identified weight classes, required officials to licensed, and limited the number of rounds -which is really what makes the difference for me. A guy fighting 45 or even 20 rounds is going to have to fight differently than a guy going 15 tops. ...This is discussed in my upcoming book (The Gods of War: Boxing Essays, which you all better buy or else) and it is the starting point to my rankings (1-10, 11-30 in appendix).

Another reason. Look at Langford. He was known as a tanker. He tanked and others tanked for him. Who knows which bouts? I don't. Does that make him a villain? Nope. It assures us that he was a man frozen out of the championship who took on others of similar complexion who were also frozen out, and they had to make a living. So when I see his record, I don't know exactly what it is I'm looking at. Not so with Robinson (though I'll be damn-near proving that at least one of his fights saw his opponent take a dive) and less so with Greb who bridged both eras.

By the way, I look at fighters who hit their prime in or after 1920. That's why Greb is in and Jimmy Wilde for example is not included....


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

Scalinatella said:


> Well, that 1920 makes more sense if only because of the Walker Law, which went into effect that year. The Walker Law essentially made boxing a legal -and regulated- sport. It identified weight classes, required officials to licensed, and limited the number of rounds -which is really what makes the difference for me. A guy fighting 45 or even 20 rounds is going to have to fight differently than a guy going 15 tops. ...This is discussed in my upcoming book (The Gods of War: Boxing Essays, which you all better buy or else) and it is the starting point to my rankings (1-10, 11-30 in appendix).
> 
> Another reason. Look at Langford. He was known as a tanker. He tanked and others tanked for him. Who knows which bouts? I don't. Does that make him a villain? Nope. It assures us that he was a man frozen out of the championship who took on others of similar complexion who were also frozen out, and they had to make a living. So when I see his record, I don't know exactly what it is I'm looking at. Not so with Robinson (though I'll be damn-near proving that at least one of his fights saw his opponent take a dive) and less so with Greb who bridged both eras.
> 
> By the way, I look at fighters who hit their prime in or after 1920. That's why Greb is in and Jimmy Wilde for example is not included....


Good explanation, and well reasoned criteria.

I keep going back to Jake "The Snake" Roberts saying on youtube that the only two sports not rigged were Roller Derby, and synchronized swimming. I already knew that boxing was always crooked, but still haven't recovered from the revelation that professional wrestling is fake.


----------



## Scalinatella (Jan 12, 2013)

Duo said:


> Good explanation, and well reasoned criteria.
> 
> I keep going back to Jake "The Snake" Roberts saying on youtube that the only two sports not rigged were Roller Derby, and synchronized swimming. I already knew that boxing was always crooked, but still haven't recovered from the revelation that professional wrestling is fake.


I was a die-hard Mil Mascaras fan myself. He was the only professional wrestler who was 100% legit. Yes he was. I'm blocking my ears. Yes he was. I'm leaving. Yes he was.


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

Scalinatella said:


> I was a die-hard Mil Mascaras fan myself. He was the only professional wrestler who was 100% legit. Yes he was. I'm blocking my ears. Yes he was. I'm leaving. Yes he was.


:shifty:Oh my Gawd! Sammartino wasn't legit?:stonk Bruno wasn't on the level?:merchant "AAAnnnaaalyze! AAAnnnaaalyze! It...does...not...compute!!!!:gsg *BOOM!!!*:suicide


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

I don't want to live in this planet anymore.


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

Scalinatella said:


> This is discussed in my upcoming book (The Gods of War: Boxing Essays, which you all better buy or else)


Now, now, you can't expect to out-compete Klompton with a good natured soft sell like this.

Klompton scares people. We've seen your pictures, and you look like an assassin. But nobody knows what HE looks like [so we don't know when he's coming after us], and word has it he exhumed the remains of Greb and all his opponents to study their bones and extract their DNA. That guy's no historian, he's an auditor. Do you really believe he stopped at mere literary research? He's a mad, obsessive, humorless genius who has those bodies buried in his basement, and somewhere, a secret lab where he's cloning a giant army of test tube, two-eyed, eight-armed Grebs on steroids to conquer the world. [And we're unwittingly financing him by buying his book!]


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

Damn. I've gotta stop posting while plastered!


----------



## Scalinatella (Jan 12, 2013)

Duo said:


> Now, now, you can't expect to out-compete Klompton with a good natured soft sell like this.
> 
> Klompton scares people. We've seen your pictures, and you look like an assassin. But nobody knows what HE looks like [so we don't know when he's coming after us], and word has it he exhumed the remains of Greb and all his opponents to study their bones and extract their DNA. That guy's no historian, he's an auditor. Do you really believe he stopped at mere literary research? He's a mad, obsessive, humorless genius who has those bodies buried in his basement, and somewhere, a secret lab where he's cloning a giant army of test tube, two-eyed, eight-armed Grebs on steroids to conquer the world. [And we're unwittingly financing him by buying his book!]


OK, now that's the funniest damn post I ever read. Even it is probably true.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Ahhhh stoney has made the jump over!


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

Scalinatella said:


> OK, now that's the funniest damn post I ever read. Even it is probably true.


No...no...NO!!!...don't encourage this...

First of all, have you read the other weird crap I posted today on the "Jeffries ATG NO!" thread, or Klompton's own Fitz-Corbett Veriscope Film thread? [Same pattern as at that other site. I submit a bizarre contribution which kills the thread, by spooking off all the other posters.]

If he sees this one, HE's not going to think it's funny! He's going to say, "Damn, I've been found out!," and go after me with a half cloned Greb zombie [probably the side with the good eye], if he can find out who and where I am. You can afford to be publicly known and identifiable, but I have to stay in hiding. [Also, I can't be around when my sister's watching "Walking Dead" episodes any more. As it is, I'm probably going to make my next Irish coffee with an extra strong dose of caffeine so I don't go to sleep tonight and have to face the nightmares before daybreak. Maybe I can use my pill crusher to sprinkle Vivarin or No-Doze over the ground coffee. Then, the only problem is I'll stay inebriated into the morning.]


----------



## Surf-Bat (Jun 6, 2013)

Scalinatella said:


> I was a die-hard Mil Mascaras fan myself. He was the only professional wrestler who was 100% legit. Yes he was. I'm blocking my ears. Yes he was. I'm leaving. Yes he was.


As was I. Saw him wrestle at the Olympic Auditorium in the early 80s. A battle royal. Mascaras, Putski, Tolos, Atlas, Patterson, Koloff, Andre, Studd....all of em.


----------



## Burt Brooks (Jun 6, 2012)

Both great alltime fighters, but Harry Greb besides having 119 MORE bouts in his career, was even as a fading one eyed fighter was
formidable enough to have never been tkod in over 280 of his last bouts, whilst Henry Armstrong was badly beaten and stopped by a Fritzie
Zivic, when Henry was just 29 years old...No ONE, but NO ONE stops even a fading Harry Greb...Henry Armstrong was a one dimensional
great swarming machine whom an inconsistent Fritzie Zivic cut to ribbons in close. Harry Greb was a frenetic swarmer who had the great ability
with his great speed to scoot away and avoid punishment, thus he was able to fight 300 fights ,and til the very end blind in one eye was
unstoppable...Two fighters with inhuman stamina but I will take Harry Greb because he was more rounded as a fighter...


----------

