View Full Version : Is Greb Greater Than Duran?


Perfect Plex
10-03-2011, 04:43 PM
Bert Sugar says yes, Ring Magazine say no. What do YOU think?

JAB5239
10-03-2011, 04:49 PM
Bert Sugar says yes, Ring Magazine say no. What do YOU think?

I say without a doubt Greb is greater. Duran has the single greater win, but Greb has many more great wins on a stacked resume.

Perfect Plex
10-03-2011, 04:51 PM
I say without a doubt Greb is greater. Duran has the single greater win, but Greb has many more great wins on a stacked resume.

Would you say Duran dominated a division(135lb) better than Greb?

IronDanHamza
10-03-2011, 04:52 PM
Greb.

Definitely Greb.

BennyST
10-03-2011, 04:52 PM
Probably yes. I don't like to agree with Sugar. It always comes down largely to preference in the top ten, but Greb is arguably the greatest ever. I tend to have them quite a few spots apart, Duran around 8 or 9 or something and Greb around 2 to 3.

DarkTerror88
10-03-2011, 05:01 PM
Both are top 3 in their weightclass. But greb is easily one of the four best ever to lace em up. Duran is in the top 10, but Greb is a head and shoulders difference.

Sugarj
10-03-2011, 05:14 PM
Greb takes this by virtue of paper record, legend and legacy.

Whether he was a more effective fighting machine, compared in their respective primes might well be arguable.

Kid McCoy
10-03-2011, 05:15 PM
Would you say Duran dominated a division(135lb) better than Greb?

Greb arguably dominated two divisions. He beat nearly every significant fighter of his day at 160 and 175 but was frozen out of the title picture for a long time. Much as I like Duran, I give this one to Greb.

DarkTerror88
10-03-2011, 05:43 PM
Greb arguably dominated two divisions. He beat nearly every significant fighter of his day at 160 and 175 but was frozen out of the title picture for a long time. Much as I like Duran, I give this one to Greb.

This hits the nail on the head. I haven't seen you around the history section before, but you seem like a great addition. Welcome to the higher end of the boards my friend. :beerchug:

I wouldn't be surprised if you know more than me, based on your name.

Greatest1942
10-03-2011, 06:08 PM
I say without a doubt Greb is greater. Duran has the single greater win, but Greb has many more great wins on a stacked resume.

I consider Greb's win over Tunney = Duran's win over Leonard, considering Tunney never ever lost to anotherman.

I think Greb dominated the heavy weight division too , considering he beat most of the heavyweight contenders who challenged Dempsey.

His resume t light heavy is better than most great light heavy champs of all time...All this while the guy was just a middle weight....Effectively its dominance in three divisions .

ghns1133
10-03-2011, 06:22 PM
as a duran fan

i will admit grebb is a little greater

BennyST
10-03-2011, 06:46 PM
I consider Greb's win over Tunney = Duran's win over Leonard, considering Tunney never ever lost to anotherman.

I think Greb dominated the heavy weight division too , considering he beat most of the heavyweight contenders who challenged Dempsey.

His resume t light heavy is better than most great light heavy champs of all time...All this while the guy was just a middle weight....Effectively its dominance in three divisions .

No, not really. I know what you mean, but it doesn't really go like that. In the same vein you could then argue that Duran clearly dominated 3 divisions. He beat the top featherweight in the world who went on to dominate the division when Duran left and was world champ for many years. He dominated 135 and then moved up beat some top contenders, the previous long time WBC champ in Palomino and then beat the lineal champ and best fighter at 147. That's dominance, but would you call it dominance over 3 divisions? I doubt many would. He dominated one division.

Greb is similar. He didn't beat the champ at heavyweight or LHW (though that's an interesting one as he beat the top guy there but didn't win the title with it), so any dominance is completely moot because unless you beat the top dog, you're not the top dog no matter what else happens.

You could argue that he was dominant in two divisions, but beating Tunney once in five fights is not dominating the top LHW in that era.

It's a funny one. I'm sure Greb today would be said to have been 1/4 the fighter of Duran going by tape of him. Even in his day people talked about his unorthodox boxing, his utter lack of any proper form, technique, correct punching and just about everything else relating to boxing. He was, as quite a few put it, about as amateur looking fighter as there was.....yet, no matter how amateur someone looks, if they beat that many top, great fighters it is utterly unarguable that they themselves are great. If Mayorga had beaten Trinidad, Oscar, Mosley, Spinks and Cotto you couldn't deny that he was great despite looking like a hack that could be easily beaten.

I'm kind of sure that's what Greb was like a bit. A much, much better version of Mayorga with an unbreakable chin, better stamina and higher workrate....?

Kid McCoy
10-03-2011, 07:40 PM
No, not really. I know what you mean, but it doesn't really go like that. In the same vein you could then argue that Duran clearly dominated 3 divisions. He beat the top featherweight in the world who went on to dominate the division when Duran left and was world champ for many years. He dominated 135 and then moved up beat some top contenders, the previous long time WBC champ in Palomino and then beat the lineal champ and best fighter at 147. That's dominance, but would you call it dominance over 3 divisions? I doubt many would. He dominated one division.

Greb is similar. He didn't beat the champ at heavyweight or LHW (though that's an interesting one as he beat the top guy there but didn't win the title with it), so any dominance is completely moot because unless you beat the top dog, you're not the top dog no matter what else happens.

You could argue that he was dominant in two divisions, but beating Tunney once in five fights is not dominating the top LHW in that era.


Greb did more at 175 than just beat Tunney. Check out the IBRO's top 20 light heavyweights (http://www.ibroresearch.com/?p=56). Greb beat SIX men on that list.

Greb was basically frozen out of the 175lb title picture. Levinsky (who Greb was 6-0 against) was happy to protect his title in no decision bouts for years. Carpentier then KO'd Levinsky in a fight that was widely thought to have been set-up to make Carpentier look plausible for Dempsey. Carpentier turned down a fortune to face Greb and instead took on the unheralded Siki, who was paid to lie down but double crossed Carpentier and KO'd him. Siki then lost to McTigue, who lost twice to Greb but wouldn't defend against him. So for nearly ten years at 175 the champion wasn't the top dog, he just held the belt.

Greb was 8-0 against two of those light-heavy champions and two others wouldn't even face him. Even though politics meant he didn't get to win the belt (and he only got to win the 160lb title fairly late in his career), I'd still say he was pretty dominant at light-heavy. He did have some good wins at heavyweight, but I wouldn't say he dominated that division as he never faced the two best heavies at the time.

McGoorty
10-03-2011, 11:54 PM
Bert Sugar says yes, Ring Magazine say no. What do YOU think?
Gee mate, I gotta give you kudos for GUTS...... Greb and Duran are two of the un-fallibles around here,.... and to say anything unflattering will have many come down hard on you.. I'm scared to say anything on the comparison of these two because I don't worship them, I like them but I don't rate them as high as most, like I wouldn't have Duran in my top 10 ATG list,... I have never had him that high....... McFarland's LW resume is stronger. -GREB EDGES DURAN HERE..... but Bert Sugar has nothing do with my opinions------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bloody hell !!,.... now I'm in for it mate,... I may have started WW3.

ghns1133
10-03-2011, 11:58 PM
Gee mate, I gotta give you kudos for GUTS...... Greb and Duran are two of the un-fallibles around here,.... and to say anything unflattering will have many come down hard on you.. I'm scared to say anything on the comparison of these two because I don't worship them, I like them but I don't rate them as high as most, like I wouldn't have Duran in my top 10 ATG list,... I have never had him that high....... McFarland's LW resume is stronger. -GREB EDGES DURAN HERE..... but Bert Sugar has nothing do with my opinions------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bloody hell !!,.... now I'm in for it mate,... I may have started WW3.

:wtf1::spank:




:)

BennyST
10-04-2011, 03:05 AM
Greb did more at 175 than just beat Tunney. Check out the IBRO's top 20 light heavyweights (http://www.ibroresearch.com/?p=56). Greb beat SIX men on that list.

Greb was basically frozen out of the 175lb title picture. Levinsky (who Greb was 6-0 against) was happy to protect his title in no decision bouts for years. Carpentier then KO'd Levinsky in a fight that was widely thought to have been set-up to make Carpentier look plausible for Dempsey. Carpentier turned down a fortune to face Greb and instead took on the unheralded Siki, who was paid to lie down but double crossed Carpentier and KO'd him. Siki then lost to McTigue, who lost twice to Greb but wouldn't defend against him. So for nearly ten years at 175 the champion wasn't the top dog, he just held the belt.

Greb was 8-0 against two of those light-heavy champions and two others wouldn't even face him. Even though politics meant he didn't get to win the belt (and he only got to win the 160lb title fairly late in his career), I'd still say he was pretty dominant at light-heavy. He did have some good wins at heavyweight, but I wouldn't say he dominated that division as he never faced the two best heavies at the time.

I know. That's not really my point though. I think he basically/arguably dominated two divisions. MW and LHW. He didn't dominate HW though which is what I was suggesting. Whatever else happens though, Tunney was the most dominant force at LHW in that era, not Greb. I don't believe someone can dominate a division when they are not the best fighter in it and lose to that fighter.

McGoorty
10-04-2011, 09:02 AM
Greb did more at 175 than just beat Tunney. Check out the IBRO's top 20 light heavyweights (http://www.ibroresearch.com/?p=56). Greb beat SIX men on that list.

Greb was basically frozen out of the 175lb title picture. Levinsky (who Greb was 6-0 against) was happy to protect his title in no decision bouts for years. Carpentier then KO'd Levinsky in a fight that was widely thought to have been set-up to make Carpentier look plausible for Dempsey. Carpentier turned down a fortune to face Greb and instead took on the unheralded Siki, who was paid to lie down but double crossed Carpentier and KO'd him. Siki then lost to McTigue, who lost twice to Greb but wouldn't defend against him. So for nearly ten years at 175 the champion wasn't the top dog, he just held the belt.

Greb was 8-0 against two of those light-heavy champions and two others wouldn't even face him. Even though politics meant he didn't get to win the belt (and he only got to win the 160lb title fairly late in his career), I'd still say he was pretty dominant at light-heavy. He did have some good wins at heavyweight, but I wouldn't say he dominated that division as he never faced the two best heavies at the time.
You have made a very good case for LHW there..... I can't deny that greb had a terrific record there but it pales compared to his record at MW...... He was at least in the top 3 LHW's for a reasonable amount of time,... but I would say ATG P4P and ATG MW,... but not ATG at LHW... more just great......... now there can't be much wrong with what I said,.. it sounds like a pretty big rap.

Barnburner
10-04-2011, 10:29 AM
I say without a doubt Greb is greater. Duran has the single greater win, but Greb has many more great wins on a stacked resume.
Prime Mickey Walker?

kendom
10-04-2011, 01:12 PM
Prime Mickey Walker?

Mickey Walker was a natural welterweight, Duran moved up to face Leonard

Terry A
10-04-2011, 04:15 PM
Greb takes this by virtue of paper record, legend and legacy.

Whether he was a more effective fighting machine, compared in their respective primes might well be arguable.

If Harry Greb was fighting today & we seen him on the PPVs, we would all recognize that he was indeed a very special (great) fighter. To win like he did over who he did as much as he did and for as long as he did says something.

And since none of us were alive when he was doing all his carnage, we have to go by his record, the collective opinions about him that made him into a legend and the legacy that he made for himself by his heart & gifts he had in the ring.

"Legends" don't just happen, they're bestowed upon those who stand out over others.

Greb is for sure a legendary champion & an all-time great.

So is Duran, but in the all-time pecking order, I give the nod to Greb.

Sugarj
10-04-2011, 06:16 PM
If Harry Greb was fighting today & we seen him on the PPVs, we would all recognize that he was indeed a very special (great) fighter. To win like he did over who he did as much as he did and for as long as he did says something.

And since none of us were alive when he was doing all his carnage, we have to go by his record, the collective opinions about him that made him into a legend and the legacy that he made for himself by his heart & gifts he had in the ring.

"Legends" don't just happen, they're bestowed upon those who stand out over others.

Greb is for sure a legendary champion & an all-time great.

So is Duran, but in the all-time pecking order, I give the nod to Greb.



I don't doubt it, the guy surely must have been remarkable to have picked up the wins he did.

I just think that as sheer fighting machines come (pound for pound) prime Roberto Duran takes some beating, there was nothing he couldn't do extremely well, whether it be as a pressure fighter or a masterful defensive boxer. Duran had everything a fighter could ever need.....speed, power, workrate, heart, chin, combinations, head movement, ring smarts.

We don't know enough about Greb's game due to the lack of film. Contemporary reports indicate that he had an incredible workrate, ridiculous speed of hand, bags of heart and every dirty trick in the book. I'm not sure that his game would have been quite as diverse as Duran's despite his remarkable record. But I'd love to be proved wrong......should some film come into the public domain.

What I wouldn't give to see all the Gene Tunney fights!!!!!

Greatest1942
10-04-2011, 06:22 PM
No, not really. I know what you mean, but it doesn't really go like that. In the same vein you could then argue that Duran clearly dominated 3 divisions. He beat the top featherweight in the world who went on to dominate the division when Duran left and was world champ for many years. He dominated 135 and then moved up beat some top contenders, the previous long time WBC champ in Palomino and then beat the lineal champ and best fighter at 147. That's dominance, but would you call it dominance over 3 divisions? I doubt many would. He dominated one division.

Greb is similar. <b> He didn't beat the champ at heavyweight or LHW (though that's an interesting one as he beat the top guy there but didn't win the title with it), so any dominance is completely moot because unless you beat the top dog, you're not the top dog no matter what else happens. </b>

You could argue that he was dominant in two divisions, but beating Tunney once in five fights is not dominating the top LHW in that era.

It's a funny one. I'm sure Greb today would be said to have been 1/4 the fighter of Duran going by tape of him. Even in his day people talked about his unorthodox boxing, his utter lack of any proper form, technique, correct punching and just about everything else relating to boxing. He was, as quite a few put it, about as amateur looking fighter as there was.....yet, no matter how amateur someone looks, if they beat that many top, great fighters it is utterly unarguable that they themselves are great. If Mayorga had beaten Trinidad, Oscar, Mosley, Spinks and Cotto you couldn't deny that he was great despite looking like a hack that could be easily beaten.

I'm kind of sure that's what Greb was like a bit. A much, much better version of Mayorga with an unbreakable chin, better stamina and higher workrate....?



The above in bold destroys your credibility...so according to you Greb was not LHW champ...:hitit:

GREB WILL AWAIT CARPENTIER'S REPLY; New Light-Heavyweight Champion to Return to His Pittsburgh Home Tomorrow.

Unmarked and without any visible evidence of his latest encounter in the ring, Harry Greb, the new American light-heavyweight champion, was about ...

Sue the New York Times man...How dare they write this?

Or may be this newspaper :-

Harry Greb Wins Light Heavy-Weight Crown
Greb Decisively Outpoints Tunney In Fifteen Rounds Old Timers at Ringside Predicted Kayo On Account of the Speed of the Two Battlers

Whats interesting is that you seem to living in a land where Greb beat Tunney but did not win title....where do you get your news from ?

1)What do you mean he did n't win the title at LHW? He was light heavy champ...check his record out..FYI Greb beat Tunney in his second bout...almost all newspaper except a few gave it to him..even the MSG president called it a bad decision...Tunney himself acknowledged it was bad one. The fourth by all accounts was a draw.Even teh ****ty Boxwreck has Greb-Tunney 4 as a draw.Tunney won 3rd and 5th.

And its not only beating Tunney...Greb beat the top LHWS of his time.
This is Greb's LHW resume :-

Jimmy Delaney
Maxie Rosenbloom
Gene Tunney
Tommy Loughran
Jimmy Slattery
Kid Norfolk
Tommy Gibbons
Jeff Smith
Battling Levinksy

Kindly give me 10 LHWS of all time who had better wins.If this is not a great resume at LHW I dont know what is. Does Duran have as good a resume at WW and MW, which were higher than his natural weigh...same as LHW was higher than Greb's weigh as was heavyweight.

2) He was middle weight champ

3) He beat all the top contenders of HW division, it is no fault of Greb that he did not meet Dempsey. Harry Willis did not meet Dempsey either so we can't say that he was a good heavyweight...Greb beat the title contenders for Dempsey's title more easily than Dempsey did.

He beat almost every other contender...yes its not domianance in a literal sense, but he was a top contdener there...Sam Langford never won a HW title so wasn't he dominant?


Do you wanna see the reports of the 2nd Greb- Tunney fight? Or do you consider what the judges give as a decision as unimpeachable.

Greatest1942
10-05-2011, 03:33 AM
I don't doubt it, the guy surely must have been remarkable to have picked up the wins he did.

I just think that as sheer fighting machines come (pound for pound) prime Roberto Duran takes some beating, there was nothing he couldn't do extremely well, whether it be as a pressure fighter or a masterful defensive boxer. Duran had everything a fighter could ever need.....speed, power, workrate, heart, chin, combinations, head movement, ring smarts.

We don't know enough about Greb's game due to the lack of film. Contemporary reports indicate that he had an incredible workrate, ridiculous speed of hand, bags of heart and every dirty trick in the book. I'm not sure that his game would have been quite as diverse as Duran's despite his remarkable record. But I'd love to be proved wrong......should some film come into the public domain.

What I wouldn't give to see all the Gene Tunney fights!!!!!

1) We know two things of Greb however, we know his opponents class, Tunney,Gibbons or Walker look great even in those old ****ty films.

2) Greb's success against opponents of all styles is unparalleled. NO one had success with so many styles as Greb had.

wmute
10-05-2011, 03:56 AM
Greb, by a slimmer margin though. i tend to agree with sugarj.

BennyST
10-05-2011, 10:20 AM
The above in bold destroys your credibility...so according to you Greb was not LHW champ...:hitit:

GREB WILL AWAIT CARPENTIER'S REPLY; New Light-Heavyweight Champion to Return to His Pittsburgh Home Tomorrow.

Unmarked and without any visible evidence of his latest encounter in the ring, Harry Greb, the new American light-heavyweight champion, was about ...

Sue the New York Times man...How dare they write this?

Or may be this newspaper :-

Harry Greb Wins Light Heavy-Weight Crown
Greb Decisively Outpoints Tunney In Fifteen Rounds Old Timers at Ringside Predicted Kayo On Account of the Speed of the Two Battlers

Whats interesting is that you seem to living in a land where Greb beat Tunney but did not win title....where do you get your news from ?

1)What do you mean he did n't win the title at LHW? He was light heavy champ...check his record out..FYI Greb beat Tunney in his second bout...almost all newspaper except a few gave it to him..even the MSG president called it a bad decision...Tunney himself acknowledged it was bad one. The fourth by all accounts was a draw.Even teh ****ty Boxwreck has Greb-Tunney 4 as a draw.Tunney won 3rd and 5th.

And its not only beating Tunney...Greb beat the top LHWS of his time.
This is Greb's LHW resume :-

Jimmy Delaney
Maxie Rosenbloom
Gene Tunney
Tommy Loughran
Jimmy Slattery
Kid Norfolk
Tommy Gibbons
Jeff Smith
Battling Levinksy

Kindly give me 10 LHWS of all time who had better wins.If this is not a great resume at LHW I dont know what is. Does Duran have as good a resume at WW and MW, which were higher than his natural weigh...same as LHW was higher than Greb's weigh as was heavyweight.

2) He was middle weight champ

3) He beat all the top contenders of HW division, it is no fault of Greb that he did not meet Dempsey. Harry Willis did not meet Dempsey either so we can't say that he was a good heavyweight...Greb beat the title contenders for Dempsey's title more easily than Dempsey did.

He beat almost every other contender...yes its not domianance in a literal sense, but he was a top contdener there...Sam Langford never won a HW title so wasn't he dominant?


Do you wanna see the reports of the 2nd Greb- Tunney fight? Or do you consider what the judges give as a decision as unimpeachable.

Oh dear....I think you're missing my point. I literally said that it could easily be argued that Greb was dominant in two divisions. MW and LHW. He also beat a lot of the great heavyweights of that era. It is right up there in my last post. However, he was not champion at lightheavyweight, so relax on the patronising insults. Like I said, you're are clearly missing my point.

I was debating whether you could say he was dominant in 3 divisions initially, because while you can beat the top contenders and have a great record and even a better one than the champ really, if you don't beat the top guy, you haven't actually dominated the division. That's all I was trying to get across.

He was a world champion at MW. He lost his series of fights with Tunney at LHW and I consider Tunney to be the best LHW of that era. Greb was the other top man for me, but he was never LHW champ and lost the series against the other top guy there. He has a simple amazing resume at LHW, I'm not disagreeing at all.

I'm disagreeing that he was dominant at LHW and HW. He clearly wasn't. He was at the very top, but it was alongside other top fighters, not above them, dominating the division. Do you see what I'm saying?

Kid McCoy had it pretty spot on, and basically said what I was trying to say, but UI just couldn't put it down as articulately.

Simply this; Greb's resume is amazing at MW and LHW. Incredible. You could argue that he was dominant at two divisions, not three. However, to me dominance is clearly being the best in the division. With Gene Tunney alongside at LHW he was clearly not the best and lost most fights against Gene in that great rivalry. As McCoy also said, sadly he was not able to even have the chance to win the title, so that was unfortunate to not become champ at MW and LHW because he probably would definitely have done so.

Hopkins dominated middleweight, as did Hagler, Monzon and Greb. Duran dominated lightweight and was the world champ at 147, but he was not dominant there despite beating the top guy. Just the same Greb beat the top guy, but was not dominant because he also lost to him more than he won.

Do you see what I mean?

GJC
10-05-2011, 11:51 AM
Always thought that given the opportunity that it wouldn't have been impossible for Greb to have held 3 titles long before Armstrong. No bigger Duran fan than me but got to give the nod to Greb here

kendom
10-05-2011, 11:51 AM
The above in bold destroys your credibility...so according to you Greb was not LHW champ...:hitit:

GREB WILL AWAIT CARPENTIER'S REPLY; New Light-Heavyweight Champion to Return to His Pittsburgh Home Tomorrow.

Unmarked and without any visible evidence of his latest encounter in the ring, Harry Greb, the new American light-heavyweight champion, was about ...

Sue the New York Times man...How dare they write this?

Or may be this newspaper :-

Harry Greb Wins Light Heavy-Weight Crown
Greb Decisively Outpoints Tunney In Fifteen Rounds Old Timers at Ringside Predicted Kayo On Account of the Speed of the Two Battlers

Whats interesting is that you seem to living in a land where Greb beat Tunney but did not win title....where do you get your news from ?

1)What do you mean he did n't win the title at LHW? He was light heavy champ...check his record out..FYI Greb beat Tunney in his second bout...almost all newspaper except a few gave it to him..even the MSG president called it a bad decision...Tunney himself acknowledged it was bad one. The fourth by all accounts was a draw.Even teh ****ty Boxwreck has Greb-Tunney 4 as a draw.Tunney won 3rd and 5th.

And its not only beating Tunney...Greb beat the top LHWS of his time.
This is Greb's LHW resume :-

Jimmy Delaney
Maxie Rosenbloom
Gene Tunney
Tommy Loughran
Jimmy Slattery
Kid Norfolk
Tommy Gibbons
Jeff Smith
Battling Levinksy

Kindly give me 10 LHWS of all time who had better wins.If this is not a great resume at LHW I dont know what is. Does Duran have as good a resume at WW and MW, which were higher than his natural weigh...same as LHW was higher than Greb's weigh as was heavyweight.

2) He was middle weight champ

3) He beat all the top contenders of HW division, it is no fault of Greb that he did not meet Dempsey. Harry Willis did not meet Dempsey either so we can't say that he was a good heavyweight...Greb beat the title contenders for Dempsey's title more easily than Dempsey did.

He beat almost every other contender...yes its not domianance in a literal sense, but he was a top contdener there...Sam Langford never won a HW title so wasn't he dominant?


Do you wanna see the reports of the 2nd Greb- Tunney fight? Or do you consider what the judges give as a decision as unimpeachable.

How can you have such a crazy resume at a weight that's not even your prime weight?

Greatest1942
10-05-2011, 01:06 PM
He lost his series of fights with Tunney at LHW and I consider Tunney to be the best LHW of that era. Greb was the other top man for me,<b> but he was never LHW champ </b>and lost the series against the other top guy there.

What do you mean by this .Never LHW champ...My I can't get you.

And besides his series against Tunney in all fairness is tied 2-2, which he achieved with one good eye.

May be I am being a bit thick, but what you mean by the above in bold, escapes me, since Greb was a bonafide LHW champ. He got the title when he beat Tunney.

Barnburner
10-05-2011, 01:31 PM
What do you mean by this .Never LHW champ...My I can't get you.

And besides his series against Tunney in all fairness is tied 2-2, which he achieved with one good eye.

May be I am being a bit thick, but what you mean by the above in bold, escapes me, since Greb was a bonafide LHW champ. He got the title when he beat Tunney.
That was the American Championship I am certain.

Kid McCoy
10-05-2011, 02:43 PM
That was the American Championship I am certain.

The American version was really more credible at the time, as the world belt was being passed around by 4 or 5 guys who were obviously not the best in the division and were dodging the top fighters.

Barnburner
10-05-2011, 03:42 PM
The American version was really more credible at the time, as the world belt was being passed around by 4 or 5 guys who were obviously not the best in the division and were dodging the top fighters.
Yeah I noticed that when studying the records and where the LHW belt was at the time.

Greatest1942
10-05-2011, 06:38 PM
Yeah I noticed that when studying the records and where the LHW belt was at the time.


If Greb did not win the championship, Then Gene Tunney was not the LHW champ simple as that.

Look there has always been separate version of championships, most people of the time including the media, accepted the American version as the LHW title.

After Greb beat Tunney he was hailed as the new LHW champ by the media. I know the history of each of those titles,and without any doubt the American version was the one, which had the most credibility.

If you wanna see, I will provide you with the articles discussing Grebs light heavy weight claim, after the Tunney win.

Greatest1942
10-05-2011, 07:21 PM
If Greb did not win the championship, Then Gene Tunney was not the LHW champ simple as that.

Look there has always been separate version of championships, most people of the time including the media, accepted the American version as the LHW title.

After Greb beat Tunney he was hailed as the new LHW champ by the media. I know the history of each of those titles,and without any doubt the American version was the one, which had the most credibility.

If you wanna see, I will provide you with the articles discussing Grebs light heavy weight claim, after the Tunney win.

This talks of Greb's defense of his light heavy weight title...if Barnburner or others need more I will post.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=fVdbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SFANAAAAIBAJ&pg=1309,3663840&dq=harry+greb+light+heavy+champ+loughran&hl=en

THis is NY times :-

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FA0814F63E5D1A7A93C3A8178CD85F468285F9

Now LOuhharnd was notorious for his yarns , in one of his interviews he said Greb hit him with many gloves and also said Greb did not lay a glove on him.

Here's that....its actually...quite funny

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=l4paAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HU8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2191,6306718&dq=harry+greb+light+heavy+champ+loughran&hl=en

BennyST
10-06-2011, 07:08 AM
If Greb did not win the championship, Then Gene Tunney was not the LHW champ simple as that.

Look there has always been separate version of championships, most people of the time including the media, accepted the American version as the LHW title.

After Greb beat Tunney he was hailed as the new LHW champ by the media. I know the history of each of those titles,and without any doubt the American version was the one, which had the most credibility.

If you wanna see, I will provide you with the articles discussing Grebs light heavy weight claim, after the Tunney win.

He wasn't. The reason he moved up to chase heavyweight glory was because he was being shut out of the World LHW title picture which was being fought out by Georges Carpentier, Battling Siki and Paul Bendecher or something....can't remember his name.

Tunney, and Greb next to him, were considered to be the two best fighters but neither were ever the LHW champion. 'People's' champion sure, but not thew actual LHW champion.

As GJC said, if Greb had been given a fair go it's highly possible that he would have been the first, way before Armstrong, to win three titles simultaneously. Or he could have been the first 3 division titlist anyway.

As it stands he was not the LHW champion. They didn't accept the American version as the 'true' title. The World title was the accepted version across the board. What they did think though was that the wrong person was getting the title shots because Tunney should have been the world champion. He wasn't however and that sucks, but that's history and it's happened before and many times since.

In the same way Sam Langford should have been world champ, but wasn't, as should Burley etc etc.

Barnburner
10-06-2011, 12:19 PM
This talks of Greb's defense of his light heavy weight title...if Barnburner or others need more I will post.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=fVdbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SFANAAAAIBAJ&pg=1309,3663840&dq=harry+greb+light+heavy+champ+loughran&hl=en

THis is NY times :-

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FA0814F63E5D1A7A93C3A8178CD85F468285F9

Now LOuhharnd was notorious for his yarns , in one of his interviews he said Greb hit him with many gloves and also said Greb did not lay a glove on him.

Here's that....its actually...quite funny

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=l4paAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HU8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2191,6306718&dq=harry+greb+light+heavy+champ+loughran&hl=en
The second line in the first link clearly states American Champion.

BennyST
10-06-2011, 12:33 PM
The second line in the first link clearly states American Champion.

Not only that, but it clearly states in no uncertain terms how they thought of this being called any sort of championship match. I guess it shows just how far down boxing has come. Imagine if these same guys, disdainful of an American LHW title fight being called a 'championship match', saw what passes for world title fights these days with unranked fighters, coming off losses, suspensions, at catchweights in divisions neither has fought at or is any kind of contender even? :lol1:

Anyway, it states 'A rather meagre crowd witnessed the so-called championship encounter' specifically stating that it was clearly not for the world LHW title nor did anyone think it as such.

So, to settle it. Neither Greb nor Tunney ever won the LHW title. It really is as simple as that. They just didn't win it. It's fact. Set in stone. Can't be undone or revised. It just didn't happen.

Barnburner
10-06-2011, 12:39 PM
Not only that, but it clearly states in no uncertain terms how they thought of this being called any sort of championship match. I guess it shows just how far down boxing has come. Imagine if these same guys, disdainful of an American LHW title fight being called a 'championship match', saw what passes for world title fights these days with unranked fighters, coming off losses, suspensions, at catchweights in divisions neither has fought at or is any kind of contender even? :lol1:

Anyway, it states 'A rather meagre crowd witnessed the so-called championship encounter' specifically stating that it was clearly not for the world LHW title nor did anyone think it as such.

So, to settle it. Neither Greb nor Tunney ever won the LHW title. It really is as simple as that. They just didn't win it. It's fact. Set in stone. Can't be undone or revised. It just didn't happen.
IBU Diamond interim supernova junior world championship. :headbang:

Barnburner
10-06-2011, 12:49 PM
This can't be a serious question mate. Greb had ace ability far superior to Duran and it shows on his record. Duran would not have lasted two rounds with Tunney.
Maybe because he was a natural Lighweight :dunno:

BennyST
10-06-2011, 01:07 PM
This can't be a serious question mate. Greb had ace ability far superior to Duran and it shows on his record. Duran would not have lasted two rounds with Tunney.

This can't be a serious statement mate.

Greatest1942
10-06-2011, 01:27 PM
The second line in the first link clearly states American Champion.

I know it was United States title,but it was the title most accepted at the time....do you wanna read other reports?


Benny ,I know the stand of the Ring and most people, but contemporary newspapers mostly accepted Gene Tunney as the champ. And Greb was viewed as teh champ after that...all the newspaper reports talks of that.

At least the US title was the most accepted...Doesn't matter what other titles are...any in any case the thing is clear, cut it as you will, Greb still had a slice of the light heavy belt, had a great resume at lightheavy.

And cut it as you will Greb was 2-2 with Tunney. By the one before someone comes and says I know Ring's take and what others take on it...I am going by contemporary newspaper articles.

Ziggy Stardust
10-06-2011, 01:30 PM
This can't be a serious question mate. Greb had ace ability far superior to Duran and it shows on his record. Duran would not have lasted two rounds with Tunney.

Lemme guess: Duran ain't white enough for you. Typical.

Poet

Greatest1942
10-06-2011, 03:11 PM
Not only that, but it clearly states in no uncertain terms how they thought of this being called any sort of championship match. I guess it shows just how far down boxing has come. Imagine <b> if these same guys, disdainful of an American LHW title fight being called a 'championship match', saw what passes for </b>world title fights these days with unranked fighters, coming off losses, suspensions, at catchweights in divisions neither has fought at or is any kind of contender even? :lol1:

Anyway, it states 'A rather meagre crowd witnessed the so-called championship encounter' specifically stating that it was clearly not for the world LHW title nor did anyone think it as such.

So, to settle it. Neither Greb nor Tunney ever won the LHW title. It really is as simple as that. They just didn't win it. It's fact. Set in stone. Can't be undone or revised. It just didn't happen.
I provide two articles you pick one quote, before riding on that have you actually seen the number of the crowd vs the crowd number of championship fights of the stone set title..this is laughable..never mind I will "settle it". Giving you sources you understand.

For the above, in bold, so you highlight the meagre crowd...

TUNNEY CAPTURES LEVINSKY'S TITLE; Gains Decision Over Holder of American Light-Heavyweight Crown at Garden. VICTOR BY A WIDE MARGIN Greenwich Village Boxer Has Philadelphia Veteran in Distress in Sixth Round.MADDEN AND FULTON DRAWWest Sider Concedes 35 Poundsto Minnesotan, but Forces Fight

<b>A new American light-heavyweight champion was crowned last night in Madison Square Garden before one of the largest crowds of the season. </b>While a gathering of more than fourteen thousand people looked on Gene Tunney of Greenwich Village, a pugilistic product of the late war, hammered his way to victory over the veteran and venerable...

This is for the meagre crowd...which by the way was still bigger than most of the 'official' crowd.."lack of interest" okay, lets find another:

"LOUGHRAN MAY GIVE GREB A HARD BOUT; Keen Interest Shown in Light-Heavyweight Clash on Tues- day....

Tommy Loughran, Philadelphia lightheavyweight, is expected to give Harry Greb of Pittsburgh, holder of the American light-heavyweight title, a hard battle when they clash for fifteen rounds Tuesday night at Madison Square Garden. The contest will witness the first title struggle at the year in the Garden."

Hmmm....seems no one cared.Very disdainful.

This is an interesting article , notice it talks of the light heavy championship, in no uncertain terms, and in very certain terms....This potrays what this paper thinks of the title too...:nana::popcorn:...

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jx0bAAAAIBAJ&sjid=y0kEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3507,3086376&dq=american+light+heavyweight+championship+harry+g reb+tunney&hl=en

As for "the so called title bout", don't worry mate you can find that with official title too. This sort of reference was not uncommon...Perhaps you are carried away by the fact that the author of the article fails to recognize that so called meagre crowd was seldom seen in the official light heavy weight bout in America. :cool2:

As I said I did not look into thr ring records, neither did I look into boxrec history...I looked into the history of those who held the title, the popular belief etc...And the American Title (fortunately or Unfortunatelyhad the better credentials at those moments).

"So, to settle it."

It does not settle anything...It merely over rides the fact that Greb beat the best light heavy of the the time to hold a title that had better credentials than the light heavy belt.

As I said, I looked hard into each belt holder and I think I know what I am talking off...since you disagree, lets leave at that.

One last piece of advice while writing lines like teh above in bold, try reading more than one article about the same piece...Otherwise you will be caught in the wrong foot...There is more evidence that the American titlewas viewed in better light than the World one...

Greatest1942
10-06-2011, 03:37 PM
The second line in the first link clearly states American Champion.
Two questions :-
1) Did I deny it was the American version? I said it had the most credibility...You are saying something new here?

2) What did the first link say? As I said Tunney had the title which most people of the time thought valid...

What was in those articles that proves other wise?

Barnburner
10-06-2011, 04:02 PM
May be I am being a bit thick, but what you mean by the above in bold, escapes me, since Greb was a bonafide LHW champ. He got the title when he beat Tunney.

Besides this argument is silly, we're debating over context this ain't a literacy forum but, the fact remains Greb was not the LHW Champion of the world.

Greatest1942
10-06-2011, 05:45 PM
Besides this argument is silly, we're debating over context this ain't a literacy forum but, the fact remains Greb was not the LHW Champion of the world.

Didn't I say that, and in most of the articles I provided its said he won the US version of the title. Where the hell I denied it was the American version? You raised this query before.

You already asked, and I replied...and I stated why I consider the US belt that time, to be the most legitimate...What are you actually saying new? And what part I say you dont understand, you go back to apost made pages ago, while we have debated it even the post before.

Look let me state again...Greb won the Title (American one) from Tunney, but it so happens that at that point of time it was probably the one with best credentials...if you disagree, provide your arguments, or just state you don't accept, whats the point in harping over the same stuff again and again.

BennyST
10-06-2011, 10:57 PM
Didn't I say that, and in most of the articles I provided its said he won the US version of the title. Where the hell I denied it was the American version? You raised this query before.

You already asked, and I replied...and I stated why I consider the US belt that time, to be the most legitimate...What are you actually saying new? And what part I say you dont understand, you go back to apost made pages ago, while we have debated it even the post before.

Look let me state again...Greb won the Title (American one) from Tunney, but it so happens that at that point of time it was probably the one with best credentials...if you disagree, provide your arguments, or just state you don't accept, whats the point in harping over the same stuff again and again.

No, you're missing the point. We had, both of us, said that Greb and Tunney were considered the best fighters at LHW. But they were never the champion which you kept on saying was untrue and insultingly so. Initially, you never said it was a minor US title and never stated that although they were not the champions, they were considered the best and uncrowned champions of the division.

It was you that was not understanding what we were saying. Go read the posts again. It says in every post, multiple times that Greb and Tunney were considered the best at LHW and both were the dominant forces there. We also said they were never the world LHW champion which, no matter how many times we explained what was going on, you quite simply refused to see and stated over and over that it was untrue and that both were the LHW champions. You've only backtracked and started saying it was a US title in the last few posts. If you simply said that they were not the legitimate titled world champion, but held a US title while being considered the true but uncrowned champs it would have been agreed upon straight away. It's what we had been saying the whole goddamned time!

We know that it was only the US title, we know that they were the best, but they were never the champion. It was said so many times but you kept disagreeing and saying they were both the champion.

Why not, in your first highly insulting post, just said that while they were never the champion they were both considered the top guys at LHW? It's what I had said in the same post you scathingly replied to anyway but suddenly it's what you had been saying all along and we are wrong! Disagreeing and saying I had no credibility whatsoever because they were both clearly the LHW champions!

Now you take it back and say what I had been saying the whole time, even though the only reason we had this argument was because you had been saying it was untrue, that I was stupid and lacked credibility and disagreeing with a straight fact, but now suddenly agree and pretend it was you saying that all along? Come on man.

DarkTerror88
10-06-2011, 11:37 PM
I wish there was footage of Greb fighting. You can ask any credible poster in the history section, that I don't rate on footage or quality or things like that, which most of today's fans do. But you have to admit. It would be far easier to judge guys like Gans and Greb and Langford if we had extensive footage.

More on Topic: I just recently watched some of Duran's peak performance fights (Bizarro, De Jesus trilogy, SRL 1) and some of his later bodies of work (pun intended) such as Moore, Barkley, Fitzgerald etc. And I must say, Duran makes a hell of an argument for himself. A hell of an argument.

But then I look at Greb's resume and see all those HoFers and ATGs, then I remember he fought most of his career blind in one eye....jeez.

I give the nod to Greb ever so slightly.

Barnburner
10-07-2011, 02:54 AM
I wish there was footage of Greb fighting. You can ask any credible poster in the history section, that I don't rate on footage or quality or things like that, which most of today's fans do. But you have to admit. It would be far easier to judge guys like Gans and Greb and Langford if we had extensive footage.

More on Topic: I just recently watched some of Duran's peak performance fights (Bizarro, De Jesus trilogy, SRL 1) and some of his later bodies of work (pun intended) such as Moore, Barkley, Fitzgerald etc. And I must say, Duran makes a hell of an argument for himself. A hell of an argument.

But then I look at Greb's resume and see all those HoFers and ATGs, then I remember he fought most of his career blind in one eye....jeez.

I give the nod to Greb ever so slightly.
Joe Gans in HD :wank:

Greatest1942
10-07-2011, 04:15 AM
No, you're missing the point. We had, both of us, said that Greb and Tunney were considered the best fighters at LHW. But they were never the champion which you kept on saying was untrue and insultingly so. Initially, you never said it was a minor US title and never stated that although they were not the champions, they were considered the best and uncrowned champions of the division.

It was you that was not understanding what we were saying. Go read the posts again. It says in every post, multiple times that Greb and Tunney were considered the best at LHW and both were the dominant forces there. We also said they were never the world LHW champion which, no matter how many times we explained what was going on, you quite simply refused to see and stated over and over that it was untrue and that both were the LHW champions. You've only backtracked and started saying it was a US title in the last few posts. If you simply said that they were not the legitimate titled world champion, but held a US title while being considered the true but uncrowned champs it would have been agreed upon straight away. It's what we had been saying the whole goddamned time!

We know that it was only the US title, we know that they were the best, but they were never the champion. It was said so many times but you kept disagreeing and saying they were both the champion.

Why not, in your first highly insulting post, just said that while they were never the champion they were both considered the top guys at LHW? It's what I had said in the same post you scathingly replied to anyway but suddenly it's what you had been saying all along and we are wrong! Disagreeing and saying I had no credibility whatsoever because they were both clearly the LHW champions!

Now you take it back and say what I had been saying the whole time, even though the only reason we had this argument was because you had been saying it was untrue, that I was stupid and lacked credibility and disagreeing with a straight fact, but now suddenly agree and pretend it was you saying that all along? Come on man.



First it was never the 'minor' title...It had the better credentials than the 'major' one. I stand by it.And crowds in the 'minor' one were better than the major one, may be due to better fighters thoough...so was the interest level.

1) It appeared to me from your posts that you did not know of the American version, you never mentioned...yes we both mentioned that Greb and Tunney were top guys at LHW, but you never mentioned the American Light Heavy championship...I am not going back by the by...I don't say they were just top guys like you, I say they had the belt which had the better credentials...This might not have come to pass if you had simply mentioned that they had the American LHW championship, which however you chose to ignore. (which many do, in all fairness.)..Since time immemorial there have been versions of belt and most were ignored by the general public unlike today, except this onje, which was actually more accepted than the original one. To me public acceptance of the belt is a measure of its actual significance. I hope you understand my gripe with you in your first post now.

2) I said they were LHW champions, where I should have clarified that they were American light heavy weight belt holders...If you misunderstood that this is my fault...As me misunderstanding the part about your post, was your fault...lets cancel this out.

3) Barn raised the question, I replied and said its true, and I hold the LHW championship in lesser regard, because of teh credetentials, that post is still lying there and it was made pages ago. Go read that too.Its in page 3 probably, right after my second post.

4) I gave sources, in most of them it was clearly written they were American belt holders, just to prove, I could have picked up sources where they were mentioned as light heavy champs only.

5) You picked up one point of "meagre crowd", and lack of interest etc, which was preposterous...So I showed you other sources that there were more interest in those bouts than the world light heavy championship. I hope I backed up what I said about public acceptance, do you wanna see more proof? Because to tell you again I am not going back. As I said again and again I have not denied that they were American versions, but there was more than a "passing interest" in it.

6) As I said , I just read the newspaper and even today it appears to me that the world light heavy title in those days was a complete farce and the American version was better...more accepted by the public.

7)I admit I should have mentioned about this in the first post but considering you never mentioned that I was perplexed...It did not appear from you posts then that you don't consider that a belt (which is fine many do so).I naturally thought that you are ignorant of the fact. You say you said that multiple times and I ignored, teh first time barn raised teh point I accepted, and said yes. And firstly I never mentioned your mention of the American belt, if you read more on the era you will see that version of the belt had more public acceptance, unlike say the titles Langford and Willis held...

Never mind, if you got hurt or my posts appeared scathing to you, it was more due to my misunderstanding your posts and replying.

As I said I still think the belt which Tunney had the more credentials, but its a unorthodox view, one which I came to recently after having read tonnes of newspapers. I don't ask you to agree to it, but I would like you to acknowledge that there was more than "meagre" interest in it...and actually more than the 'official' one...Still if you persist on they were not champs, I will have to agree to disagree.

Sugarj
10-07-2011, 05:18 AM
I wish there was footage of Greb fighting. You can ask any credible poster in the history section, that I don't rate on footage or quality or things like that, which most of today's fans do. But you have to admit. It would be far easier to judge guys like Gans and Greb and Langford if we had extensive footage.

More on Topic: I just recently watched some of Duran's peak performance fights (Bizarro, De Jesus trilogy, SRL 1) and some of his later bodies of work (pun intended) such as Moore, Barkley, Fitzgerald etc. And I must say, Duran makes a hell of an argument for himself. A hell of an argument.

But then I look at Greb's resume and see all those HoFers and ATGs, then I remember he fought most of his career blind in one eye....jeez.

I give the nod to Greb ever so slightly.


Your right, Duran does make an excellent argument for himself!

There isn't much footage of Langford, and next to nothing for Greb. But there is strangely quite a bit for Gans.

Its odd that a lightweight would get more fight filming than the heavier Langford and Greb. I'll bet there are films of Greb out there, but they are not yet in the public domain.

Greatest1942
10-07-2011, 01:28 PM
Your right, Duran does make an excellent argument for himself!

There isn't much footage of Langford, and next to nothing for Greb. But there is strangely quite a bit for Gans.

Its odd that a lightweight would get more fight filming than the heavier Langford and Greb. I'll bet there are films of Greb out there, but they are not yet in the public domain.

If there is a film, Steve Compton who is writing a book on Greb should have it, but from a apost of his I saw on another site it appears he does not have it yet.

Ziggy Stardust
10-07-2011, 01:31 PM
Your right, Duran does make an excellent argument for himself!

There isn't much footage of Langford, and next to nothing for Greb. But there is strangely quite a bit for Gans.

Its odd that a lightweight would get more fight filming than the heavier Langford and Greb. I'll bet there are films of Greb out there, but they are not yet in the public domain.

It's hit or miss for fight films pre-WWII. A lot of film (movies, boxing, newsreels, ect.) were cannibalized during the war for their silver nitrate content.

Poet

Sugarj
10-07-2011, 03:59 PM
If there is a film, Steve Compton who is writing a book on Greb should have it, but from a apost of his I saw on another site it appears he does not have it yet.


We live in hope!!!!!

Sugarj
10-07-2011, 04:15 PM
It's hit or miss for fight films pre-WWII. A lot of film (movies, boxing, newsreels, ect.) were cannibalized during the war for their silver nitrate content.

Poet


If any films of Greb were treated this way it would have been hopelessly ignorant, a crying shame.

The films of so many legendary fighters pre WW1, let alone WW2 seem to exist. Even the likes of Corbett vs Fitzsimmons

We of course have Tunney vs Carpentier, why not at least one of the Greb fights? Surely after the bloodbath first encounter and the disputed return some wise film maker would have thought he could turn a buck from filming fights 3, 4 or 5?

Greatest1942
10-07-2011, 04:19 PM
If any films of Greb were treated this way it would have been hopelessly ignorant, a crying shame.

The films of so many legendary fighters pre WW1, let alone WW2 seem to exist. Even the likes of Corbett vs Fitzsimmons

We of course have Tunney vs Carpentier, why not at least one of the Greb fights? Surely after the bloodbath first encounter and the disputed return some wise film maker would have thought he could turn a buck from filming fights 3, 4 or 5?


What Poet says is quite true, many films were actually destroyed during that time some survived...

I think , the maximum chance of fighting a Greb film is in some obscure library...which might not have been catalogued yet.

yea we all live in hope

Sugarj
10-07-2011, 05:04 PM
I've just had a bit of a read and apparently several of his fights (as many as 5 were rumoured!) were filmed including Tunney 1 and Walker.

Jimmy Jacobs claimed that he had three frames of Tunney 1 stapled to a copyright application! But searches were all in vain. Some have claimed that it came into the possession of the Tunney estate, I can understand why dear Gene wouldn't have ever wanted the public to see it judging by the reports!

There are rumours that The Walker footage was viewed in a private screening in 1978.....but that the quality was pretty poor even back then!


So, there is some hope that a family member, collector or estate will stumble across footage some day. It appears well known and publicised, not to mention lucrative that something should come to light.........but like Robinson at 147 his legendary abilities will remain......err legendary.

Greatest1942
10-07-2011, 08:53 PM
I've just had a bit of a read and apparently several of his fights (as many as 5 were rumoured!) were filmed including Tunney 1 and Walker.

Jimmy Jacobs claimed that he had three frames of Tunney 1 stapled to a copyright application! But searches were all in vain. Some have claimed that it came into the possession of the Tunney estate, I can understand why dear Gene wouldn't have ever wanted the public to see it judging by the reports!

There are rumours that The Walker footage was viewed in a private screening in 1978.....but that the quality was pretty poor even back then!


So, there is some hope that a family member, collector or estate will stumble across footage some day. It appears well known and publicised, not to mention lucrative that something should come to light.........but like Robinson at 147 his legendary abilities will remain......err legendary.

I think some claimed that there was a film of him till 1970's...don't know.
The walker fight was filmed as was the Tunney fight...most likely the fight with Tommy Gibbons...

The fights would have been great to watch...nothing of Rosenbloom survived too, considering the number of fights he was in and his length of activity, also later than Greb...it seems preposterous there is no film of the man.

BennyST
10-08-2011, 05:31 AM
I've just had a bit of a read and apparently several of his fights (as many as 5 were rumoured!) were filmed including Tunney 1 and Walker.

Jimmy Jacobs claimed that he had three frames of Tunney 1 stapled to a copyright application! But searches were all in vain. Some have claimed that it came into the possession of the Tunney estate, I can understand why dear Gene wouldn't have ever wanted the public to see it judging by the reports!

There are rumours that The Walker footage was viewed in a private screening in 1978.....but that the quality was pretty poor even back then!


So, there is some hope that a family member, collector or estate will stumble across footage some day. It appears well known and publicised, not to mention lucrative that something should come to light.........but like Robinson at 147 his legendary abilities will remain......err legendary.

Jimmy Jacobs is a goddamned fiend. Not only did he hoard all those classic fights, many of which have never been seen, but he refused to let them be seen by anyone and had them all insured and vaulted, then he sold them to ESPN I believe for some huge, hideous amount and they still haven't been released.

What's the point of film if it's not going to become public history and be used to show what was? I really dislike that attitude that the public or whatever are not deserving, which so many historians and collectors have.

So many, Jacobs being a major case, hoard massive amounts of truly historic, classic film and don't allow any viewing for their own ego and later financial reward and most of the time it just gets passed on to the next hoarder until one day it finally disappears. Rather than allow such important pieces of history to study and research and viewing by the public they become nothing more than possibles and figments no clearer than what we are able to make from newspaper accounts and memory. The fact that so much could be made clear to history, but for one mans ego and greed, is incredibly disappointing, yet very typical and human nature. More and more history is being overlooked or even destroyed and ignored for immediate gain and greed. Very sad.

Greatest1942
10-08-2011, 06:46 AM
Jimmy Jacobs is a goddamned fiend. Not only did he hoard all those classic fights, many of which have never been seen, but he refused to let them be seen by anyone and had them all insured and vaulted, then he sold them to ESPN I believe for some huge, hideous amount and they still haven't been released.

What's the point of film if it's not going to become public history and be used to show what was? I really dislike that attitude that the public or whatever are not deserving, which so many historians and collectors have.

So many, Jacobs being a major case, hoard massive amounts of truly historic, classic film and don't allow any viewing for their own ego and later financial reward and most of the time it just gets passed on to the next hoarder until one day it finally disappears. Rather than allow such important pieces of history to study and research and viewing by the public they become nothing more than possibles and figments no clearer than what we are able to make from newspaper accounts and memory. The fact that so much could be made clear to history, but for one mans ego and greed, is incredibly disappointing, yet very typical and human nature. More and more history is being overlooked or even destroyed and ignored for immediate gain and greed. Very sad.


Look, I have always had doubts about Jacobs claim. Whether he actually saw that fight,no doubt it was filmed, though.

I read somewhere that this was followed up, and actually nothing came of it...Some guy in a blog also posted that he had seen Greb and eventually the truth will come out.

As I said there must be some film but I think it is lying somewhere uncatalogued and no one even knows it is there. I think if it was there with guys like Jacobs they would have wanted to sell it and guys like Compton would have found it, much like Clay Moyle found Langford films.

I still have hope, that some film will emerge, but we are rapidly running out of time.

Kid McCoy
10-08-2011, 08:14 AM
The Jimmy Jacobs collection has such legendary status that some are willing to believe almost every famous fight in history is in their possession. I doubt he had any of Greb's fights. Regarding his comments, bear in mind that Jacobs was a bit of a wind up merchant and enjoyed teasing people about what fights he had. When someone came into his office he'd have a blank reel labeled 'Langford vs Ketchel' sitting on the desk just to see the look on their face.


So many, Jacobs being a major case, hoard massive amounts of truly historic, classic film and don't allow any viewing for their own ego and later financial reward and most of the time it just gets passed on to the next hoarder until one day it finally disappears. Rather than allow such important pieces of history to study and research and viewing by the public they become nothing more than possibles and figments no clearer than what we are able to make from newspaper accounts and memory. The fact that so much could be made clear to history, but for one mans ego and greed, is incredibly disappointing, yet very typical and human nature. More and more history is being overlooked or even destroyed and ignored for immediate gain and greed. Very sad.

But look at it from their point of view. If you'd spent thousands on a collection of rare fights, not to mention dedicated years of your life to it, would you then just put them all on Youtube?

Sugarj
10-08-2011, 11:08 AM
I think some claimed that there was a film of him till 1970's...don't know.
The walker fight was filmed as was the Tunney fight...most likely the fight with Tommy Gibbons...

The fights would have been great to watch...nothing of Rosenbloom survived too, considering the number of fights he was in and his length of activity, also later than Greb...it seems preposterous there is no film of the man.

Yes Slapsy Maxie doesn't exist on film, or Tiger Flowers according to the sources I've looked at. Strangely, I've read plenty of quotes from Jimmy Jacobs saying that the only fighter he didn't have on film was Greb. That would indicate to me that Big Fights Inc have something of Rosembloom or Flowers........I'd doubt that those two would slip Jacob's mind!!!

Although a bit of extra reading has revealed that two of the Greb vs Flowers fights were filmed........but they haven't shown up yet.

Sugarj
10-08-2011, 11:18 AM
Jimmy Jacobs is a goddamned fiend. Not only did he hoard all those classic fights, many of which have never been seen, but he refused to let them be seen by anyone and had them all insured and vaulted, then he sold them to ESPN I believe for some huge, hideous amount and they still haven't been released.

What's the point of film if it's not going to become public history and be used to show what was? I really dislike that attitude that the public or whatever are not deserving, which so many historians and collectors have.

So many, Jacobs being a major case, hoard massive amounts of truly historic, classic film and don't allow any viewing for their own ego and later financial reward and most of the time it just gets passed on to the next hoarder until one day it finally disappears. Rather than allow such important pieces of history to study and research and viewing by the public they become nothing more than possibles and figments no clearer than what we are able to make from newspaper accounts and memory. The fact that so much could be made clear to history, but for one mans ego and greed, is incredibly disappointing, yet very typical and human nature. More and more history is being overlooked or even destroyed and ignored for immediate gain and greed. Very sad.


Yes very sad!

I always had time for Jimmy Jacobs though, he seemed to be a guy who genuinely loved the sport and the boxers themselves. For what it is worth, his life was cut too short for him to benefit from the ESPN deal......surely that happened after his death?

For what its worth a lot of classic fights, clipped or in full appeared in 80s videos/documentaries. So it wasn't as though they were being held in a 'Disney' like vault. After finding out how delicate the films are, I can understand him not wanting to lend them out to every Tom, Dick and Harry who wanted to produce a documentary.

Without the intervention of Jimmy Jacobs, I'm not entirely sure that as many of the classic fights would have survived as there have.

Kid McCoy
10-08-2011, 05:06 PM
Yes very sad!

I always had time for Jimmy Jacobs though, he seemed to be a guy who genuinely loved the sport and the boxers themselves. For what it is worth, his life was cut too short for him to benefit from the ESPN deal......surely that happened after his death?


It was Bill Cayton who sold the collection to ESPN years after Jacobs' death.

BennyST
10-08-2011, 08:15 PM
The Jimmy Jacobs collection has such legendary status that some are willing to believe almost every famous fight in history is in their possession. I doubt he had any of Greb's fights. Regarding his comments, bear in mind that Jacobs was a bit of a wind up merchant and enjoyed teasing people about what fights he had. When someone came into his office he'd have a blank reel labeled 'Langford vs Ketchel' sitting on the desk just to see the look on their face.



But look at it from their point of view. If you'd spent thousands on a collection of rare fights, not to mention dedicated years of your life to it, would you then just put them all on Youtube?

:lol1:

Imagine that! Suddenly all of the old classics turn up on youtube.

Of course not though. I don't mean just giving them away anywhere. Yes, they've spent a lot of time and money chasing these but as so often happens, to hide them away and keep them locked up is just so pointless.

I understand it, as it's what they do. They collect, hence 'collectors'. I just don't like it.

Barnburner
10-08-2011, 08:33 PM
:lol1:

Imagine that! Suddenly all of the old classics turn up on youtube.

Of course not though. I don't mean just giving them away anywhere. Yes, they've spent a lot of time and money chasing these but as so often happens, to hide them away and keep them locked up is just so pointless.

I understand it, as it's what they do. They collect, hence 'collectors'. I just don't like it.
They could even add their own watermark ie: The Langford vs Jeanette film type thing that is practically unremovable if they really wanted to. I'm with you that I think it's weird people wouldn't share their footage with the rest of the community.

Kid McCoy
10-08-2011, 10:02 PM
Well think of it this way. Say ESPN own the only known copy of Greb-Tunney. Because of its rarity and its sought-after status, it's a valuable commodity and an asset to the company. Bear in mind that even though ESPN own the footage, they probably don't own the copyright.

If they broadcast it on ESPN Classic then the chances are that a lot of their viewers will make their own copies. Within days it'll be on Youtube and Megaupload and suddenly ESPN's rare, sought-after commodity has lost all its value because half the boxing fans in the world now have their own copy. And as ESPN don't own the copyright, they won't be able to do a thing about it. If they do the same with all their rare footage then very quickly their $100m asset (what they paid Cayton for the collection) will be worthless.

It's the same principal for an individual collector. If you have a rare fight you can trade it with another collector who has another equally rare film. If you post all your stuff on Youtube then you have nothing to bargain with. A collector isn't going to trade you his copy of Robinson-Gavilan for a fight he can find on the internet for nothing. It's pretty crappy for the rest of us but from a business perspective you can understand the logic.