Is Greb Greater Than Duran?

[ghns1133]

as a duran fan

i will admit grebb is a little greater

[BennyST]

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]

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. 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]

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]

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.

[BennyST]

Greb did more at 175 than just beat Tunney. Check out the IBRO's top 20 light heavyweights. 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]

Greb did more at 175 than just beat Tunney. Check out the IBRO's top 20 light heavyweights. 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.

[Barn]

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]

Prime Mickey Walker?

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

[Terry A]

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.