Boxings best ever calendar year.

[BattlingNelson]

To me I had an eyeopener when our living encyclopedia Bundana wrote that Harry Greb's 1919 was better than the whole career of Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Harry Greb's 1919 consisted of 45 fights all wins and in divisions all the way up to HW. Of those 45 fights, 14 was against IBHOF boxers.

This year is mindboggling in its activity and quality. Sometimes several fights per week.


What detracts from this record is the fact that none of these fights was titlefights.


This opens the way for another year that may rival Greb's achievement. Henry Armstrong's 1938.

In 1938, Armstrong had 14 fights (all wins) and he won and held the world title in FW, LW and WW at the same time. He defended his WW title 6 times that year.

Armstrong beat 3 IBHOF'ers in 1938. 2 of those were champions. Barney Ross was champ at WW and Lou Ambers in in LW.


So maybe one can argue that Armstrong's 1938 was the more significant year while Greb had the volume.

What do you guys think and can you name any other great years worth mentioning?

[Marchegiano]

It IS mindboggling isn't it?

Almost as if any man with an ounce of critical thought to him should be skeptical.


This poster knows better than to even allude too harshly against the great Harry Greb. Let us not repeat the last time I came to this forum with a contemporary source that made even the most level headed and even handed of us a bit bitchy simply because Harry once took an easy way out. Once. Whole GD forum threw a fit.


So, I am legitimately asking. Do you really think it's possible to have a frank conversation about Greb without even the most emotionless posters becoming emotional?


If I say something like Armstrong might show up drunk, ain't no one gonna *****. I know. Check my posting history. Done did it.

If I say Harry once drew the color line, omg, meltdown. Ain't no one guessing, done did it.


This is a fair atmosphere with fair judgement and critical thinking is it?

[Bundana]

According to BoxRec, Ted Kid Lewis holds the record for most wins in a calendar year... as he went 50-3-4 in 1911, when he was just starting out as a young teenager.

However, behind those (on paper) impressive numbers, I don't see a single noteworthy opponent! Also, most of these fights were 6-rounders (many of which were contested over 2 minute rounds) - so in no way does his 1911 compare to Greb's 1919.

[DeeMoney]

Not to be that guy, as I always feel its fine to discuss things again, but just to add perspective of what others have written:

https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/b...ar-for-a-boxer

As an aside, Harry Greb seems to be the statistical outlier in boxing (to the extent that boxing uses statistics). Much like Babe Ruth-who out homered many teams in some seasons, and Wilt Chamberlain- who averaged 50ppg in a season, Grebs numbers blow apart relative context and make them hard to incorporate into standard ideals and formulas.

For example, I have been a part of a number of organizations that run classic fantasy baseball simulations and analyze relative stats. For the most part, when comparing players of two different eras you need to compare their stats relative to when they played. Otherwise the comparisons don't hold up because the game has changed so much. The pitcher John Clarkson won 53 games for the Cubs in one season, pitching over 600 innings, you can't compare that to modern day pitchers who pitch a third of those innings at most, so you have to compare it to what others did at the time to get a relative idea. And even then you have to adjust for how the game has changed (rules were a lot different then).

Then there were those like Ruth who created a change and thus their numbers are so wildly skewed in such a way- in 1920 Babe Ruth hit 54 homeruns, more than any other individual team that season. Relatively speaking, we have never seen such dominance, but its ridiculous to think he could carry that sort of relative dominance if he played today. He would've had to hit 240 homeruns in a season now to do that, which would be virtually impossible. As such, you have to just take his numbers with a grain of salt, mixing both relative and actual stats with an understanding of extra-statistical information to get a complete picture.

Which leads to Greb. I have no doubt that 1919 Greb was possibly the greatest single year for a boxer. The numbers have been listed above, and they are impressive. So my question is how do we account for such things when comparing to modern fighters? No fighter would be allowed to fight 1/8th as often nowadays, so can they ever be as great? Also, how do we account for all the light touches on there that we mix in with the HOFers? Between his third and fourth fights of the year with Battling Levinsky he had a five fight stretch where his opponents had an averaged record of 35-26. What would happen if a fighter today had a five fight stretch like this? Now granted these were just stay busy fights, but we still count them towards this amazing record for the year. But do we hold these against him for the year? Should we?

Once again, not trying to rip an ATG, just trying to figure out how we put such accomplishments into perspective.

[Willie Pep 229]

Not to be that guy, as I always feel its fine to discuss things again, but just to add perspective of what others have written:

https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/b...ar-for-a-boxer

As an aside, Harry Greb seems to be the statistical outlier in boxing (to the extent that boxing uses statistics). Much like Babe Ruth-who out homered many teams in some seasons, and Wilt Chamberlain- who averaged 50ppg in a season, Grebs numbers blow apart relative context and make them hard to incorporate into standard ideals and formulas.

For example, I have been a part of a number of organizations that run classic fantasy baseball simulations and analyze relative stats. For the most part, when comparing players of two different eras you need to compare their stats relative to when they played. Otherwise the comparisons don't hold up because the game has changed so much. The pitcher John Clarkson won 53 games for the Cubs in one season, pitching over 600 innings, you can't compare that to modern day pitchers who pitch a third of those innings at most, so you have to compare it to what others did at the time to get a relative idea. And even then you have to adjust for how the game has changed (rules were a lot different then).

Then there were those like Ruth who created a change and thus their numbers are so wildly skewed in such a way- in 1920 Babe Ruth hit 54 homeruns, more than any other individual team that season. Relatively speaking, we have never seen such dominance, but its ridiculous to think he could carry that sort of relative dominance if he played today. He would've had to hit 240 homeruns in a season now to do that, which would be virtually impossible. As such, you have to just take his numbers with a grain of salt, mixing both relative and actual stats with an understanding of extra-statistical information to get a complete picture.

Which leads to Greb. I have no doubt that 1919 Greb was possibly the greatest single year for a boxer. The numbers have been listed above, and they are impressive. So my question is how do we account for such things when comparing to modern fighters? No fighter would be allowed to fight 1/8th as often nowadays, so can they ever be as great? Also, how do we account for all the light touches on there that we mix in with the HOFers? Between his third and fourth fights of the year with Battling Levinsky he had a five fight stretch where his opponents had an averaged record of 35-26. What would happen if a fighter today had a five fight stretch like this? Now granted these were just stay busy fights, but we still count them towards this amazing record for the year. But do we hold these against him for the year? Should we?

Once again, not trying to rip an ATG, just trying to figure out how we put such accomplishments into perspective.

Good post. Thanks for the read.

DIGRESSION

Ruth's 54 HRs in 1920 and his 59 HRs in 1921.

I have a hypothesis about those numbers.

1920 - 54
1921 - 59
1922 - 35
1923 - 41
1924 - 46
1925 - 25
1926 - 46
1927 - 60
1928 - 54
1929 - 46
1930 - 49
1931 - 46

The new juiced ball appeared in 1920 (and Ruth began his first season fir the Yankees, playing in The Polo Grounds IV, which had a short right field.)

I think maybe pitchers across the league had to re-learn had to pitch to power hitters. It took them two years to learn had to pitch to Ruth; how to pitch away from him and suffer the walks.

Ruth led his AL in BBs in 10 of 12 seasons between 1920-1931. He became too dangerous to pitch to.

Ruth had suprising 'plate discipline' (for a power hitter.) Often willing to take walks for the team's sake than swing at bad pitches, e.g. Micky Mantle.

But anyway, notice how after 1921 Ruth couldn't reach 50 HRs again until 1927. Take away the first two seasons and Ruth only has two 50 plus seasons (and one 49 season.)

Those first two seasons, 1920-1921, pitchers had to learn to deal with a juiced ball, and Ruth made them pay for their ignorance.

Ruth truly changed how the game was played.

Of course Ruth showed his greatness by adjusting to their pitching adjustments, hitting 60 in '27 and 54 in 1928.

[DeeMoney]

Good post. Thanks for the read.

DIGRESSION

Ruth's 54 HRs in 1920 and his 59 HRs in 1921.

I have a hypothesis about those numbers.

1920 - 54
1921 - 59
1922 - 35
1923 - 41
1924 - 46
1925 - 25
1926 - 46
1927 - 60
1928 - 54
1929 - 46
1930 - 49
1931 - 46

The new juiced ball appeared in 1920 (and Ruth began his first season fir the Yankees, playing in The Polo Grounds IV, which had a short right field.)

I think maybe pitchers across the league had to re-learn had to pitch to power hitters. It took them two years to learn had to pitch to Ruth; how to pitch away from him and suffer the walks.

Ruth led his AL in BBs in 10 of 12 seasons between 1920-1931. He became too dangerous to pitch to.

Ruth had suprising 'plate discipline' (for a power hitter.) Often willing to take walks for the team's sake than swing at bad pitches, e.g. Micky Mantle.

But anyway, notice how after 1921 Ruth couldn't reach 50 HRs again until 1927. Take away the first two seasons and Ruth only has two 50 plus seasons (and one 49 season.)

Those first two seasons, 1920-1921, pitchers had to learn to deal with a juiced ball, and Ruth made them pay for their ignorance.

Ruth truly changed how the game was played.

Of course Ruth showed his greatness by adjusting to their pitching adjustments, hitting 60 in '27 and 54 in 1928.

You are spot on about a lot of the causes for Ruth's numbers. The new livelier ball of 1920s, and being a full time position player allowed him to take advantage of a game most pitchers werent ready for. There had been power hitters before, but the vast majority of hitters were just trying to 'hit em where they aint'.

He missed a lot of games in '22 so 50 was out of reach. '23 & '24 he had 40+ and great overall numbers, but I think he was partying a lil too hard at the time, which led to the 'bellyache heard round the world' in '25.

He rededicated himself after that, and by 1927 put up 60 homers. But by then there were a number of other hitters who had figured out the value of hitting for power.

Its always fun when we get to see evolutions in sport, but like you wrote, the new live ball was needed or else he probably wouldnt have got much more than 40. Its similar to the 3 point revolution in the NBA, it wouldnt have been as successful had it been tried in the 90s when defenses were allowed to physically maintain position.

[GhostofDempsey]

In 1943 Jake LaMotta fought 13x. Twice vs Robinson winning one and losing on—the rematch was just three weeks apart, he took 3 out of 4 against Zivic, wins over Reeves and Basora. Pretty stacked year.

[Mr Mitts]

in 1913 Jimmy Wilde fought 34 times, losing none, though some were newspaper wins and one DQ.

[QueensburyRules]

- - Both Greb and Armstrong are huge levels over excon Mayweather and his excon Daddy.