I dont get Harry Greb's boxing Record

[Rolling Stone]

JAB5329 This is very far from the truth my friend. More fighters means a deeper talent pool and tougher road getting to the top.


Rolling Stone Brian Nielson???


Since when did Brian Nielson get to the top?

Brian Nielson is a Top 5 ATG P4P

[Bundana]

So you put absolutely no value on the word of experts who did see him fight? That baffles me. Their are, or were great trainers like Ray Arcel and Eddie Futch who had the opposite opinion as yours of the old time fighters and they were around to not only see modern fighters but train them. How is it their word means nothing yet they were so respected in the boxing community?

The problem with this is, that when we are young, we're more impressionable than later in life. So when we get on in years, there's probably a tendency to look back to the beginning, and think of that as the "good old days", when everything was better than today.

I think it's safe to say, that no boxing historian was ever more respected by his peers than the late Nat Fleischer... yet when you look at his all-time rankings (from 1970), I believe it's just as safe to say, that this is the work of a man who lived in the past, with little sense of reality:

Heavyweights:
1 - Jack Johnson
2 - James J. Jeffries
3 - Bob Fitzsimmons
4 - Jack Dempsey
5 - James J. Corbett
6 - Joe Louis
7 - Sam Langford
8 - Gene Tunney
9 - Max Schmeling
10- Rocky Marciano

Light Heavyweights:
1 - Kid McCoy
2 - Philadelphia Jack O'Brian
3 - Jack Dillon
4 - Tommy Loughran
5 - Jack Root
6 - Battling Levensky
7 - Georges Carpentier
8 - Tom Gibbons
9 - Jack Delaney
10- Paul Berlenbach

Middleweights:
1 - Stanley Ketchell
2 - Tommy Ryan
3 - Harry Greb
4 - Mickey Walker
5 - Ray Robinson
6 - Frank Klaus
7 - Billy Papke
8 - Les Darcy
9 - Mike Gibbons
10- Jeff Smith

Welterweights:
1 - Joe Walcott
2 - Mysterious Billy Smith
3 - Jack Britton
4 - Ted Kid Lewis
5 - Dixie Kid
6 - Harry Lewis
7 - Willie Lewis
8 - Henry Armstrong
9 - Barney Ross
10- Jimmy McLarnin

Lightweights:
1 - Joe Gans
2 - Benny Leonard
3 - Owen Moran
4 - Freddy Welsh
5 - Battling Nelson
6 - George Kid Lavigne
7 - Tony Canzoneri
8 - Willie Ritchie
9 - Lew Tendler
10- Ad Wolgast

Featherweights:
1 - Terry McGovern
2 - Jim Driscoll
3 - Abe Attell
4 - Willie Pep
5 - Johnny Dundee
6 - Young Griffo
7 - Johnny Kilbane
8 - Kid Chocolate
9 - George K.O. Chaney
10- Louis Kid Kaplan

Bantamweights:
1 - George Dixon
2 - Pete Herman
3 - Kid Williams
4 - Eder Jofre
5 - Joe Lynch
6 - Bud Taylor
7 - Johnny Coulon
8 - Frankie Burns
9 - Eddie Campi
10- Panama Al Brown

Flyweight:
1 - Jimmy Wilde
2 - Pancho Villa
3 - Frankie Genaro
4 - Fidel La Barba
5 - Benny Lynch
6 - Elky Clark
7 - Johnny Buff
8 - Midget Wolgast
9 - Peter Kane
10- Pascual Perez

(From the 1970 edition of The Ring Record Book and Boxing Encyclopedia)

Without beginning to disect these rankings, I think we can all agree, that Mr. Fleischer was WAY too kind to the pre-WW1 fighters... while ignoring the talents of modern-day boxers (Ali, Moore, Charles; to name just a few). So if a respected historian like Mr. Fleischer, can put together rankings as obviously flawed as this... how much emphasis can we put on the opinions of men like Mr. Arcel and Mr. Futch, when they rave about old-timers they haven't seen in 50 or 60 years?

Many years ago, as a young man, I was lucky enough to attend a show, where the main event featured Eddie Perkins. To say that I was impressed, doesn't tell the whole story. When I went home that night, I was certain, I had just watched one of the finest boxers ever to step into a ring! That was over 40 years ago... and to this day I still think of him, as the finest technician I have ever seen. But was he really - or is it just in an old man's mind, it appears that way?

My younger boxing-pals are all crazy about Manny Pacquiao. I would love to tell them that, yes, the dynamic little Filippino is indeed very good... but I once saw this great fighter by the name of Eddie Perkins, who would have boxed his ears off. I don't, however, because 1: I could be wrong (and probably is!), and 2: They would all think I'm crazy!

My point with all this is, that there IS a danger of over-estimating the greatness of old-timers, of which there is little or no footage. That being said, it's hard to believe that Greb wasn't a bit special. As has been pointed out by several others in this thread, he beat too many good fighters not to be!

[mickey malone]

Brian Nielson is a Top 5 ATG P4P

Lol, i'm a admirer of Nielson actually.. One of boxings larger than life characters, the division could do with someone like that today..
Although crude and clumbsy, he was very effective in the lower leagues and against an elderly Larry Holmes.. I found him entertaining.

[StarshipTrooper]

I respect you poet as a poster, you know your stuff, but for a guy that has information out in this site about his personal life you are too quick to the trigger with the disparaging remarks. You havent said anything about the topic other than to personally bash people you dont personally know.

I only have time this morning for a quick reply but I can honestly say that I could care less what info about my personal life (99% of it inaccurate to begin with) people choose to post on this site. People are going to believe what they want to believe and I don't let it bother me. As for bashing, if people are going to make ignorant posts here chances are I'm going to call them on it. The one thing I DO allow to bother me is ignorance and stupidity: It offends my sensibilities you might say.

As for the topic, my position has been many times made quite clear: I believe there are great fighters in EVERY era and no era of boxing as a whole is inherently superior to any other. Not all weight classes are equally strong in every era: It's quite obvious to me that individual weight classes have their ups and downs and are stronger in some eras and weaker in others. They all go through phases and a division that was weak yesterday may be strong today and one that is strong today may be weak tomorrow. Regardless, that doesn't impact the overall strength of boxing as a whole because while in a particular era an individual weight class may be weak you can undoubtably find great fighters in other weight classes.

Poet

[EzzardFan]

Part of the problem is that many people subscribe to the belief that sports people are constantly evolving and getting better each year. There is certainly some evidence of this in terms of sports like athletics where we see a measured incremental improvement in most events over time. Although certain track & field events pitch people against each other, they mostly remain isolated in separate lanes and the intention is that they do not physically impede each other (although sometimes they do).

Then there are sports like tennis and football where people debate whether the players of today are better than the players of yesterday. Could peak Federer beat peak Borg? Is Ronaldo better than Pele? Those comparisons are much less clear cut because the athletes are pitted directly against each other, and sometimes form part of a larger team. There are a several orders of magnitude more variables and complexity involved in measuring performance.

Boxing is perhaps the hardest of all sports in which to assess the relative performance of individuals from different periods. Boxers don't just impede each other, or play against each other, they attempt to knock each other unconscious.

Todays athletes also tend to look more defined. This is down to two three things:

1) Weight training being promoted to add extra muscle.
2) The cult of the 6-pack.
3) The athletes being deliberately photographed when at their most cut, shaved, oiled, starved, and even airbrushed.

If you look at photos of boxers pre-1980s fighting you can see that they possess impressive physiques. When these same guys are photographed out of the ring they look average. Anyone who has trained knows that at certain times we look more cut and more defined than we usually do. That's how those old before and after photos work! One of the changes in the 1980s was that boxers started to be treated more like movie/rock stars in terms of how they were photographed. If I google Britney Spears then two types of photo show up, in some of them she looks like a goddess in other more candid shots, she looks like something you'd have to tie a pork chop to in order to encourage your dog to play with her.

This whole fashion also coincided with 1980s body builder as invincible action hero fad. In the 1970s heros looked like Steve McQueen or Paul Newman. In the 1980s they looked like Schwarzenegger... or his big rival Stallone, who of course played Rocky. The further into the 1980s we got, the bigger Rocky's biceps got. The public then developed the impression that a heavyweight champion should resemble something drawn by Marvel Comics. This was great marketing for what, up until then, had been the relatively niche body building industry. People looked at those body builder physiques and thought "WOW he must be really strong", an "I wouldn't like to take a punch from him". Some people then began looking to body builders to train them, so that they could develop that much coveted physique. Of course the reality was built with steroids.

The marketing industry can never be accused of missing a trick. Here we have a popular culture promoting a certain umm 'healthy' look as being desirable, a drug that produces the desired look in 12 weeks, a bunch of people who have taken that drug running round calling themselves "physical trainers" whatever that is, and people queueing up to purchase their services. All they had to do was come up with a bunch of gadgets, sit back and let the money roll in.

Look in the attic of anyone over 40 and there's probably a bunch of exercise gadgets lodged up there. At least half of them will be devoted to the abdominal muscles. The same muscles whose chief purpose is to squeeze the **** out of our bowels and into the toilet bowl. Take any healthy muscular adult, strip off half their body fat so that their 6-pack is on display and they will instantly look much bigger and stronger (despite being smaller).

The result of all this "advancements in training and nutrition (and photoshop)"TM is that 21st Century boxers look like they'd be capable of taking their early 20th Century counterparts and pulling them apart limb from limb. Well they'd certainly beat them quite easily in a body building contest, that much is for sure.

The reality is quite different.

[EzzardFan]

As I've already pointed out there were more fighters in the old days, they fought much more frequently, there were less titles available, and although certain champions were known to duck certain contenders the contenders didn't tend to avoid one another. More fights went the distance, there were few easy KO's, and all but the very best fighters would have accumulated several losses on their record. The average number of fights to a title shot were 50, with many boxers not getting a title shot until well after their 100th competitive bout.

There were boxing clubs in every town, and several in every major city. There were gyms galore. For many depression era fighters boxing was their only means of putting food on the table. This desperation bred far more focus and intensity than going from one $30M fight this year to a $50M in a couple of years time. When they described a fighter as hungry, they quite literally meant that he could barely afford to eat.

Look at the number of career rounds boxed. In the case of Harry Greb it runs into the thousands, which adds up to hundreds of hours of real unarmed combat experience. Most boxers these days barely fight 10 hours over the course of their entire multi-title career! Pit someone who has 150 hours of experience against someone who has one tenth of that and what do you honestly think the likely outcome would be?

Boxing is not the sport it once was. It has been in gradual decline for the past 60 years. Today it also faces stiff competition from MMA. Imagine if 60 years from now there are only 1/50th as many fights as today, and the average boxer fights a career total of 30mins... does anyone really believe that he'd be a better boxer, just because his muscles looked more defined in his publicity shots, just because he held titles simultaneously in 50 weight classes across 16 governing bodies, just because we get to watch him in 16386p super hi-def ultra-widescreen holographic 3D?

[GJC]

There are great fighters in every era. It is a fact that there were more fighters 80/90 years ago. More fighters both good and bad. Boxing is the same as everything else the more you do it the better you get, a fighter who has a hundred fights will obviously have more experience than a fighter who has has 20 fights. They lost more fights in the old days but again as in anything else you learn more from your mistakes than from anything. I think of a fighter like DLH, very talented fighter but who never really ironed out his flaws. But then did he need to, he earnt a fortune and had won titles in 4 different weight classes after what, 25 fights?
It isn't a leap of imagination to assume that a talented fighter such as Pac would enjoy great success in the 1920's but nor is it that Greb would refine his style enjoy the benefits of modern technology, nutrition etc and be a force now.

[EzzardFan]

There are great fighters in every era. It is a fact that there were more fighters 80/90 years ago. More fighters both good and bad. Boxing is the same as everything else the more you do it the better you get, a fighter who has a hundred fights will obviously have more experience than a fighter who has has 20 fights. They lost more fights in the old days but again as in anything else you learn more from your mistakes than from anything. I think of a fighter like DLH, very talented fighter but who never really ironed out his flaws. But then did he need to, he earnt a fortune and had won titles in 4 different weight classes after what, 25 fights?
It isn't a leap of imagination to assume that a talented fighter such as Pac would enjoy great success in the 1920's but nor is it that Greb would refine his style enjoy the benefits of modern technology, nutrition etc and be a force now.

I respect what you are saying. Modern fighters are just as naturally gifted. Some of them have great reflexes. I'm sure that if the best modern fighters were transported back to the 1920s, not for one fight, but to ply their entire careers then some of them would blossom into ATG fighters. The competition would just be much harder.

And I also agree that Greb would be a force if he were brought forward into the present time.

But I cannot agree with your statement "that Greb would refine his style enjoy the benefits of modern technology, nutrition etc".

Greb's training involved fighting once a week. That's a career in excess of 300 fights, many of them going the distance. His style was refined, it's just that boxers are no longer fighting 20-40x a year for 10 years to properly refine their style, so we have forgotten what refined really is. Greb would probably describe today's fighters styles as rudimentary or basic.

Likewise I doubt that Greb would benefit from modern technology. The man wasn't training by lifting rocks, he trained be hitting real resisting opponents in real fights. He would be poorer for the loss of those training opportunities.

Nutrition wise I doubt if there would be much to gain from examining his stool samples and filling him up with pharmaceutical grade Bananichococherryberry flavoured protein shake with added taurine and creatine (TM). The man routinely fought 15 rounds at a frantic pace. How can we possibly hope to improve on that? If it ain't broke then don't fix it. Personally I'd be more inclined to adopt his menu, it certainly seemed to work for him.

Things are not better now, they are just better marketed.

"By the way, if anyone here is in marketing or advertising...kill yourself. Thank you. Just planting seeds, planting seeds is all I'm doing. No joke here, really. Seriously, kill yourself, you have no rationalisation for what you do, you are Satan's little helpers. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show. Seriously, I know the marketing people: 'There's gonna be a joke comin' up.' There's no ****in' joke. Suck a tail pipe, hang yourself...borrow a pistol from an NRA buddy, do something...rid the world of your evil ****in' presence."
Bill Hicks

[GJC]

But I cannot agree with your statement "that Greb would refine his style enjoy the benefits of modern technology, nutrition etc".

Greb's training involved fighting once a week. That's a career in excess of 300 fights, many of them going the distance. His style was refined, it's just that boxers are no longer fighting 20-40x a year for 10 years to properly refine their style, so we have forgotten what refined really is. Greb would probably describe today's fighters styles as rudimentary or basic.

Likewise I doubt that Greb would benefit from modern technology. The man wasn't training by lifting rocks, he trained be hitting real resisting opponents in real fights. He would be poorer for the loss of those training opportunities.

Nutrition wise I doubt if there would be much to gain from examining his stool samples and filling him up with pharmaceutical grade Bananichococherryberry flavoured protein shake with added taurine and creatine (TM). The man routinely fought 15 rounds at a frantic pace. How can we possibly hope to improve on that? If it ain't broke then don't fix it. Personally I'd be more inclined to adopt his menu, it certainly seemed to work for him.

Think you may have misunderstood me a touch EF although my point was more directed at old school fighters in general.

By refining his style I meant that he would almost certainly have to cool down on the darker arts. Greb did throw in a lot of rough stuff which whilst it was par for the course in those days like your Marciano's and Zivic's he would get DQ for some of his more "creative" tricks. He like the others would just learn what they could get away with in the modern era.

By modern technology I meant more DVD's freeze frame etc. In those days they probably fought a lot of fighters with only word of mouth as to their skills and weaknesses which is why a lot of them lost the first fight. These days they can go into a fight fully prepared, can you imagine how good a Jack Johnson would be after analysing an potential opponents last 20 fights in depth.

I do think that over the last 20 years nutrition in sport has really developed, even 20 years ago a sportsman's diet was pretty much have a steak. Nowadays with the knowledge of the ins and outs of what foods such as pasta etc do what for you, an all action fighter like Greb would be even more formidable.

[EzzardFan]

Think you may have misunderstood me a touch EF although my point was more directed at old school fighters in general.

By refining his style I meant that he would almost certainly have to cool down on the darker arts. Greb did throw in a lot of rough stuff which whilst it was par for the course in those days like your Marciano's and Zivic's he would get DQ for some of his more "creative" tricks. He like the others would just learn what they could get away with in the modern era.

By modern technology I meant more DVD's freeze frame etc. In those days they probably fought a lot of fighters with only word of mouth as to their skills and weaknesses which is why a lot of them lost the first fight. These days they can go into a fight fully prepared, can you imagine how good a Jack Johnson would be after analysing an potential opponents last 20 fights in depth.

I do think that over the last 20 years nutrition in sport has really developed, even 20 years ago a sportsman's diet was pretty much have a steak. Nowadays with the knowledge of the ins and outs of what foods such as pasta etc do what for you, an all action fighter like Greb would be even more formidable.

Oh yeah I'm with you now. Good points. Thanks for the clarification.