Harry Greb went 45-0 in one year...and other unmatched boxing accomplishments

[GhostofDempsey]

AMATEUR FIGHTS NOTWITHSTANDING, how do we judge ALL GUYS with such a resume ?

i posted fight where grebs opponents DIDNT even have double digit wins. i dont get this love affair for that era.

if one guys resume is gonna go under the microscope, every resume should and be examined honestly.

i also dont agree with ''prime'' sections. if a guy fights on well past his expiration date, oh well. a resume is a complete body of work.

if it were a regular job~
''i wasnt a very good employee in this field the past 7 years. when can i start ?''

You are making an impossible analogy--an office job resume doesn't translate to a boxing resume where you are taking punches.

You cannot ignore a fighter's prime when discussing resumes. An opponent cannot take full credit for beating an ATG if he catches him at the end of his career. You telling me Duran is any less of an ATG because of the losses he has on his resume? Ali? Holyfield? Hopkins?

When you look at the Robinson's, Moore's, Armstrong's, etc., they kept busy by taking these fights with journeymen, in between their marquee fights. It was also a way to earn a steady paycheck, they didn't have huge PPV windfalls to retire on.

I look at the history of boxing and fighters through the eyes of a trainer and I see things in these fighters I don't see in many fighters today. They truly mastered the craft. All this talk of new is better is nonsense. Athletes are bigger, faster and stronger in the NFL and other big league sports but not necessarily better. In boxing, a middleweight is a middleweight, 160 lbs is 160 lbs in any era.

[dricas24]

I didn't know this.

[Elroy The Great]

You are making an impossible analogy--an office job resume doesn't translate to a boxing resume where you are taking punches.

You cannot ignore a fighter's prime when discussing resumes. An opponent cannot take full credit for beating an ATG if he catches him at the end of his career. You telling me Duran is any less of an ATG because of the losses he has on his resume? Ali? Holyfield? Hopkins?

When you look at the Robinson's, Moore's, Armstrong's, etc., they kept busy by taking these fights with journeymen, in between their marquee fights. It was also a way to earn a steady paycheck, they didn't have huge PPV windfalls to retire on.

I look at the history of boxing and fighters through the eyes of a trainer and I see things in these fighters I don't see in many fighters today. They truly mastered the craft. All this talk of new is better is nonsense. Athletes are bigger, faster and stronger in the NFL and other big league sports but not necessarily better. In boxing, a middleweight is a middleweight, 160 lbs is 160 lbs in any era.

its the same exact thing. wear n tear is wear n tear.

''i used to type a 1k a minute. now im lucky to get through a dozen. but i gets it done.''

some employers will not gaf and go ahead and hire that person (due to favors, whats 1 more/less typist or not caring since the pay is low).

i dont believe in cutting up a resume. i wouldnt cut out chapters in a book either. fast forwarding through a movie isnt really watching it. imho, its either all of it or none of it (but fans of a guy/era obviously dont see it this way).

an actor whos been making movies for decades but only appeared in a few good movies, is a person supposed to ignore everything but those few movies ?!?!?

halle won an oscar....she must be a great actress

who said anything about ignoring a guys prime ?!?!? im saying dont ignore anything. it all counts.
tyson vs mcbride and williams counts
srl vs camacho counts
ssm vs mundine counts
wlad vs the boss counts

they all count.

of course those guys fought once a week to make money, not a legacy. the point im making is a guy shouldnt be for beating up a ton of no hopers and derelicts. 21 out of 30 with less than 10 wins !!!!!! no possible way to put a positive spin on that without saying every guy with a sizable resume is great.

size matters or there wouldnt be divisions. our hws would pretty much mangle those little guys rumored to be hws. especially rocky. i doubt hed have a legacy @ cw.

everyone looks spectacular when fighting a certain level of opponent. moore ko # is a joke if you look at who he kod and WHO HE DIDNT.

tyson was a beast until a person wasnt scared to hit him back.
rocky got the fnck out when he did cause he knew his time was up (7 defenses ?!?!?!).

so, ill ASK AGAIN, what are we to make of a guys resume that includes a bunch of guys with less than 10 wins ? remember, people shlt on wilder and 3g and may (yes, THAT may !.

no need for a story. just your opinion on how to grade such a resume.

[Elroy The Great]

if THAT resume is great, they all are.

[The Old LefHook]

All resumes cannot be appraised the same. Old timers fought four times as often. Each fight could not be with a world class opponent. We expect more from contemporary fighters who only box a few times a year. If they are going to fight less often, then their run-of-the-mill fights should be more important than those of the old timers. Sprinkled among the keep-busy bouts of any all time great are the important fights with high quality opponents. How did he fare in these? No decision contests do not give much information by way of result.

But I know Greb beat the boy Gene Tunney into a man. That is important. It is also important that we have it on good evidence that he put up hot resistance in their other contests.

Fighters had a deeper medicine bag of skills and tricks back then, I am personally convinced. There is more than one Lost art in boxing. Nearly every highly rated boxer I watch is bereft of any knowledge of how to cut off the ring. It is like they never practiced it. Because they didn't practice it, I am also convinced. When it comes to in fighting, today's boxers would be in a lot of trouble if put in with an old timer under old time conditions and attitudes. They would not know what to do in clinches.

Greb is considered an artisan, a high practitioner of trickery and violence, one of those men who seemed to know all there was to know about boxing. He roughed up brawlers and out slicked ghosts like Mike Gibbons, all in a week's work.

The era, its attitudes and customs, turns out to be very important. So important that most modern boxers would be hard pressed to survive a fifteen round contest under old conditions. On the other hand, old timers would have a frustrating experience under contemporary conditions. Most of their in fighting skills would be negated by the constant interference of modern referees. Fleet modern boxers, taught to move and punch in bunches, would be spared a mauling in the clinches and always allowed to reset their moving and jabbing games. The old timer would feel things were rigged against him, and he would be right. Any fighter mythically fighting out of his era would be at a handicap right there. To train for one era and fight in another successfully takes a giant, an ATG. Not many could do that, perhaps. Greb seems like the adaptable kind that might pull such a feat off.

[GhostofDempsey]

its the same exact thing. wear n tear is wear n tear.

''i used to type a 1k a minute. now im lucky to get through a dozen. but i gets it done.''

some employers will not gaf and go ahead and hire that person (due to favors, whats 1 more/less typist or not caring since the pay is low).

i dont believe in cutting up a resume. i wouldnt cut out chapters in a book either. fast forwarding through a movie isnt really watching it. imho, its either all of it or none of it (but fans of a guy/era obviously dont see it this way).

an actor whos been making movies for decades but only appeared in a few good movies, is a person supposed to ignore everything but those few movies ?!?!?

halle won an oscar....she must be a great actress

who said anything about ignoring a guys prime ?!?!? im saying dont ignore anything. it all counts.
tyson vs mcbride and williams counts
srl vs camacho counts
ssm vs mundine counts
wlad vs the boss counts

they all count.

of course those guys fought once a week to make money, not a legacy. the point im making is a guy shouldnt be for beating up a ton of no hopers and derelicts. 21 out of 30 with less than 10 wins !!!!!! no possible way to put a positive spin on that without saying every guy with a sizable resume is great.

size matters or there wouldnt be divisions. our hws would pretty much mangle those little guys rumored to be hws. especially rocky. i doubt hed have a legacy @ cw.

everyone looks spectacular when fighting a certain level of opponent. moore ko # is a joke if you look at who he kod and WHO HE DIDNT.

tyson was a beast until a person wasnt scared to hit him back.
rocky got the fnck out when he did cause he knew his time was up (7 defenses ?!?!?!).

so, ill ASK AGAIN, what are we to make of a guys resume that includes a bunch of guys with less than 10 wins ? remember, people shlt on wilder and 3g and may (yes, THAT may !.

no need for a story. just your opinion on how to grade such a resume.

I already pointed to Mayweather and GGG resumes that included several fighters with two-digit losses. Show me a fighter who doesn't.

You judge fighters strictly on resume. You do not take into account the wear and tear on a fighter to go 45-0 in one year, getting punched with 4 oz. horsehair gloves, working out without the advantages of modern era equipment and footwear, no PEDs or IVs, no guaranteed contracts so you can cherry-pick you're own opponents, no television to gain exposure (which is why they fought often and in various locations), and again, losses back then were often a reflection of corruption, lack of judges, dives for better money, and fighting through injuries. Not all losses were an accurate depiction of someone's record. Not all wins are either. If you don't fight an opponent at their best, you don't get full credit for beating them as you would if you beat them in their prime. Hence Mayweather's entire career.

The point of this thread was that none of the feats mentioned in the article will ever be repeated again. It wasn't a thread to debate whether Greb would defeat GGG or Hagler.

[Elroy The Great]

I already pointed to Mayweather and GGG resumes that included several fighters with two-digit losses. Show me a fighter who doesn't.

You judge fighters strictly on resume. You do not take into account the wear and tear on a fighter to go 45-0 in one year, getting punched with 4 oz. horsehair gloves, working out without the advantages of modern era equipment and footwear, no PEDs or IVs, no guaranteed contracts so you can cherry-pick you're own opponents, no television to gain exposure (which is why they fought often and in various locations), and again, losses back then were often a reflection of corruption, lack of judges, dives for better money, and fighting through injuries. Not all losses were an accurate depiction of someone's record. Not all wins are either. If you don't fight an opponent at their best, you don't get full credit for beating them as you would if you beat them in their prime. Hence Mayweather's entire career.

The point of this thread was that none of the feats mentioned in the article will ever be repeated again. It wasn't a thread to debate whether Greb would defeat GGG or Hagler.

once again, im talking about guys who DIDNT HAVE DOUBLE DIGIT WINS.

i understand you prefer the way back when era. i dont understand how a supposed fight fan can insult one resume yet hail another. according to your criteria, the only difference is the NEED to fight.

had may or anyone from our era were zapped back to the 30 fights a year era, do you really think they wouldnt fight those 30 bums a year !?!?!?!

and conversely, id assume the way back when heroes wouldnt rush out and fight 15 bums a year if 1 fight got them a million bucks.

i dont give credit for beating up a ton of 7-22-6 types.

[GhostofDempsey]

once again, im talking about guys who DIDNT HAVE DOUBLE DIGIT WINS.

i understand you prefer the way back when era. i dont understand how a supposed fight fan can insult one resume yet hail another. according to your criteria, the only difference is the NEED to fight.

had may or anyone from our era were zapped back to the 30 fights a year era, do you really think they wouldnt fight those 30 bums a year !?!?!?!

and conversely, id assume the way back when heroes wouldnt rush out and fight 15 bums a year if 1 fight got them a million bucks.

i dont give credit for beating up a ton of 7-22-6 types.

To each I suppose. One can also argue that fighting twice per year just doesn't keep you as sharp and on your game either. I respect all eras of boxers, but you are hung up on resumes and believe that only modern era fighters are worth ATG status. If actually watch these guys fight you can see all of the nuances and technical mastery of the sweet science on display. Modern fighters rarely slip jabs, throw a hook off the jab, or engage in as much inside fighting.

Watch some Ike Williams highlights if you want to see some great boxing on display. You will likely shyt all over his resume, but pay attention to his boxing skills.

[JAB5239]

Greb is my second greatest P4 fighter after Langford. The guy was a machine. If you haven't already and get a chance, read the book "The fearless Harry Greb".

[Elroy The Great]

To each I suppose. One can also argue that fighting twice per year just doesn't keep you as sharp and on your game either. I respect all eras of boxers, but you are hung up on resumes and believe that only modern era fighters are worth ATG status. If actually watch these guys fight you can see all of the nuances and technical mastery of the sweet science on display. Modern fighters rarely slip jabs, throw a hook off the jab, or engage in as much inside fighting.

Watch some Ike Williams highlights if you want to see some great boxing on display. You will likely shyt all over his resume, but pay attention to his boxing skills.

as often as they fought back in the day, most of the times its sloppy aggression. not all of them but a lot of them. a person can look as skillful and the best guy to ever do it if hes fighting a no hoper.

all i ask is for a fight fan to judge ALL RESUMES equally. if that guys fought 12 no hopers in a year and got praise for it, every guy should get the same praise.

''that guy beat up a 2-12 guy, YES !!!!''
''this guy beat up some who should retire, boooooo!!!!''