The Harry Greb agenda?

[ShoulderRoll]

This question was asked in the Daily Bread Mailbag today. Thoughts?




I saw your comment on (X) the other day about Harry Greb. I not only agree with you but I will add something you probably can’t say publicly. White fighters generally don’t get underrated. Yes I said it. Most great white fighters get overrated more than they get underrated. Ray Mancini, Vinny Pazienza and Ingemar Johannson are all in the Hall of Fame. For Black fighters, the standard has to be higher or else Meldrick Taylor, Marlon Starling and Tim Witherspoon would be in. I get that fighter’s legacies become enhanced after their careers. But this Greb fascination has taken a life of it’s own and it seems agenda driven. No fighter’s legacy has been more enhanced posthumously than Greb’s. What’s the difference in him and Sam Langford? I don’t see much separation in their resumes and we can at least see footage of Langford. In the 1920's boxing under the modern rules had only been around about 30+ years. So if Greb were the GOAT, they had less to measure him against during those times. While being highly regarded, most as you said put Benny Leonard ahead of him. So after his career, when they had a chance to properly analyze him, I didn’t read any mentions of him being the GOAT from the 1940-2000. Now recently I hear a strong claim that he’s the best fighter ever, by people who have never seen him. You asked a great question. How is it that the people who saw him, didn’t say he was the GOAT, yet the people who didn’t see him say he was? By the time the 1940s came around, Henry Armstrong was thought of as the GOAT. By the time the 1960s came around Sugar Ray Robinson had taken the mantle. And so on. They were highly praised by the people in their day who actually saw them. And they were black. Now they expect us to believe that the mostly white media, over praised Robinson and Armstrong but under praised Greb. All the while the same press overrated Jack Dempsey. I’m sorry, I can’t believe that. And I don’t want to put words in your mouth but I feel like sometimes your hands are tied behind your back.

Bread’s Response: Your words are your words. And mine or mine. I can respect your opinion without agreeing with it 100 per cent.

OK … I want to be fair to Harry Greb about race. Because he didn’t draw the color line. He fought Tiger Flowers three times, if my count is correct. And not only was Flowers a talented foe, he was a southpaw, which was tough to deal with in the 1920s because there weren’t many around. So Greb gets full props from me for that.

He also gets full props from me for his resume. I didn’t see him fight but I saw Mickey Walker and Gene Tunney fight. And the fact that he beat them says a lot. Greb is certainly an ATG fighter and one of the best middleweights and light heavyweights ever. Yes, light heavyweight. His résum?at light heavyweight is absolutely insane also.

But I still don’t get the crusade to make him the GOAT by modern historians who haven’t seen him. Although I have seen cases where a fighter’s legacy grew, and to be fair, the fighter was a black fighter: Ezzard Charles’ legacy grew over the past 20 years. As a kid, I heard everyone say that Archie Moore was the best light heavyweight ever. But with further research, I saw that Charles was 3-0 vs Moore, including one brutal stoppage over a prime Moore. Charles also outperformed Moore vs common opponents.

So while Moore had greater longevity, Charles proved to be the better fighter and was recognized as such. So I have seen that movie before where a fighter’s legacy grew long after his career. But with Greb, I feel like this came out of nowhere. And I agree with you, if Greb’s legacy grew, why didn’t Sam Langford’s to the same extent.

Langford beat Stanley Ketchel who was thought to be the GOAT at middleweight in the early part of the century. He also beat a prime Joe Gans who was another fighter many thought to be the GOAT at that point in time and was one of the greatest lightweight champions ever. Langford was very inexperienced when he handled Gans. And he got a draw in his lone shot at a title vs Barbados Joe Walcott. In which all reports read that Langford toyed with him.

But here is the kicker. Langford also KO’d Tiger Flowers in two rounds. The same man who took Greb’s crown and beat him two out of three. This is not including the success he had vs much bigger fighters like Harry Wills and Jack Johnson. So like you, I find it peculiar that Greb’s legacy grew with forensic analytics but Langford’s didn’t to the same extent, and they fought in the same era. I don’t know what to attribute this to, but I will say it’s strange.

I also know the media can be very clever with whatever agenda they are trying to push, and you have to look deeper than the surface level. For example, Joe Louis's reign was called the Bum of the Month tour. Yet there is no specific mention of a duck or miss that he has. Even more, Louis fought 10 Hall of Famers. And he has 49 fights vs opponents who were ranked in the top 10 by Ring ****zine at some point in their career – and won 46. I'm sure the media members who called it the Bum of the Month tour knew these things, yet they still insulted the longest reign in heavyweight history.

All in all, I wish I had a chance to see Harry Greb. I can only imagine how good he really was. And this is in no way me trying to discredit his great career. I'm just free thinking as to why this has come about so long after his career and death.

[Mr Mitts]

There is always an agenda based on rumor, anecdotal hyperbole, an author's opinion who never saw him either. Everyone tries to separate the chaff from the straw by their own judgement. Sports reputations thrive on hyperbole, it is not only expected but almost mandatory.

[Willie Pep 229]

ON LEGACY

The answer is quite simple.

White sportswriters, writing for white newspapers, for a white audience are going to talk "WOW" when they see a great white fighter, e.g Greb, Dempsey.

Black fighters on the other hand only got praised, begrudgingly. It is called systemic racism.

I will bet a buck, one whole Yankee Greenback, that if you researched Sam Langford exclusively through the Negro Newspapers of the day, you will find many"WOW" stories about Langford. And you will find only begrudgingly offered praise for white fighters, e.g. Greb, Jeffries, Dempsey.

The answer to both situations was a culture steemped in systemic racism. With it working both ways.

But, this is prize fighting not professional boxing (it's not a league). First and foremost was putting asses in seats.

So the more newspaper ink got, the more asses you put in seats. The two complemented eachother and fed off eachother.

But legacy wise, Negro Newspapers had limited circulation, mostly to black fans who were limited financially and could only participate in ticket buying infrequently. The result: less ticket buys, less ink, less circulation, less ticket buys, even less ink, back to less money. And now, less legacy. It is prize fighting.

It was the result of systemic racism, It WAS NOT a white conspiracy.

This was (and still is) prize fighting not professional boxing. It's always about the money, and if race got in the way of money, as it often did in the 1920s, than fairness lost out because it's always about the money.

In short, the correct answer is: that it is just one more problem, one more wrong associated with the 'color line.' It's not a profound issue; it is not a difficult answer.

Now here comes the part that may offend you.

The part that has one idiot on this forum calling me a racist. But here it goes.

To the intelligent fight fan, the knowledgeable fight fan, (us) we already know all this, Bringing it up again, with a complaint this time about unfair legacy isn't 'news.' It is a horse we have already beat to death a dozen different way. Nothing new is being asked here.

I believe today there is a black community systemic racism towards white fighters of the color line period. Not that the wrongs were not there, they were, and even to this day have a lasting effect.

But these complaints are a dead horse . . .

. . . the intelligent fight fan knows all this already and the the White Supremacists don't want to know it, so will never know it.

So why do we keep repeating this debate under 'new topics' which in reality is the same dead horse? There is nothing new to say.

OK I get it, you felt questing the unfairness of 'legacy' sounded like a fresh and a new challenge to the color line issue. But it isn't. It same argument, the same wrong, the same answer . . .

. . . and that same simple answer is "it was the color line."

Ifyou need periodically to bring out white fighters for ridicule, I guess that's OK, you need to do it.

But IMO it has been overplayed.

The people who know the game, true fans, already know the shot about all this.

So anyway the simple answer to your question: the color line, it effected legacy too.

[Willie Pep 229]

In addition to my point about newspapers writers, legacies, and the history that becomes available to posterity, I offer this Dempsey quote.

When asked just a few years later, if he thought he was a great fighter?, Dempsey replied: "I was a pretty good fighter, I could fight, but it was the newspaper guys who made me great."

Even the uneducated Dempsey, at the time, understood the shot. (The reality).

[them_apples]

This question was asked in the Daily Bread Mailbag today. Thoughts?




I saw your comment on (X) the other day about Harry Greb. I not only agree with you but I will add something you probably can’t say publicly. White fighters generally don’t get underrated. Yes I said it. Most great white fighters get overrated more than they get underrated. Ray Mancini, Vinny Pazienza and Ingemar Johannson are all in the Hall of Fame. For Black fighters, the standard has to be higher or else Meldrick Taylor, Marlon Starling and Tim Witherspoon would be in. I get that fighter’s legacies become enhanced after their careers. But this Greb fascination has taken a life of it’s own and it seems agenda driven. No fighter’s legacy has been more enhanced posthumously than Greb’s. What’s the difference in him and Sam Langford? I don’t see much separation in their resumes and we can at least see footage of Langford. In the 1920's boxing under the modern rules had only been around about 30+ years. So if Greb were the GOAT, they had less to measure him against during those times. While being highly regarded, most as you said put Benny Leonard ahead of him. So after his career, when they had a chance to properly analyze him, I didn’t read any mentions of him being the GOAT from the 1940-2000. Now recently I hear a strong claim that he’s the best fighter ever, by people who have never seen him. You asked a great question. How is it that the people who saw him, didn’t say he was the GOAT, yet the people who didn’t see him say he was? By the time the 1940s came around, Henry Armstrong was thought of as the GOAT. By the time the 1960s came around Sugar Ray Robinson had taken the mantle. And so on. They were highly praised by the people in their day who actually saw them. And they were black. Now they expect us to believe that the mostly white media, over praised Robinson and Armstrong but under praised Greb. All the while the same press overrated Jack Dempsey. I’m sorry, I can’t believe that. And I don’t want to put words in your mouth but I feel like sometimes your hands are tied behind your back.

Bread’s Response: Your words are your words. And mine or mine. I can respect your opinion without agreeing with it 100 per cent.

OK �I want to be fair to Harry Greb about race. Because he didn’t draw the color line. He fought Tiger Flowers three times, if my count is correct. And not only was Flowers a talented foe, he was a southpaw, which was tough to deal with in the 1920s because there weren’t many around. So Greb gets full props from me for that.

He also gets full props from me for his resume. I didn’t see him fight but I saw Mickey Walker and Gene Tunney fight. And the fact that he beat them says a lot. Greb is certainly an ATG fighter and one of the best middleweights and light heavyweights ever. Yes, light heavyweight. His résumé at light heavyweight is absolutely insane also.

But I still don’t get the crusade to make him the GOAT by modern historians who haven’t seen him. Although I have seen cases where a fighter’s legacy grew, and to be fair, the fighter was a black fighter: Ezzard Charles�legacy grew over the past 20 years. As a kid, I heard everyone say that Archie Moore was the best light heavyweight ever. But with further research, I saw that Charles was 3-0 vs Moore, including one brutal stoppage over a prime Moore. Charles also outperformed Moore vs common opponents.

So while Moore had greater longevity, Charles proved to be the better fighter and was recognized as such. So I have seen that movie before where a fighter’s legacy grew long after his career. But with Greb, I feel like this came out of nowhere. And I agree with you, if Greb’s legacy grew, why didn’t Sam Langford’s to the same extent.

Langford beat Stanley Ketchel who was thought to be the GOAT at middleweight in the early part of the century. He also beat a prime Joe Gans who was another fighter many thought to be the GOAT at that point in time and was one of the greatest lightweight champions ever. Langford was very inexperienced when he handled Gans. And he got a draw in his lone shot at a title vs Barbados Joe Walcott. In which all reports read that Langford toyed with him.

But here is the kicker. Langford also KO’d Tiger Flowers in two rounds. The same man who took Greb’s crown and beat him two out of three. This is not including the success he had vs much bigger fighters like Harry Wills and Jack Johnson. So like you, I find it peculiar that Greb’s legacy grew with forensic analytics but Langford’s didn’t to the same extent, and they fought in the same era. I don’t know what to attribute this to, but I will say it’s strange.

I also know the media can be very clever with whatever agenda they are trying to push, and you have to look deeper than the surface level. For example, Joe Louis's reign was called the Bum of the Month tour. Yet there is no specific mention of a duck or miss that he has. Even more, Louis fought 10 Hall of Famers. And he has 49 fights vs opponents who were ranked in the top 10 by Ring ****zine at some point in their career �and won 46. I'm sure the media members who called it the Bum of the Month tour knew these things, yet they still insulted the longest reign in heavyweight history.

All in all, I wish I had a chance to see Harry Greb. I can only imagine how good he really was. And this is in no way me trying to discredit his great career. I'm just free thinking as to why this has come about so long after his career and death.
�/div>

To be honest though - Langford is next. Hell get if just due and is.

Greb and Langford are the 2 greatest ever.

its always black people chirping white fighters.

but what they don’t know is whites didn’t fight blacks for political reasons of the day - not because they were scared of them. And when they did blacks didn’t dominate around the board. They never did.

also Greb fought harder more dangerous blacks than Flowers. Take Kid Norfolk. The flowers fights happened near the end of Greb career.

Greb was an insane fighter

and Marciano - you wanna talk underrated - he was smaller - less experienced than the whole slew of Atg blacks that he fought. They go on about them suddenly being washed up but totally forget the fact that Marciano turned pro at 24 with 9 ammy fights. Which is literally absurd. Then they say these guys were light heavies and in the same sentance go on and say Marciano is too small to even be a heavyweight. Totally absurd. Straight racism coming from
blacks as usual.

[ShoulderRoll]

Eh, I find Marciano to be very overrated.

Sam Langford was getting plenty of respect (deservedly so) when Clay Moyle’s biography on him came out. He might be the best P4P fighter of all time.

[Rockybigblower]

Harry Greb isnt real.

[GhostofDempsey]

I don’t think there was an agenda to elevate Greb. His resume speaks for itself. I know it’s difficult for fans to rank a fighter who we have never seen, nor is there any footage of his fights. I think Ketchel was more overrated than nearly any other fighter of the early 1900s. The footage of his fights doesn’t impress me, nor was I impressed by Wills, Papke, McVey, and quite a few more. We have to remember that promoters and managers could buy off newspapers and writers to hype their fighters and give them good press. Even grant them newspaper decisions. There is no telling how many fighters over the years have had their legacies made or broken by the media. Once the mob got their hooks into the sport they used their influence to coerce the media as well.

Look how they treated Liston. Larry Merchant was especially harsh towards Sonny. They portrayed him as a monster, a boogie man, but he was really a humble man who kept to himself and just wanted to be accepted and lied when he became champion.

[DeeMoney]

There is a certain esoteric virtue signal that you get when you claim that Harry Greb is your GOAT. I mean, nobody ever saw him fight, so if you rank him as your p4p goat then you must be well versed in boxing history and well studied (or at least you can pose as such).

Its akin to when a hipster is asked who their favorite band is, and they can respond, "youve never heard of them."

[Bronson66]

To be honest though - Langford is next. Hell get if just due and is.

Greb and Langford are the 2 greatest ever.

its always black people chirping white fighters.

but what they donâÂÂt know is whites didnâÂÂt fight blacks for political reasons of the day - not because they were scared of them. And when they did blacks didnâÂÂt dominate around the board. They never did.

also Greb fought harder more dangerous blacks than Flowers. Take Kid Norfolk. The flowers fights happened near the end of Greb career.

Greb was an insane fighter

and Marciano - you wanna talk underrated - he was smaller - less experienced than the whole slew of Atg blacks that he fought. They go on about them suddenly being washed up but totally forget the fact that Marciano turned pro at 24 with 9 ammy fights. Which is literally absurd. Then they say these guys were light heavies and in the same sentance go on and say Marciano is too small to even be a heavyweight. Totally absurd. Straight racism coming from
blacks as usual.

Marciano fought 4 black fighters who could be called ATG's Louis was 37,Walcott was 38 ,Charles was 33,Moore was 41.

Marciano was not smaller than either Charles or Moore.