I dont get Harry Greb's boxing Record

[louis54]

greb was probably the greatest fighter ever. such a schedule against the best is unheard of. he had hyperenergetic speed, endurance, smarts, and toughness. a bouncing around tough freak who never stopped moving his legs and hands !!

[EzzardFan]

(1) – Hall of Famer – World Heavyweight Champion – Beat Dempsey twice
(4) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
(1) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
(1) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
(2) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
(6) – Hall of Famer – World Light Heavyweight Champion
(2) – World Light Heavyweight Champion
(1) – Hall of Famer – World Welterweight & Middleweight Champion
Hall of Famer – World Champion Middleweight Champion
(1) – Hall of Famer
(2) – Hall of Famer – Went 15 rounds with Dempsey for Heavyweight Title
(1) – Hall of Famer
(2) – Hall of Famer - Fought Dempsey for Heavyweight Title
Hall of Famer as a trainer
(2) – World Middleweight Champion
(2) – World Middleweight Champion
(3) – World Middleweight Champion
(1) – Claimed World Middleweight Champion
(2) – Beat Dempsey twice
(2) – Top Heavyweight
(4) – Fought Dempsey for Heavyweight Title
- Defeated four world champions in his career

i have a big problem using word of mouth or written articles as a basis for judging greatness.

How could you differentiate & judge a fighter using words & a writers opinion? How could you differentiate if you dont have film footage? If film never existed how could you differentiate & ascertain a description like;

"willie pep had amazing reflexes", "roy jones jr had ungodly reflexes", "pernell whitakers reflexes were supernatural"

If film didnt exist. how could you differentiate & gauge which fighter had the greater reflexes?

That's just one example. I mean its not like writers are not prone to hyperbole. I just cant take seriously what man writes down on paper & make a conclusion based on that, especially something as visual as sports & boxing.

If you start doing that, horrible things happen.....

Like religion.

We can accept his greatness because there is footage of the guys that he beat, and that combined with his record of beating the best fighters of his time, and the eye witness accounts of those fights, many of them from very credible sources enables us to rate him without seeing any footage.

The guy fought almost once a week for his entire career, regularly beat fighters 1-2 weight classes above him (and in those days that could mean a difference of 25-75lbs. He also fought blind in one eye for half his career. I'd love to see footage of him, we all would.

[r.burgundy]

Just looking at Harry Greb's record at boxrec & it has his record 103-8-3 draws then it has another set of record called NEWSPAPER DECISIONS:

157-12-15 draws.

What is that?

How can we accurately judge a fighter we have not seen fight?

me personally,i dont puch much stock into guys theres no footage of.i dont care what bert sugar has to say.you listen to any old coot from any sport and they all tell the same tale.joe namath was the greatest q.b ever,bob cousy was the best point guard ever,yadda yadda yadda.you talk to bert sugar he would have you believe joe louis was knockin out mike tysons in every fight an willie pep once won a round without throwing a punch.

when i 1st saw pep,i was expecting pernel whitaker mixed with sugar ray leonard.i was extremely disapointed.the legend did not match to what i was seeing.same with jack johnson.i appreciate joe louis accuracy but if a champ today fought those guys he would be called all kinds of things.i just cant put much stock into these guys

[r.burgundy]

greb was probably the greatest fighter ever. such a schedule against the best is unheard of. he had hyperenergetic speed, endurance, smarts, and toughness. a bouncing around tough freak who never stopped moving his legs and hands !!

how would you know?

[JAB5239]

how would you know?

How do you know Abe Lincoln freed the ******? Because that is what history tells us. I think its interesting what people choose to believe and not believe regarding history. Considering the fighters he fought and beat, I don't think it takes a giant leap of faith to consider Greb an amazing talent and all time great. I don't think you have to see a fighter fight when you have seen many of his opponents fight as well as newspaper accounts of the day.

[r.burgundy]

How do you know Abe Lincoln freed the ******? Because that is what history tells us. I think its interesting what people choose to believe and not believe regarding history. Considering the fighters he fought and beat, I don't think it takes a giant leap of faith to consider Greb an amazing talent and all time great. I don't think you have to see a fighter fight when you have seen many of his opponents fight as well as newspaper accounts of the day.

lmao.thats an absolutely terrible analogy

i do agree in the case of greb that he likely was amazing,but there just isnt any real way of gaging him against todays fighters.when dealing with all time rankings,it shouldnt be fair to judge todays fighters on and antique standard,due to how much the buisness model has changed.now pro in this day and age will come anywhere close to a 100 fight career,or fighting every last contender possible.only guys that really do that today are the klitschos and they get ****ted on.so if everybody has so much to say about these guys opposition,then imagine what some of those guys greb fought musta looked like

[JAB5239]

lmao.thats an absolutely terrible analogy

It shows people will believe or not believe what they want to in spite of all the historical evidence. Why do we need to see footage of Greb to proclaim him an all time great? We have no video proof Lincoln was a great president, only the historical facts. Why is that good for one instance but not another?

i do agree in the case of greb that he likely was amazing,but there just isnt any real way of gaging him against todays fighters.when dealing with all time rankings,it shouldnt be fair to judge todays fighters on and antique standard,due to how much the buisness model has changed.now pro in this day and age will come anywhere close to a 100 fight career,or fighting every last contender possible.only guys that really do that today are the klitschos and they get ****ted on.so if everybody has so much to say about these guys opposition,then imagine what some of those guys greb fought musta looked like

Why do we need to gauge them against todays fighters in order rank them all time? You can only judge a fighter by the fighters he beat, not some fantasy fight.

[hhascup]

I think the only person who can answer that is hhascup (Henry) because he works for BoxRec.. Sure he'll be about soon.. Good point though..

Yes, and since he's also on the IBHOF election committee, I'm kind of hoping he can cast some light on this.

It would depend on which newspaper you go by, since this was a Newspaper decision. Several had Greb and others had Norfolk. It looks like they all agree on 8 of the rounds. 1 to 4 for Norfolk and 6 to 10 for Greb. They differ in rounds 5 and 6.

1921-08-29 : beat by NWS in round 10 of 10

Location: Forbes Field, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

"Harry Greb, Pittsburgh light heavyweight won a shade over Kid Norfolk, colored heavy in a ten-round bout." (Appleton Post Crescent)

The Pittsburgh Post report shows that there is no substance to the old story that Norfolk thumbed Greb in this fight, resulting in his losing sight in one eye. (The fight in which the injury probably occurred will be noted below.) According to the Post, Norfolk was fast and 17 1/2 pounds heavier, and won 4 of the first 5 rounds, even scoring a flash knockdown in round three. Greb was up quickly and did not appear to be hurt. In the last five rounds, Greb (who did a lot of holding in the first five rounds) decided to trade punches with Norfolk. Apparently he had held his opponent in too much respect because he won all five remaining rounds and had Norfolk all at sea. Greb "smothered him with a two-fisted attack" as Norfolk tired. It was an excellent fight. Greb had a real uphill battle after getting himself in a hole in the first five rounds, but came through excellently. Norfolk suffered a badly cut eye. Referee Yock Henninger said, next day, that he would have named Greb winner.

Another report from the Post lists Norfolk as the winner, the seventh round being the first round that Greb won. The Post gives Norfolk rounds 1-6 and Greb 7-10. Norfolk also scored a knockdown in the 3rd round. The Gazette Times scored the bout the same way, Norfolk winning the first six and Greb the last four. The Daily Dispatch gave Greb the "hairline" verdict by claiming Norfolk won the first four rounds, the fifth being drawn and 6-10 going to Greb. This bout should obviously not be listed as a win for Greb.

[Bundana]

It would depend on which newspaper you go by, since this was a Newspaper decision. Several had Greb and others had Norfolk. It looks like they all agree on 8 of the rounds. 1 to 4 for Norfolk and 6 to 10 for Greb. They differ in rounds 5 and 6.

1921-08-29 : beat by NWS in round 10 of 10

Location: Forbes Field, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

"Harry Greb, Pittsburgh light heavyweight won a shade over Kid Norfolk, colored heavy in a ten-round bout." (Appleton Post Crescent)

The Pittsburgh Post report shows that there is no substance to the old story that Norfolk thumbed Greb in this fight, resulting in his losing sight in one eye. (The fight in which the injury probably occurred will be noted below.) According to the Post, Norfolk was fast and 17 1/2 pounds heavier, and won 4 of the first 5 rounds, even scoring a flash knockdown in round three. Greb was up quickly and did not appear to be hurt. In the last five rounds, Greb (who did a lot of holding in the first five rounds) decided to trade punches with Norfolk. Apparently he had held his opponent in too much respect because he won all five remaining rounds and had Norfolk all at sea. Greb "smothered him with a two-fisted attack" as Norfolk tired. It was an excellent fight. Greb had a real uphill battle after getting himself in a hole in the first five rounds, but came through excellently. Norfolk suffered a badly cut eye. Referee Yock Henninger said, next day, that he would have named Greb winner.

Another report from the Post lists Norfolk as the winner, the seventh round being the first round that Greb won. The Post gives Norfolk rounds 1-6 and Greb 7-10. Norfolk also scored a knockdown in the 3rd round. The Gazette Times scored the bout the same way, Norfolk winning the first six and Greb the last four. The Daily Dispatch gave Greb the "hairline" verdict by claiming Norfolk won the first four rounds, the fifth being drawn and 6-10 going to Greb. This bout should obviously not be listed as a win for Greb.

It would be interesting to know, how many people are involved in deciding the winner of these fights. Is just one man responsible for reviewing newspaper reports of a particular fight - or is there a whole group of historians involved in each fight?

Also, do BoxRec and IBHOF each have their own experts - resulting in possible opposite conclusions (like in the first Greb-Norfolk fight)? Since you are involved with both organisations, let's hear a little about how this whole thing works.

[r.burgundy]

Why do we need to gauge them against todays fighters in order rank them all time? You can only judge a fighter by the fighters he beat, not some fantasy fight.

because thats like sayin somebody like ray leonard cant possibly be as great as willie pep cause he's had about 200 less fights.ranking in that style,no current or even recent fighter has a chance of cracking top 40 and thats plain silly in my opinion.