I dont get Harry Greb's boxing Record

[hhascup]

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.

Each newspaper has there own writer and he decides who wins for there paper. The bigger the bout, the more writers.

I have looked in many papers when I did my research and at times you would think the writers were looking at 2 different bouts.

[Bundana]

Each newspaper has there own writer and he decides who wins for there paper. The bigger the bout, the more writers.

I have looked in many papers when I did my research and at times you would think the writers were looking at 2 different bouts.

What I meant was: Who TODAY decides the winner of these fights, that took place many decades ago? Is there some kind of central group of experts, who review the old newspaper reports, and whose opinion everybody goes along with - or are there different groups working independently?

The reason I ask this, is that the first Greb-Norfolk fight is listed as a win for Greb by BoxRec... while IBHOF has Norfolk winning the same fight. Which I find very strange!

[JAB5239]

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.

Pacquiao, Whitaker, Jones, Hopkins, Chavez, Mayweather and others have a great chance to crack the top 40 and better, so your argument is moot. But no way are these guys going to rate ahead of a Greb, Pep, Armstrong or Robinson when those guys beat better fighters and more often. You seem to want to penalize the old time greats or at least take their accomplishment out of consideration because todays fight CHOOSE not to fight nearly as often or cherry pick opponents based on which sanctioning body is their particular flavor of the week.

[r.burgundy]

Pacquiao, Whitaker, Jones, Hopkins, Chavez, Mayweather and others have a great chance to crack the top 40 and better, so your argument is moot. But no way are these guys going to rate ahead of a Greb, Pep, Armstrong or Robinson when those guys beat better fighters and more often. You seem to want to penalize the old time greats or at least take their accomplishment out of consideration because todays fight CHOOSE not to fight nearly as often or cherry pick opponents based on which sanctioning body is their particular flavor of the week.

you keep sating "better fighters".well i ask better in terms of what?it cant be based on skill cause most of them havent been seen.at feather i think pacqiuo would maul anybody pep faced,pep included.so using pac as my example,how on earth can we say somebody like ray famechon,or sandy saddler is better than barrera,morales or marquez?they arent.but being that pep is over 200 fights,how is it fair to manny when you can a case that fought better comp in less fights?

but lets take an even more logical look.there arent 20 good fighters in any 1 division today,regardless of sanctioning body or ranking.but somebody has got to be a champ and somebody has got to be ranked 1-20,so i thinks its silly to assume that pep fought 20 capable opponents regardless of what bert sugar says.this is no bias,or hate.its just simple math.the most loaded div in i can recall was middle with bhop,roy,toney,mccallum etcand more recently welter and super middle and those were at tops 10 fighters deep.no way in hell these old fighters fought 20+ credible fighters

[JAB5239]

you keep sating "better fighters".well i ask better in terms of what?it cant be based on skill cause most of them havent been seen.at feather i think pacqiuo would maul anybody pep faced,pep included.so using pac as my example,how on earth can we say somebody like ray famechon,or sandy saddler is better than barrera,morales or marquez?they arent.but being that pep is over 200 fights,how is it fair to manny when you can a case that fought better comp in less fights?

but lets take an even more logical look.there arent 20 good fighters in any 1 division today,regardless of sanctioning body or ranking.but somebody has got to be a champ and somebody has got to be ranked 1-20,so i thinks its silly to assume that pep fought 20 capable opponents regardless of what bert sugar says.this is no bias,or hate.its just simple math.the most loaded div in i can recall was middle with bhop,roy,toney,mccallum etcand more recently welter and super middle and those were at tops 10 fighters deep.no way in hell these old fighters fought 20+ credible fighters

Your knowledge is becoming a joke as is your bias against old time fighters.

Here is a list compiled by hhascup who is both an editor at boxrec and on the selection committee for the IBHOF. These are the top 10 fighters Pep fought in his career when there was one ONE title and less divisions. There were also more professional boxers at that time which means that talent pool was that much deeper.

1. Pedro Hernandez
2. Bobby Poison Ivy
3. Chalky Wright
4. Allie Stolz
5. Sammy Angott
6. Sal Bartolo
7. Jackie Wilson
8. Sal Bartolo
9. Willie Joyce
10. Manuel Ortiz
11. Lulu Costantino
12. Joey Peralta
13. Charles Cabey Lewis
14. Chalky Wright (2)
15. Charles Cabey Lewis (2)
16. Chalky Wright (3)
17. Willie Roache
18. Phil Terranova
19. Jackie Wilson (2)
20. Sal Bartolo (2)
21. Jackie Graves
22. Chalky Wright (4)
23. Jock Leslie
24. Miguel Acevedo
25. Paddy DeMarco
26. Sandy Saddler
27. Sandy Saddler (2)
28. Charley Riley
29. Ray Famechon
30. Sandy Saddler (3)
31. Sandy Saddler (4)
32. Tommy Collins
33. Lulu Perez
34. Hogan Kid Bassey
35. Sonny Leon

Now, just because YOU don't know who many of these fighters are doesn't mean they weren't credible.

[The Hate Giver]

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.

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.

Pacquiao, Whitaker, Jones, Hopkins, Chavez, Mayweather and others have a great chance to crack the top 40 and better, so your argument is moot. But no way are these guys going to rate ahead of a Greb, Pep, Armstrong or Robinson when those guys beat better fighters and more often. You seem to want to penalize the old time greats or at least take their accomplishment out of consideration because todays fight CHOOSE not to fight nearly as often or cherry pick opponents based on which sanctioning body is their particular flavor of the week.

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.

Nothing in my posts says that WE SHOULD NOT ACCEPT GREB'S GREATNESS. Nothing. Im not denying greb's greatness, just how high he should be based on eyewitness accounts & a writer's opinion. This is the same problem i have with mayweather fans. I DONT deny his great skills, i deny his level of greatness he & his delusional fan base claim.

As for harry greb, old timers say dont discredit the old fighters, well you guys are doing the exact same thing by holding fighters up in such a high pedestal that you havent seen fight. You want to keep him up in a high ranking in favor of a fighter that there is visual evidence of. You want to without a shadow of a doubt say this guy is the greatest so & so & we dont have footage of it.

You say he fought once a week, was he fighting legendary great fighers once a week? I look at a lot of great old school fighters & i see them in their primes facing fighters with 15,20,30,35 losses.

Sometimes quality is greater than quantity.

Do you need to fight 200 times to prove you are a great fighter? Should we hold back a fighter in all time great rankings behind greb even though we have great visual evidence of the fighter? But because some writers wrote that greb is soooo awesome & the greatest we should go by that?

How many no decisions should have been losses? how many should have been wins? How many fights were judged incorrectly because the person deciding who the winner is was the referee?

How many times did fighters throw fights for the mob? How many times did the mob fix fights?

How many times did a black fighter get robbed so the white fighter can win? Why do i bring this up? Because in the so called golden age of boxing, black people did not get equal treatment IN LIFE. How much more in sports?

How many times were black fighters denied title shots?

Hell, jake lamotta even had to throw a fight just so he could a title shot vs cerdan. How much more a black fighter?

Personally, i dont think a fighter that has no film footage should be in the top ten. As time goes by, as fighters careers are more appreciated & thoroughly examined i think fighters that have no film footage should slowly move down in rankings in favor for fighters with actual footage. Look, im not denying they were great fighters, just where they rank.

How could you with a straight face say this boxer with no film footage should be ranked higher vs this boxer with ample footage & a great resume with only 50 fights?

jab, that abe lincoln analogy was horrible.

[hhascup]

What I meant was: Who TODAY decides the winner of these fights, that took place many decades ago? Is there some kind of central group of experts, who review the old newspaper reports, and whose opinion everybody goes along with - or are there different groups working independently?

The reason I ask this, is that the first Greb-Norfolk fight is listed as a win for Greb by BoxRec... while IBHOF has Norfolk winning the same fight. Which I find very strange!

That's a very good question. On BoxRec, anyone of their editors, including myself, can put in a result, and anyone can change it if they want. Most, if not all of the editors on BoxRec have a good reputation, so they make sure they put in the right information.

On the Greb/Norfolk bout, Ring Record Book had Greb winning. The person that put it in for BoxRec was Luckett Davis, who is a Great researcher.

Actually the results in this bout has been changed several times. On October 28, 2004, Davis had Greb winning. On January 9, 2006 it was changed to a draw. On March 5, 2006, Mike Delisa, another Great researcher, changed it to a No-Decision. On January 26, 2007, Davis changed it back to a win for Greb.

On August 1, 2007, Delisa changed it to read: Pittsburg Post and Pittsburgh Times and AP gave out to Greb, Pittsburgh Gazzette-Times gave verdict to Norfolk.

On February 8, 2010, Davis changed it to read: Pittsburgh Post, Pittsburgh Times, and AP gave out to Greb, Pittsburgh Gazette-Times gave verdict to Norfolk.

In the Ring Record Book, the bout was listed as a No-Decision up to and including the 1985 RRB. In the 1986-87 RRB, which was the last Ring Record Book, they listed it as ND-W for Greb.

[carlos slim]

lol at the old timers that convince themselves a cyclops they barely ****in know what he looks like was the GOAT....

[mickey malone]

There's enough footage on Greb's opponents to make a judgement on how good he was.. One thing's for sure - he didn't sit inside a sprawling country mansion for months on end wearing silk pyjamas, and waiting for a an offer in excess of 10 million bucks to persuede him into the gym..

[carlos slim]

and how do we know he didnt fight like calzaghe?