Marvin Hagler v.s Harry Greb

[Bad_Intentions]

hagler UD 10th

[Titan1]

Hagler by UD, but Greb would give him hell in the worst way.

[JimmyShimmy]

There's no way in hell that Hagler would outpoint the speedy Greb.

Greb would simply 'out-do' Hagler in every way.

[Bad_Intentions]

There's no way in hell that Hagler would outpoint the speedy Greb.

Greb would simply 'out-do' Hagler in every way.beat him by a decision? yes of course

by a KO? hell no.

[rekcutnevets]

Do you mean this Harry Greb: [Only registered and activated users can see links]

It is impossible to judge fighters with such limted film footage. All you have to go on is reputation, and that was determined by whoever wrote whatever piece that featured such fighters. There is no way you can actually give a propper analysis.

All you can do is say how well Hagler's reputation matches up against Greb's. Or how the footage we have of Hagler fighting matches up with the written accounts of Greb's fights.

If all I have to go on is the film I linked to previously, Hagler slaughters him. To be fair to Greb, I won't make a call on this one. He may have been better than that.

[joe33]

Do you mean this Harry Greb: [Only registered and activated users can see links]

It is impossible to judge fighters with such limted film footage. All you have to go on is reputation, and that was determined by whoever wrote whatever piece that featured such fighters. There is no way you can actually give a propper analysis.

All you can do is say how well Hagler's reputation matches up against Greb's. Or how the footage we have of Hagler fighting matches up with the written accounts of Greb's fights.

If all I have to go on is the film I linked to previously, Hagler slaughters him. To be fair to Greb, I won't make a call on this one. He may have been better than that.

But if you check the guys record mate,that surley shows he was fucking awesome,that is some bad footage,but so what really,he beat shit loads of top boys,and that is on his record,he therefore must have had something,maybe he was screwing about on that film,god knows.

[rekcutnevets]

A lot of old time fighters look that way on film. That is why Jimmy Jacobs argued with Cus D'mato about the way some old time fighters would do against fighters from more recent eras. Cus finally admitted Jacobs was right about the way pioneers would match up against modern fighters. Techniques keep evolving and get better through time. People correct the mistakes that people before them made.

I have always argued that if someone was good in another era, you should give them the benefit of the doubt. If they had the same conditioning knowledge, and had the same techniques available to learn; they could have a chance of being just as dominant in another era.

I also said that it would not be fair to Greb to make a choice against him in this fight.

Greb may have been able to defeat opponents of his era, but they may have all had unevolved techniques. He may have been the best with the techniques used in his day. There is too little footage of him to really tell.

[Bad_Intentions]

A lot of old time fighters look that way on film. That is why Jimmy Jacobs argued with Cus D'mato about the way some old time fighters would do against fighters from more recent eras. Cus finally admitted Jacobs was right about the way pioneers would match up against modern fighters. Techniques keep evolving and get better through time. People correct the mistakes that people before them made.

I have always argued that if someone was good in another era, you should give them the benefit of the doubt. If they had the same conditioning knowledge, and had the same techniques available to learn; they could have a chance of being just as dominant in another era.

I also said that it would not be fair to Greb to make a choice against him in this fight.

Greb may have been able to defeat opponents of his era, but they may have all had unevolved techniques. He may have been the best with the techniques used in his day. There is too little footage of him to really tell.that don't mean anything, his record tells it.

[rekcutnevets]

Why were the fighters he faced so good? Because you have read that they were. Why is he condidered so good? You read that he was.

I said it is unfair to call against people like this. If you call for them, you are just going by legend.

Valuev's record is pretty good. Do you consider him an all time great. Oh, wait. You have filmed footage against the guys he's faced to downgrade them. What about Michalczewski? Oh yeah, more footage.

I think that Bigfoot takes Greb with no problems. You have about as much footage of Bigfoot on film to judge this.

[dalek]

Why were the fighters he faced so good? Because you have read that they were. Why is he condidered so good? You read that he was.

I said it is unfair to call against people like this. If you call for them, you are just going by legend.

Valuev's record is pretty good. Do you consider him an all time great. Oh, wait. You have filmed footage against the guys he's faced to downgrade them. What about Michalczewski? Oh yeah, more footage.

I think that Bigfoot takes Greb with no problems. You have about as much footage of Bigfoot on film to judge this.
fighters like loughran and tunney look pretty good on film and greb beat them,he must have been good at neutralising his opponents strengths,another who looks pretty good is mickey walker,i've got the fight report with greb and mickey takes a beating.stylistically from loughran to walker there is a huge difference and he bettered both.

[janitor]

Why were the fighters he faced so good? Because you have read that they were. Why is he condidered so good? You read that he was.


But we know how good his opponents were because we have film of them.

Could Marvin Hagler beat Harry Greb?

Theoreticaly yes.

Could Marvin Hagler beat Gene Tunney?

Almost certainly not.

[rekcutnevets]

Okay guys. I'll go along with your thoughts. Styles don't make fights, records do. You don't need to see a fighter on film to be able to judge how they match up with another fighter. You can just say oh, Greb beat this guy so he can beat Marvin too. I read Greb can slip a south paw jab, must be so.

Foreman could easily handle Norton and Frazier, so he should be able to take Ali too.

Vargas got the decision over Wright in a close, but disputed fight. Trinidad was able to beat Vargas by Ko in a fight Trinidad was winning on points. Sounds like a competative match up to think about Trinidad vs. Wright.

Vargas had a close decision over Wright. Vargs lost in the eyes of many, but got the win. Vargas beat Ike Quartey. Quartey lost to Forrest, but most observers thought he won. Forrest and Wright have to convincing wins over Shane Mosley. Vargas should be favored over Mosley because Vargas' loss to De la Hoya is negated by his wins over Wright and Quartey.

If you judge soley on records, and not style match ups, these things sound perfectly logical.

When you have someone's record to compare with another's, you can compare how dominant each other were. You have to have video to really compare their styles. Why is that point not valid?

Greb may have been able to take Marvin, but you can't look at anything he has done and compare it to Hagler. You can read about what he's done, and compare. There is a difference.

If you can pick a fight that way so be it. I'll take Figg over Sullivan, Sullivan over Broughton. Mendoza can take them all.

[janitor]

If you can pick a fight that way so be it. I'll take Figg over Sullivan, Sullivan over Broughton. Mendoza can take them all.

There is no reason why you should not try to predict the outcom of Figg vs Sullivan or Mendoza vs Broughton provided you make it clear what asumptions your prediction rests on.

[mcvey]

hagler UD 10th
There are very very few middleweights I would pick over Hagler,but Greb would be one of them,by u dec.

[rekcutnevets]

Because the assumptions you base it on are written accounts. You can't see these people fight. So you are really debating legend vs. legend.

I think Robert Maynard would not have been able to outsword fight Edward Teach. I believe that Teach was distracted, and that was how Maynard cut him bad enought that he finally bled to death. Maynard was a tough guy, but not mean enough for Teach.

[janitor]

[quote=rekcutnevets]Because the assumptions you base it on are written accounts. You can't see these people fight. So you are really debating legend vs. legend.


the crucial difference between Greb abd Fig is that while we have film of neither of them we do have film of many of Greb's oponents.

Combine film of say Gene Tunney with a contemporary acount of their first fight and you get a prety good idea of what he could do.


I think Robert Maynard would not have been able to outsword fight Edward Teach. I believe that Teach was distracted, and that was how Maynard cut him bad enought that he finally bled to death. Maynard was a tough guy, but not mean enough for Teach.


Teach took five pistol balls before he was stoped and he still broke Maynards sword and put him on the deck before a crewman cut him down from behind.

One on one Teach would have easily beaten Maynard in a sword fight.

[mcvey]

A lot of old time fighters look that way on film. That is why Jimmy Jacobs argued with Cus D'mato about the way some old time fighters would do against fighters from more recent eras. Cus finally admitted Jacobs was right about the way pioneers would match up against modern fighters. Techniques keep evolving and get better through time. People correct the mistakes that people before them made.

I have always argued that if someone was good in another era, you should give them the benefit of the doubt. If they had the same conditioning knowledge, and had the same techniques available to learn; they could have a chance of being just as dominant in another era.

I also said that it would not be fair to Greb to make a choice against him in this fight.

Greb may have been able to defeat opponents of his era, but they may have all had unevolved techniques. He may have been the best with the techniques used in his day. There is too little footage of him to really tell.
Do you think that boxing technique has evolved significantly since Grebs time? If so in what way? There is no doubt todays fighters have the benefit of better training and nutrition but are they more skilled?Today a Bernard Hopkins is hailed as an ATG,he is very good no doubt but the level of competion ,and the depth of talent isnt there any more,boxing is a minority sport today and its talent pool suffers badly because it has to compete with so many other sports,many fighters today arent allowed the time to develpo into complete fighters,the emphasis is on staying unbeaten and looking good on ppv.For every Hagler,Chavez,Delahoya,Leonard ,there are 50 guys who have only mastered the rudiments of their trade,look at Trinidad,Wright a good but not great fighter schooled him,Tito was unable to slip Winkys jab and ate it all night ,it was a cake walk,any fighter with fast hands is lauded as a potential SRR,eg Mosley ,who was beaten by Forrests jab and right cross,these arent secret weapons ,they are the basics in any fighters armoury,when we see a Toney or a Hopkins we say they are "old school",and they are but can they do anything that a Giardellocouldnt do?Boxing technique has regressed not improved in my opinion,so thats why ,allied with film of his opponents and his stellar record I pick Harry greb to beat Hagler ,Greb beat rated Heavies and Light heavies ,Hagler stayed in his 160 comfort zone.

[rekcutnevets]

Again. My point is that you have no footage of Greb to analyze his style. Who he beat means he was great in his era. You still can't look at how he beat the guys he beat, and give an accurate account for it. You can say he was great then, and should be great now, but you can not analyze his style and say for sure how he match with someone else from a different time.

[rekcutnevets]

Boxing techniques may have regressed in recent years, but they have progressed since the early part of the 20th century. Watch the earliest footage available for boxing, and give an honest look at the guys fighting. They don't look as skilled as fighters from the 1930's onward. I think you do have a point about its regressing since the 80's to some extent, but today's fighters look like they have more technique when compared to anyone you have on film from the 1920's and before.

[JohnBKelly]

We are of course talking abouth the same Marvin Hagler who had tough nights against Kevin Finnegan, Vito Antuofermo and Juan Roldan. Guys whose styles were not what you would call classical. Hagler would have a tough night against a durable and dirty guy like Greb. Bad film footage doesn't make a bad fighter, watch Ali against Evangelista or Wepner and he certainly doesn't look like an ATG. Watch him against Frazier or Foreman and you see a different fighter. Why does Greb get marked down because he isn't taking a sparring session with a geriatric too seriously.

[heerko koois]

Hagler by ko .........

[rekcutnevets]

Look, JohnBKelly, no one has said mark him down as a lesser fighter.

What is so hard to understand? If you can't see someone fight, you can't give an accurate analysis of how they would look against someone else.
You can't. If you can tell me how. Don't say look at his record. That has nothing to do with how he counters a jab. Don't say he beat so and so. It doesn't show how he deals with straight right hands. You can't say you read an article by such and such. Such and such may not have been sober when such and such watched the match they were reporting.

Writers may be giving accurat depictions, but you don't know if they were or not if you can't see it too. Why is this so difficult to accept?

[Vockerman]

If I were training the Marvelous One for this fight this is what I would tell him.

(gathered from many sources but not of course from video)

Be Aware...

You are going to fight an animal in a deathmatch. He has tremendous aggression and no fear. He will throw punches from the opening bell until the end of the last round. He is as dirty as they come. Everyone who ever saw him in action commented on his speed and ferocity. His chin is Iron, you will be in for a long fight.

HOWEVER: He isn't a KO artist - he isn't likely to take you out. He isn't a clever boxer - you CAN get your punches in he CAN be hit. He isn't pretty, so he will have to outwork you on the inside consistently to win rounds and that is his only gameplan. But do not underestimate that plan because he is a master at executing it.

Marvin your fight winning edge is going to be your ability to outmuscle him on the inside with your clinch to smother his attack WHILE making him pay every time he tries to bore in. You do this with your accuracy and lateral movement.

Since you are a southpaw forget the jab. No one kept Greb off them with a jab anyway so don't even try. He is too fast to hit at long range, you catch him comming to you. When he does come in you throw short sharp lead left crosses as he closes and follow up with hook to the body, uppercut, hook to the head and clinch if you can't turn the corner on him and open the range to make his eat this combo again. And again. And again.

You are tough and are not afraid to brawl with anyone - that fight is 50/50 with Greb. Don't get lured into going toe to toe with Greb, that is HIS best chance to win, a war of attrition is what HE does. You will catch too many butts, thumbs and elbows infighting with that dirty bastard.

You are the better boxer - so BOX!

Come to this fight in the shape of your life and don't take a single round off.

Every round you aren't giving your best and landing the harder cleaner punches and tying him up will be a lost round for you due to Grebs’ workrate.

Every round you catch Greb charging in with combo’s and tie him up before he can maul you will be a won round for you.

You have to win at least 8 of those. Don’t count on them being the last eight – that won’t happen. Look at what coasting in the early rounds got you in the Leonard fight!

You can and you will win if you want it as badly as he does and are in the kind of shape you displayed throughout most of your career if you execute this plan.

At least I don't have to worry about you fighting down to your opponents’ level -

[joe33]

To me personaly the guys back then were far harder and lived a far tougher life then MOST of todays fighters,sure styles have got better and better,but shit no matter what era you come from if your tough your tough,and id say greb was fucking tough as nails.Its a bit like saying a roman legionaire was not as good as a american marine or british para today,because of equitment and training,and id have to say bollocks to that,a few legions in iraq would brutaly clear the whole area out of insergents no problems,kind of silly way to look at it,but it bugs me when people say old school fighters were bad and would be slaughtered now.

[rekcutnevets]

Who said old school fighters would be slaughtered now? I don't think anyone in this thread said that.

In fact, I said techniques may have evolved, but if old school fighters were living in the same era as modern fighters, they would have access to the same techniques. That has nothing to do with my argument here. My argument is that you can't get a view of someone's style without viewing it. You are simply reading about how others viewed a style.

[Bummy Davis]

Greb by clear cut UD over 15

[rekcutnevets]

Hagler by easy decision. Show me footage of Greb that proves otherwise.

[Thinman]

Hagler by easy decision. Show me footage of Greb that proves otherwise.

This is something that I have asked before. I have asked a few times to some posters to show me some clips of a boxer, so I can give my opinion regarding a particular match, but I don't get an answer.

I don't understand how some people can give an opinion and not hesitate at all, considering that they have never seen that boxer fighting.

I don't have the knowledge that many of the posters who post in this forum have, and that's the reason I ask for some clips to have an idea.

I think your question is fair.

[dalek]

This is something that I have asked before. I have asked a few times to some posters to show me some clips of a boxer, so I can give my opinion regarding a particular match, but I don't get an answer.

I don't understand how some people can give an opinion and not hesitate at all, considering that they have never seen that boxer fighting.

I don't have the knowledge that many of the posters who post in this forum have, and that's the reason I ask for some clips to have an idea.

I think your question is fair.
how is it fair?to say hagler unless you show me otherwise is ludicrous,if a person thinks greb wins but you can't agree through no footage then you can't just simply pick the other guy-why not just say i haven't got a clue.

[robert ungurean]

Greb on points.

[Sizzle]

Hagler TKO3

[Thinman]

how is it fair?to say hagler unless you show me otherwise is ludicrous,if a person thinks greb wins but you can't agree through no footage then you can't just simply pick the other guy-why not just say i haven't got a clue.

Sorry if I misled you. My statement is a conclusion of all his posts and not necessarily the last one. He has been mentioning the same thing I mentioned, which is 'how can somebody be so sure about a boxer he has never seen fighting?'

What he's doing at the end, in his last post, is being sarcarstic, he's basically showing that is not wise to pick a boxer you have never seen fighting. He's basically doing the same some posters are doing, with a little twist, he's picking Hagler, who is the one that he has seeing, but he has never seeing Greb.

That's why hes saying " Show me footage of Greb that proves otherwise". Do you see the sarcasm there?

[janitor]

Hagler TKO3

Since virtualy everybody from welterweight to heavyweight tried and failed to put Greb away in his own time I doubt that anybody is doing it in three.

Punish yourself.

[dmt]

Since virtualy everybody from welterweight to heavyweight tried and failed to put Greb away in his own time I doubt that anybody is doing it in three.

Punish yourself.Don't bother listening to him mate. He thinks Dempsey's legacy is hurt by the fact he didn't face a 50 year old Johnson just like Tyson's legacy is jurt since he did not face a 50 year old Foreman

[Duodenum]

Hagler W 15 Greb

Harry Greb's legs were observed to be fading slightly in his successful defense against Mickey Walker, but he still reportedly handled Walker well for a conclusive win.

Most ringside observers believed that Greb also did enough to deserve a decision win in both controversial losses to southpaw Tiger Flowers. Still, I suspect the different stance of a MW the caliber of the Deacon had to compromise Greb's effectiveness to a certain extent, regardless of any decline on Harry's part.

At the very least, Hagler should certainly be allowed as the greatest southpaw MW champ to date. Even a peak Greb isn't going to threaten to take Marv out. This is going 15 rounds, with no KDs. Unlike most southpaws, Hagler's business end is really his right. Keep that jab after Greb continually, mixing in some left crosses downstairs. If Harry tries to get under that jab low, use the right to uppercut.

Hagler's closest opponent to Greb was probably Antuofermo. In his rematch with Vito, he demonstrated that he learned from his previous draw very well. Harry will try darting in and out. Have the jab ready to thwart Greb's advance when he closes. It's going the distance, so be sure to be the one punching cleanly, and with straighter blows. Stay disciplined.

For Greb, he needs to emulate Antuofermo as best he can. He probably didn't have Vito's physical strength, but he wasn't hampered by Antuofermo's susceptibility to cuts either. Running at Hagler, fists flying, head butting, gloves thumbing, laces raking, all too fast for the referee to pick up on, racing around Hagler when in close.

Ultimately bouts are won by punching, and I believe Hagler's delivery of his would be more clearly discernable, but the only outcome I'd place money on, is that the match goes the distance.

[SLAKKA]

Well Ray Arcel didn't need any Greb film because he evaluated both as ringside observer and he chose Greb over Hagler BIG TIME!!
This was published information in Boxing Illustrated 1984. Also, if you found 1924 Gene Tunney impressive vs Carp as did Muhammad Ali calling Tunney "A White Ali" keep in mind over the hill half blind middleweight Harry Greb defeated prime 182 lb Gene in a ten round newspaper decision in that very same year in Cleveland according to the majority of ringside reports.

[janitor]

It must be a hard life being a Greb critic.

You can't try to pull his record apart and those of his key opponents, because you would be here till kingdom come.

The only way to do it is to drop a hydrogen bomb on the entire era by saying that everybody in that era sucked, so it dosn't matter what he achieved.

Of course this approach produces a huge fallout, and considerable colateral damage to adjacent eras.

[MRBILL]

Hagler is too skilled and rounded for Greb...... Greb is made-to-order for the likes of Hagler...........

Hagler always excelled on maulers / brawlers who forced the action...... Boxers (Duran & Leonard) who kept there distance and gave different angles troubled Hagler to a degree.......

Harry Greb was solid and great at 160, but he was no slickster with finess, etc......

Hagler gets to Greb late....... HAGLER!!

MR.BILL:deal

[timmers612]

Do you mean this Harry Greb: [Only registered and activated users can see links]

It is impossible to judge fighters with such limted film footage. All you have to go on is reputation, and that was determined by whoever wrote whatever piece that featured such fighters. There is no way you can actually give a propper analysis.

All you can do is say how well Hagler's reputation matches up against Greb's. Or how the footage we have of Hagler fighting matches up with the written accounts of Greb's fights.

If all I have to go on is the film I linked to previously, Hagler slaughters him. To be fair to Greb, I won't make a call on this one. He may have been better than that.

The only fair response. The short films do show a few structural problems with Greb that also show in photos of his bouts. His right elbow is way up in both films and photos which today would be seen as amatureish, leaving him open to left hooks to the body (something Tommy Loughran said was needed to beat Harry) and not able to put much into the punches, etc.

[Jorodz]

Since virtualy everybody from welterweight to heavyweight tried and failed to put Greb away in his own time I doubt that anybody is doing it in three.

Punish yourself.

JUST about everybody. joe chip did i believe

[janitor]

Hagler is too skilled and rounded for Greb...... Greb is made-to-order for the likes of Hagler...........

Hagler always excelled on maulers / brawlers who forced the action...... Boxers (Duran & Leonard) who kept there distance and gave different angles troubled Hagler to a degree.......

Harry Greb was solid and great at 160, but he was no slickster with finess, etc......

Hagler gets to Greb late....... HAGLER!!

MR.BILL:deal

You would be doing Greb a grave injustice if you said that he was just a brawler.

Greb seems to have switched styles at will between being a swarmer and a slick boxer. He could out box the slick boxers of the day and out maul the maulers.

He beat the number of top fighters that he beat for a reason.

He could always find a style that frustrated theirs.

[Pachilles]

It must be a hard life being a Greb critic.

You can't try to pull his record apart and those of his key opponents, because you would be here till kingdom come.

The only way to do it is to drop a hydrogen bomb on the entire era by saying that everybody in that era sucked, so it dosn't matter what he achieved.

Of course this approach produces a huge fallout, and considerable colateral damage to adjacent eras.

You can say that every single fighter you've seen from that era looks like absolute dogshit in a world class sense. Gene Tunney looks ahead of his time but still is not that impressive. You guys just make such a big deal about him because he's the only guy that doesnt look cruder than crude.

On the other hand, Hagler looks like a master. So i'll go with the visual evidence.

[janitor]

JUST about everybody. joe chip did i believe

Greb was 17 years old and weighed 142 pounds to Chips 156.

This fight might perhaps not be verry relevant?

[janitor]

You can say that every single fighter you've seen from that era looks like absolute dogshit in a world class sense. Gene Tunney looks ahead of his time but still is not that impressive. You guys just make such a big deal about him because he's the only guy that doesnt look cruder than crude.

On the other hand, Hagler looks like a master. So i'll go with the visual evidence.

Do you honestly think that Hagler would hang with Tunney based on the film evidence?

Be honest.

[Jorodz]

Greb was 17 years old and weighed 142 pounds to Chips 156.

This fight might perhaps not be verry relevant?

:tongdetails, details

[MRBILL]

I saw Hagler up close in the early to mid-80s........... Hagler was the man...... A solid package......... KO mag's # 1 man from 1984 thru 1986....... HAGLER!!

MR.BILL

[burt bienstock]

It must be a hard life being a Greb critic.

You can't try to pull his record apart and those of his key opponents, because you would be here till kingdom come.

The only way to do it is to drop a hydrogen bomb on the entire era by saying that everybody in that era sucked, so it dosn't matter what he achieved.

Of course this approach produces a huge fallout, and considerable colateral damage to adjacent eras.
Janitor, well said...
To the naysayers,spouting the old bromide, "well I have not seen any film of Greb, therefore the vast majority of historians, who have seen and lauded him doesn't count, for I am omnipotent "...That is in effect what bthey are implying. No Less.
And of course they saw the clip of Greb ,recently discovered,showing Harry in 1925 ,clowning around with a 50ish Phil.Jack O'Brien who owned
the gym,preparing for Greb's bout with the great Mickey Walker, who
Greb soundly whipped...Do they think that this is the REAL harry Greb
who terrorized three divisions of many GREAT Hall of Fame fighters.
Do they think that Charlie Chaplin walked differently than they do, watching his films ? Than they are sadly mistaken or boxing fans who
have not read and ABSORBED, the fabulous and unique career of a
middleweight, who [it bears repeating] licked the likes of Tunney, Gibbons,Loughran, Jack Dillon, Battling Levinsky,Gunboatr Smith, Maxie
Rosenbloom.Brennan etc,and a host of other great fighters in a hectic
career of 300 bouts...Most of these guys came from a tough era ,and
fought over 100 times..They fought without mouthpieces, with thin gloves,no 3 knockdown rules, no A/C hotel rooms etc. But they had
full time trainers, numerous more opponents which hardened them
fighting so often...These fighters from my fathers time were no
Neanderthals, I can assure you...
Hagler was great , but Greb was immortal...

[Jorodz]

ring magazine did an interesting article about this in their best fights you never saw issue, they gave greb a VERY close fight.

i have trouble with this one as stylistically it could go many ways and i don't want to pick greb on reflex. i think as Duodenum pointed out vito may be the closest that hagler faced. an all action, dirty fighting, non stop swarmer though is different though that the mosquito.

i see hagler starting out slow, as always and losing the first 3. after which he starts snaring out the jab and steals back some rounds. greb comes back in the middle rounds and hagler has trouble keeping him off. marvin, always a small middleweight, cannot match grebs strength but he causes some confusion switch hitting and sticks with the southpaw stance.

greb is leading on points after 10 and hagler is cut but he turns into a brawler in the 11th, hoping his superior firepower can turn the tide. greb is taken aback at not having to chase hagler down and drops the next two rounds.

the final 3 rounds are fiercly fought, with the fight nearly on even terms. Hagler though is suprised when greb sits down on his punches and loses the last 2 in a wild, final 6 minutes

Greb SD Hagler

[SLAKKA]

Hagler is too skilled and rounded for Greb...... Greb is made-to-order for the likes of Hagler...........

Hagler always excelled on maulers / brawlers who forced the action...... Boxers (Duran & Leonard) who kept there distance and gave different angles troubled Hagler to a degree.......

Harry Greb was solid and great at 160, but he was no slickster with finess, etc......

Hagler gets to Greb late....... HAGLER!!

MR.BILL:deal

This is an anti Greb description if ever a read one. Gene Tunneys said Greb possessed a ring cunning far beyond estimates made of him in the press.

[burt bienstock]

ring magazine did an interesting article about this in their best fights you never saw issue, they gave greb a VERY close fight.

i have trouble with this one as stylistically it could go many ways and i don't want to pick greb on reflex. i think as Duodenum pointed out vito may be the closest that hagler faced. an all action, dirty fighting, non stop swarmer though is different though that the mosquito.

i see hagler starting out slow, as always and losing the first 3. after which he starts snaring out the jab and steals back some rounds. greb comes back in the middle rounds and hagler has trouble keeping him off. marvin, always a small middleweight, cannot match grebs strength but he causes some confusion switch hitting and sticks with the southpaw stance.

greb is leading on points after 10 and hagler is cut but he turns into a brawler in the 11th, hoping his superior firepower can turn the tide. greb is taken aback at not having to chase hagler down and drops the next two rounds.

the final 3 rounds are fiercly fought, with the fight nearly on even terms. Hagler though is suprised when greb sits down on his punches and loses the last 2 in a wild, final 6 minutes

Greb SD Hagler
There is a world of difference between a Vito A and Greb stylistically.
Vito was a tough plodder who was in your face and cut easely around the face..Greb had a style that would bewilder an opponent...He was bouncing around on his toes, throwing volleys of punches from every possible angle
into his opponent with accuracy..He was tireless from start to finish, and Greb SELDOM cut ...As Tunney described Greb ,"he couldn't be timed ".
Just think of Greb fighting from town to town bi-weekly ,larger men of
all styles,not seeing film of his opponents, and PREVAILING!
What fortitude stamina and ability that required in 300 fights..
Hagler with only 67 fights, and great as he was, could have never duplicated the career of the Pittsburgh Windmill...That is why Greb was
unique !!!

[janitor]

I saw Hagler up close in the early to mid-80s........... Hagler was the man...... A solid package......... KO mag's # 1 man from 1984 thru 1986....... HAGLER!!

MR.BILL

I envy you on having seen some Hagler action up close.

[Jorodz]

There is a world of difference between a Vito A and Greb stylistically.
Vito was a tough plodder who was in your face and cut easely around the face..Greb had a style that would bewilder an opponent...He was bouncing around on his toes, throwing volleys of punches from every possible angle
into his opponent with accuracy..He was tireless from start to finish, and Greb SELDOM cut ...As Tunney described Greb ,"he couldn't be timed ".
Just think of Greb fighting from town to town bi-weekly ,larger men of
all styles,not seeing film of his opponents, and PREVAILING!
What fortitude stamina and ability that required in 300 fights..
Hagler with only 67 fights, and great as he was, could have never duplicated the career of the Pittsburgh Windmill...That is why Greb was
unique !!!

oh for certain. Vito A was the CLOSEST to greb imo (could be wrong) but he's not that close to be honest. for my money, hagler is probably the 2nd best middleweight of all time. from the caveman lee fight until hearns I would only put money on one fighter against him: harry greb. not even robinson. at 160 he was the most complete middleweight i've ever seen and one of the best at any weight. even money with monzon but only greb i feel should be favoured

[manbearpig]

No way of making an educated analysis until film of him fighting is unearthed.

[Pachilles]

Do you honestly think that Hagler would hang with Tunney based on the film evidence?

Be honest.

I honestly do. He'd beat Jack Dempsey also.

[Jersey Joe]

The one thing no MW can do with Hagler is go after him. It just fires him up and he has the toughness, conditioning and skills to fuck up any boxer who tries to take the fight to him. Look at what happened to Mugabi, Hearns, every other guy who tried to take him out. Greb has exactly that aggressive style, and the one fighter he struggled with was tough boxer-puncher Gene Tunney.

The way to beat Hagler is to be less aggressive and outbox him, like Leonard, or Duran did at times. Marvin was excessively respectful to his better opponents and that could be exploited.

So IMO, if Greb does his usual aggressive game, I would favour Hagler slightly to win this. He has the toughness, stamina and boxing skills to do well against a swarming type fighter. Hagler was a superb inside fighter, even though he rarely did it. Check out his last couple of rounds vs Duran, roughing him up with precise inside punching, and Roberto was no slouch.

[Jersey Joe]

Hagler by ko .........

Greb was KOd once in over 300 fights, at age 19. And he fought LHWs and a few HWs. I doubt he is getting KOd by Hagler.

[TheBradyHawkes]

No way of making an educated analysis until film of him fighting is unearthed.

This. I find these type of hypotheticals impossible to imagine with fighters that have little to no footage available. I also rate Hagler above Greb at MW for that very reason.

[MRBILL]

This is an anti Greb description if ever a read one. Gene Tunneys said Greb possessed a ring cunning far beyond estimates made of him in the press.


Yeah, but Gene Tunney never knew or ever even heard of Hagler before..... Tunney took his last breath of air in 1978 when Hagler was an up and comer at 160 for Christ Sakes.....

Sure, okay, so Tunney dropped a nod to Greb when Tunney was still kinda' green, but last I checked, Tunney got back at Greb with 3 or 4 wins between the pair as time went on......

ALSO! I never said Hagler of 1981 who was a peaked 160 pounds of ripped muscle, could ever beat the mid-20s to late-20s version of Gene Tunney who was easily 185 to 192 pounds of toned muscle on his 6' frame......

I still say at 160 Hagler is too skilled and good for the legendary and fabled Grebbermeister.......

MR.BILL:bbb:hi:

[MRBILL]

I can't see or envision Harold Greb feinting and turning Hagler in the manner that boxer / puncher's like "Duran and Leonard" were able to do in 1983 and in 1987 against Hagler.......

I picture Greb attacking Hagler in the manner of "Roldan and Mugabi." Okay, we all know Hagler had his hands full there, but, he did prevail big time in the end.......

And, yes, my balls, brain, brawn and guts do indicate that I will rate the 1984 and 1986 versions of Juan Roldan and John Mugabi in the same class as of a Harold Greb of 1923.... Both Roldan and Mugabi were primed to wage war on Marvin Hagler upon getting their title shots..........

MR.BILL

[Senya13]

Boxers (Duran & Leonard) who kept there distance and gave different angles troubled Hagler to a degree.......
Greb was using angles like no other boxer, and due to his always being on his toes, he was in with a punch or few, and out at a distance before the opponent desided to throw something in return.

[janitor]

I honestly do. He'd beat Jack Dempsey also.

You are of course entitled to your opinion but it is a somewhat eccentric one.

[MRBILL]

Well, since no real footage exists of these 'Greb' angles, I gotta assume they were the typical wild and crazy swings that Greb was said to have thrown that in turn also left Greb off-balance and in rather bizarre punching stances..... Still, okay, that would create problems for a polished boxer like Hagler was...... I can see that..... BUT! Hagler was a precise counter-puncher who rarely ever went off-balance... Therefore, I see Hagler making Greb miss and then nailing him good in return....... I also see Hagler's sharp punches ripping or tearing up Greb's mug as the battle goes on.......

MR.BILL

[Senya13]

The reason why one of his opponents said he thought he had a carload of gloves dropped on him (there were lots of variations of this phrase in next-day reports after almost every fight with Greb), was because the punches were coming from different angles, Greb would move left and right and up and down when throwing punches. Sure they had no steam behind them, but it was almost impossible to predict where next punch would come from. Greb wasn't at all discouraged if he missed, he just kept doing his things.

[MRBILL]

Well, "swarmer" or "boxer" of the ring, every fighter has gotten frustrated or discouraged at one point or another..... Especially after a loss......

As for the old gloves....... Harry Greb used them shitty pre-1930 gloves where you could move the padding all around the inside of the glove to suit your evil intentions upside your intended victims head.... Problem with them gloves was, if you mis-wrapped your paws prior to a fight, you were looking at either broken or bruised hands.... To this day it is still a problem.....

Note: Neither Hagler or Greb were really credited as being murderous punchers.... Yet both dude's owned good enough power to close the show.....

MR.BILL

[crippet]

These written accounts always remind me of old silent actor Lon Chaney Senior.
He earned the monicker the man of a thousand faces and was regarded a the greatest actor ever, unfortunately many of his older movies were destroyed or damaged and it was just word of mouth which gave him such a brilliant reputation.
A number of years later many of these lost films were re-found and when re-evaluated by movie experts and the general public, it turns out that his acting was just ok nothing out of the ordinary. It's basically the curiosity aroused from the lack of footage which led to greater debate which in turn created a life of it's own and an aura of greatness around something only few had witnessed.
This is what happened with Greb, he is put on a pedestal in the minds eye of boxing afficionados without having solid visual evidence - just human nature really, but to be taken with a pinch of salt!

[Nonameboy]

Greb by decision.

[burt bienstock]

These written accounts always remind me of old silent actor Lon Chaney Senior.
He earned the monicker the man of a thousand faces and was regarded a the greatest actor ever, unfortunately many of his older movies were destroyed or damaged and it was just word of mouth which gave him such a brilliant reputation.
A number of years later many of these lost films were re-found and when re-evaluated by movie experts and the general public, it turns out that his acting was just ok nothing out of the ordinary. It's basically the curiosity aroused from the lack of footage which led to greater debate which in turn created a life of it's own and an aura of greatness around something only few had witnessed.
This is what happened with Greb, he is put on a pedestal in the minds eye of boxing afficionados without having solid visual evidence - just human nature really, but to be taken with a pinch of salt!
No disrespect, but the reason that Harry Greb was put on a "pedestal",and was held in awe by his peers was because Greb EARNED IT...
I cannot understand how some Doubting Thomasts of today do not give
full credit to a 160 lb fighter who licked every HOFamer he fought,
usually outweighed by many many pounds, who had about 300 bouts,
beating the likes of Gene Tunney, Tommy Gibbons, Jack Dillon, Tommy Loughran,Maxie Rosenbloom, Gunboat Smith, Bill Brennan HW,many times,
Mickey Walker, and a host of other great fighters who are seen on old fims
that survive...All the great trainers of his time and after extolled Greb's
amazing toughness, handspeed, speed afoot, and inhuman stamina,
but you 80-90 years later claim " you don't have solid evidence".
Well I have never seen or heard Abraham Lincoln speak, but I know his
greatness from his work and DEEDS..And so with Harry Greb's deeds
speak for itself...
P.S. And it must be reminded again. Greb had sight in one eye only in the last part of his astounding career ....
P.P.S. One more question to you. Marvin Hagler had 67 bouts in his entire career..Greb had 299 fights..Do you think that Hagler who was already slipping in his last bout with SRL, could have fought 232 more bouts, agains bigger foes, as Greb did and survive the opponents that Greb did ? I think not. Hagler was great, The Pittsburgh
Windmill was awesome...

[Duranium]

No disrespect, but the reason that Harry Greb was put on a "pedestal",and was held in awe by his peers was because Greb EARNED IT...
I cannot understand how some Doubting Thomasts of today do not give
full credit to a 160 lb fighter who licked every HOFamer he fought,
usually outweighed by many many pounds, who had about 300 bouts,
beating the likes of Gene Tunney, Tommy Gibbons, Jack Dillon, Tommy Loughran,Maxie Rosenbloom, Gunboat Smith, Bill Brennan HW,many times,
Mickey Walker, and a host of other great fighters who are seen on old fims
that survive...All the great trainers of his time and after extolled Greb's
amazing toughness, handspeed, speed afoot, and inhuman stamina,
but you 80-90 years later claim " you don't have solid evidence".
Well I have never seen or heard Abraham Lincoln speak, but I know his
greatness from his work and DEEDS..And so with Harry Greb's deeds
speak for itself...
P.S. And it must be reminded again. Greb had sight in one eye only in the last part of his astounding career ....

burt is gay for robots

[SLAKKA]

[quote=crippet;7475072]These written accounts always remind me of old silent actor Lon Chaney Senior.
He earned the monicker the man of a thousand faces and was regarded a the greatest actor ever, unfortunately many of his older movies were destroyed or damaged and it was just word of mouth which gave him such a brilliant reputation.
A number of years later many of these lost films were re-found and when re-evaluated by movie experts and the general public, it turns out that his acting was just ok nothing out of the ordinary. It's basically the curiosity aroused from the lack of footage which led to greater debate which in turn created a life of it's own and an aura of greatness around something only few had witnessed.
This is what happened with Greb, he is put on a pedestal in the minds eye of boxing afficionados without having solid visual evidence - just human nature really, but to be taken with a pinch of salt![/quote

This is what happed with Greb?? You sound so sure!

[thistle1]

These written accounts always remind me of old silent actor Lon Chaney Senior.
He earned the monicker the man of a thousand faces and was regarded a the greatest actor ever, unfortunately many of his older movies were destroyed or damaged and it was just word of mouth which gave him such a brilliant reputation.
A number of years later many of these lost films were re-found and when re-evaluated by movie experts and the general public, it turns out that his acting was just ok nothing out of the ordinary. It's basically the curiosity aroused from the lack of footage which led to greater debate which in turn created a life of it's own and an aura of greatness around something only few had witnessed.
This is what happened with Greb, he is put on a pedestal in the minds eye of boxing afficionados without having solid visual evidence - just human nature really, but to be taken with a pinch of salt!

don't be so _ucken stupid... (British expression, NOT an insult).

You DON'T need film footage, there's enough footage of many others to see these men could fight and were great fighters, see Tony Canzoneri 20s & 30s and others too!

if Greb and other top fighters are beating all these top men, then of course their great, and keep in mind they did it FOR YEARS and years in hundreds of fights aswell.

SO, you've got EVERY FIGHT of a great fighter that had only 30-40 fights and only 1/4 or so of them against top tier, Big Deal - would they have stayed on top multiplied by dozens of fights, the history would be much different believe me.

RJJ for example would have been found out long before he was.

GREB and hundreds more from the turn of the century right thru too the 1950s ARE GREAT, no argument!

[burt bienstock]

don't be so _ucken stupid... (British expression, NOT an insult).

You DON'T need film footage, there's enough footage of many others to see these men could fight and were great fighters, see Tony Canzoneri 20s & 30s and others too!

if Greb and other top fighters are beating all these top men, then of course their great, and keep in mind they did it FOR YEARS and years in hundreds of fights aswell.

SO, you've got EVERY FIGHT of a great fighter that had only 30-40 fights and only 1/4 or so of them against top tier, Big Deal - would they have stayed on top multiplied by dozens of fights, the history would be much different believe me.

RJJ for example would have been found out long before he was.

GREB and hundreds more from the turn of the century right thru too the 1950s ARE GREAT, no argument!
:goodThistle, well said..To have 67 fights as opposed to 299 fights is a
great difference...Try doing 67 pushups as opposed to 299 pushups, if
I may use an analogy ...Which is the greater test ?...Cheerio...

[crippet]

:goodThistle, well said..To have 67 fights as opposed to 299 fights is a
great difference...Try doing 67 pushups as opposed to 299 pushups, if
I may use an analogy ...Which is the greater test ?...Cheerio...

My comments were not to denigrate Grebbs achievements but more aimed at the HTH discussions with him involved - You can't presume anyone in the history of boxing could beat Marvin Hagler without extensive footage of them, just a few 90 year old testimonies

[Surf-Bat]

These written accounts always remind me of old silent actor Lon Chaney Senior.
He earned the monicker the man of a thousand faces and was regarded a the greatest actor ever, unfortunately many of his older movies were destroyed or damaged and it was just word of mouth which gave him such a brilliant reputation.
A number of years later many of these lost films were re-found and when re-evaluated by movie experts and the general public, it turns out that his acting was just ok nothing out of the ordinary. It's basically the curiosity aroused from the lack of footage which led to greater debate which in turn created a life of it's own and an aura of greatness around something only few had witnessed.
This is what happened with Greb, he is put on a pedestal in the minds eye of boxing afficionados without having solid visual evidence - just human nature really, but to be taken with a pinch of salt!

Hi Crip. Curious to know who these movie experts were? And what was their measuring stick for acting brilliance in silent movies? And which movies are you referring to? In fact the "Phantom of the Opera" and "Hunchback of Notre Dame" were never lost, have always been in circulation and are widely praised as two of the greatest silent films ever (especially Chaney's performance and physical transformation in each). Go read any review by any respected movie expert and you will see nothing but praise for Chaney.

Keep in mind that the silent movie medium was very limiting in terms of expression. I've seen several surviving Chaney movies and his acting was just as good as any silent movie thespian. Chaney was the son of deaf mutes and literally grew up expressing himself with physical action and gesture in order to communicate with his parents. This upbringing is often pointed at as the reason for Chaney's ability to express emotion onscreen.

Anyway, sorry to get off topic...:thumbsup

[Surf-Bat]

My comments were not to denigrate Grebbs achievements but more aimed at the HTH discussions with him involved - You can't presume anyone in the history of boxing could beat Marvin Hagler without extensive footage of them, just a few 90 year old testimonies

But you can presume that anyone great enough to whip Gene Tunney, Mickey Walker, Tommy Loughran, Mike Gibbons, Maxie Rosenbloom, etc- all of whom we have film on(sans Maxie)- has more than enough to beat Marvin Hagler

[crippet]

But you can presume that anyone great enough to whip Gene Tunney, Mickey Walker, Tommy Loughran, Mike Gibbons, Maxie Rosenbloom, etc- all of whom we have film on(sans Maxie)- has more than enough to beat Marvin Hagler

But we all know that if fighter A beats fighter B who beats fighter C it never means that fighter A beats C

The idea of H2H match ups is describe how one fighter will overcome another not just state he will win because he beat someone else - not even a common opponent

[burt bienstock]

But we all know that if fighter A beats fighter B who beats fighter C it never means that fighter A beats C

The idea of H2H match ups is describe how one fighter will overcome another not just state he will win because he beat someone else - not even a common opponent
True to some extent...But a limited plodder tough though he was gave Marvin Hagler two very tough bouts...I am talking about Vito antuofermo,
who is not to be mentioned innthe same breath as Harry Greb, who was twice as fast,hand and foot, never facial cuts, through barrages of punches from every angle,and would confuse EVERY opponent nhe fought
up to heavyweghts...
I go by this standard--Could Marvin Hagler at 160lbs, lick the likes of such larger [175 lb.s and UP ]as Tunney, Loughran, Gibbons, Jack Dillon, Gunboat Smith, Maxie Rosenbloom, Battling Levinsky, Big Bill Brennan etc.
Of course the answer has to be NO...Could Harry Greb lick Marvin Haglers
opponents were they to have met...A resounding yes, I believe...
Being that Greb and Hagler never met, their respective records, and
logic must prevail...Greb had a unique style, never duplicated before or
since in 299 bouts, againbst everyone and everywhere...His likes we will
never see again....

[Jersey Joe]

Because the assumptions you base it on are written accounts. You can't see these people fight. So you are really debating legend vs. legend.

I think Robert Maynard would not have been able to outsword fight Edward Teach. I believe that Teach was distracted, and that was how Maynard cut him bad enought that he finally bled to death. Maynard was a tough guy, but not mean enough for Teach.

If the written accounts are accurate, then we can certainly form a judgement based on them. If boxing experts at the time, as well as his opponents, all said Greb was extremely fast and had an enormous punch output, then we can make some reasonable assumptions based on that. It's not as good as seeing it on film, but it is still solid evidence.

We've seen Marvin on film and we've seen he has trouble against speed and a high work rate (e.g. Leonard, Vito). So there's reason to believe he'd have trouble with a guy like Greb.

We also know that Greb beat Gene Tunney, who on film looks faster and at least as skilled as Hagler, not to mention a bigger harder-hitting man.

[Jersey Joe]

Again. My point is that you have no footage of Greb to analyze his style.

You could make the same criticism of footage - it just gives you the impression of a fight, it doesn't tell you how hard the punches were, how tough someone's chin was, how tired each fighter was, how strong they were in the clinch etc. So by your own argument, you can't judge Hagler based on film, you can only judge him if you were in the ring with him.

Also, if you can't judge fighters who've never fought on film, then you can't say Harry Greb would beat an average street punk, or even an 80 year old woman. Since that's obvious bollocks, so is this theory.

[TommyV]

Hagler TKO3

:lol:

[robert ungurean]

If we go by resumea's which we have too in this case, then the clear choice is Greb.

[tommygun711]

that don't mean anything, his record tells it.
well then look at Jimmy Young's record. Does that tell everything? No. Hell, even if you looked at Tyson's record, and you knew nothing about him, he could be a terrible fighter, based on the singular reason that he lost to Douglas, Williams, and McBride...

[gentleman jim]

I just wish we had some footage of Greb in action in order to better decide how he would do against men like Hagler, Robinson, Leonard etc. No doubt the man was great and would hold his own or better but it's difficult to break it down by comparing the stylistic differences, strengths and weaknesses, tendencies and general skill levels of two different fighters when you have absolutely no footage of one of them. No bettor in his right mind would try to handicap and lay odds on such a contest and word of mouth or written reports just wouldn't suffice. We have plenty of film of Hagler vs. many different opponents to draw a "line" so to speak but nothing on Greb. Might he have a glaring weakness that Hagler could capitalize on? Who can say? There's no footage of the man in actual combat. How the hell is there no footage of a man who fought 300 f-----g fights?!! Obviously the guy was special and as tough as nails but no one knows what he looked like or what his particular style of fighting was in battle. That's crazy! Could Hagler have been his kryptonite? Or vice versa? We can only guess and guessing is not a good way to handicap a match between these two atg's in my opinion.

[itrymariti]

True to some extent...But a limited plodder tough though he was gave Marvin Hagler two very tough bouts...I am talking about Vito antuofermo,

:lol: