Along with Henry Armstrong, Greb for my money is the most legendary boxer of all time. 45-0 in one year!!! An insane amount of names on his resume as well. So underrated
Greb's volume attack and pacing quite possibly takes the day. Hagler was superbly trained, strong from both sides and tough as nails, so a stoppage is unlikely. Greb fought up in weight, I don't think Hagler's power would trouble him, but I do think Greb's relentless barrage of punches would be too much to figure out in 1 fight and win most rounds. Now if they did a 3 fight series, a superb fighter like Hagler might win a rematch or/and trilogy fight. Someone with his attributes may well be able to calculate when to eat certain punches to deliver power shots... given time to train for it having had the experience of the first fight.
Good analysis. MH willingly taking 1 to give 5. When he got his momentum going pity the opponent. Grebs so unorthodox and born to it though? Totally unique. My personal GOAT.
Personally, I do not see Hagler beating Greb. When I review the immense "talent pool" that Harry Greb faced in his career (Gene Tunney multiple times, Tiger Flowers multiple times, Mickey Walker, Kid Norfolk multiple times, Maxie Rosenbloom, Tommy Loughran multiple times, Tommy Gibbons multiple times, Mike McTigue, Battling Levinsky multiple times, Billy Miske multiple times, Bill Brennan multiple times, Jeff Smith multiple times, George Chip multiple times, Jack Dillon, Mike Gibbons, George K.O. Brown multiple times, Mike O'Dowd, etc). These names may not mean anything today, but they do represent the immense "talent pool" of many of the outstanding boxers that Harry Greb faced in his extensive pugilistic career. Many of these names represented the top Middleweights, Light-heavyweights and Heavyweights of his era. Greb pursued his profession with a great of zeal, ambition and courage. He also made Jack Dempsey look rather ordinary in several public sparring sessions when the heavyweight champion was training for his title defense match with contender Billy Miske. The reporters of the day had a wonderful time deriding Dempsey's efforts to "nail" Greb in those public sparring sessions. There were articles published by newspapermen "playing up" the possibility of a potential Dempsey-Greb match. Obviously, it never occured, but Greb's willingness to "take on all comers" was applauded by all who loved talented and courageous warrior. There is a tendency for modern sportswriters to deride the "old-time fighters" in favor of the modern crew. In reality, the word modern does not necessarily mean "better". Unfortunately, many of these modern sportswriters have never seen the old-time fighters performing "in the flesh". Hagler was oustanding in his day as were many boxers who preceded him (Carlos Monzon, Nino Benvenuti, Dick Tiger, Emile Griffith, etc). The middleweight division has always been a "talent rich" weight class. Some of the most memorable and talented boxers have occupied the middleweight division. But, in the earlier days of prizefighting in the twentieth century there was an overabundance of fistic talent in many weight divisions. There is a reason why the 1920s was regarded as the "Golden Age Of Prizefighting". This was the era of Harry Greb and many other fistic luminaries. It was also a much tougher and longer climb up the pugilistic ladder. The rules, at that time allowed for a greater display of ring brutality. Boxers were fighting on a weekly basis and some states allowed "over the weight " matches. Lastly, look at Greb's official record (299 fights 108 wins 8 losses). That must say something about the man and his legacy. Final note: Forgive me for the length of this particular commentary. But, I felt that I had to make my own statement regarding this particular topic.
Frank, you're right about the rich talent among middleweights, true back then and true today. No apology necessary; your comments are always interesting and thought provoking.
The more I read of greb I'm thinking he had a style similar to that of pacquio ..punches from my weird angles and a high workrate but was probably physically stronger due to him being bigger . They say greb was perceptual motion and pacquio style is like that at times
@Sandor Weiss Greb had power he just didnt use it. He focused on just being as fast as possible and throwing punches in bunches. But one time greb got injured and he couldn't move around properly if i remember correct. So he focused just on knocking out his opponents and then he knocked out his next few opponents.
Many modern boxing fans will favour Hagler against Greb, but speaking for myself I would favour Greb against any modern middleweight. It is unfortunate that there is no footage of Greb's fight around, but just a brief look at his record shows what a brilliant fighter he was. The older fighters will always be disadvantaged whenever they are compared to modern fighters....because there is very little good fight footage of the old timers in action. If I was to look up Sugar Ray Leonard on RU-vid I would find a lot of videos, but if I look up Stanley Ketchel I will find a few grainy fights that don't show his true greatness. If we take look at Hagler we can find a lot of footage of his fights, but if we look for footage on Greb there is only a bit of training footage. We have to rely on what we have read about Greb and what we can see of Hagler, but that is not really a fair comparison of a fighters merits. I just have a belief that the older fighters grew up in harder times and were harder men, but I can't prove that scientifically!! Greb would beat Hagler on points everyday of the week......but there could even be a late stoppage in Greb's favour if the fight was fought over 15 rounds 🤔
This is a battle between two of the top middleweights ever, no one around today ever saw Greb fight, (no fight films either), but he had some good fights with Gene Tunney and fought many other top fighters of the day, having around 300 fights in 13 years so was obviously a bit special. Marvin's record speaks for itself, although a lot of the middleweights of the eighties probably weren't of the level of some of the fighters Greb fought, relatively speaking, but Marvin tended to dominate most of his fights and was certainly heavier handed. Think it's definitely a distance fight either way
First off, Marvin Hagler was among the finest fighters ever. No one was going to steam role him and they weren't going to scare him. He was my second favorite fighter growing up. I disagree a little on his loses to Watts and Monroe. They were good fighters and maybe not so known but very skilled. And I have heard that the Watts decision was a bad one. With all that being said, it's a little unfair to Marvin to expect him to match up with the greatest fighter of all time. Greb wins with relative ease. His lack of power is overblown. He never planted his feet but he knocked out heavyweight great Gunboat Smith with one punch in one round. I have read countless fight accounts that said Greb probably could have knocked out his foe but backed off and allowed him to last the distance. Add that to the fact that he very often fought larger men. Greb fought 16 Hall of Famers, a record know one touches. He was 32-11-5 in those fights. Another unmatchable record. These were middleweight greats, light heavyweight greats AND heavyweight greats. Another unmatchable record. He went 45-0 in 1919, with fights against 6 Hall of Famers! He beat them 11 times! His dirty style of fighting was way overblown. He was DQ'ed only once and most people thought they DQ'ed the wrong fighter. Both Gobbons' boys, Gene Tunney and Tommy Loughran said he was NOT a dirty fighter. Just very rough, which a lot of them were. I think that the Hearns fight and the Tunney fight were a little passed these guys prime but it's a good place to start. But I remember the draw with Antuofermo and the win against Duran. Hagler gave both too much respect, especially Duran, who was a naturally smaller man. He would stand in awe of Greb. No doubt he would have been there at the end. But his only hope is a knockout and that wasn't happening. Greb by easy decision.
Interesting take. Comparing fighters of different eras is fun and interesting. Consider Duran against Leonard, the first fight. And then 5 months later they fight again, with a completely different result.
Thanks. You make a good point. For their first battle, Duran pushed Leonard to get aggressive which suited Duran's style. Sugar Ray fought his favored way for their 2nd & 3rd go.
@@ET-RAMBLINGS listen i think jack johnson is a better boxer that Anthony joshua but a 6' 2. 205lb superior boxer against a lean 6'6 255 good boxer is still a mismatch. There should be a new division. Some of the men today are SOOO much bigger it takes the sport out of it. Take the the fury wilder fight.. Wilder weighed 222 at 6'7. And fury was 274 at 6'9 So that is the equivalent of a top 111lb fighter vs at top 137lb fighter.. At some point skill is not enough.. To boot fury is they better boxer
@@jhonfamo8412 jack Johnson was atleast 220 not 205. He also was famous for beating smaller white men and ducked the actual black contenders like Langford, mcvea and Jeanette. His fight against oppressive America puts him at a far loftier position than his resume realistically should. He was a weight bully.
@@jhonfamo8412 I mean heavyweights is the only sound argument, and even then data shows a short 190-220 puncher can sleep great big men. Some older heavyweights were also more experienced fighting bigger men and employed tactics that most fighters arent capable of executing soundly today because of amateur boxing being where most get their experience, there's no real inside game in pro boxing today which is a big reason why giants are dominant, when before they were considered at a disadvantage vs a fast punching, hard hitting, skilled and aggressive 210 lber. The advantage of size really caps out at 200 lbs, provided the fighter knows how to deal with a larger opponent. And outside of that tangent we can cross reference fighters coming in the ring at the same exact weight across eras, 157 lbs doesnt magically weigh more with modern science and nutrition 😂 and instead of all that fluff the fighters of old had copious amounts of pro fight experience competing against other high quality pro fighters regularly, and that first hand experience at the task when it matters is a huge advantage, massive advantage really.
I have done alot of research on Greb.. He was a great fighter.. Harry beat Tunney at Light heavy. You need to stop and pause and think about that.. Tunney at 175 was knocking out 175 pounders George Carpentier and other great 175 pounders. Tunney was a pure puncher at 175. That will tell you that Harry was tough.. He was probably harder to hit than he looked.. A mixture of Calzaghe and Steve Collins.. He would have pushed Marvin very hard..
Excellent video, Sir. I've read quite a lot on Greb, myself, and I'd have to agree wholeheartedly with you. What doesn't show up on the stats, though, is just how hard these timers were mentality. They lived in very tough times. Since the 1960's or so, I believe as a society, we have become very soft.
In almost any sport we have seen athletes get better with PEDs, knowledge of sports science, better nutrition and living standards. With boxing and fight sports however the best athlete was always the 'hungrier fighter' and therefore modern fighters will mostly not hold a candle to those of old for this reason.
In 1916 Harry greb fought 45 times and was undefeated on that year the amount of times these old time boxers fought they were allways injured and the very real likely hood you would die young was very high these kind of warrior won't be around ever again
Nice research and effort. But a couple of positions are, I think, baseless. The statement that Hagler, like Greb, moved forward and swarmed his opponents is about as wrong as it is possible to be. Hagler moved back and away often, strategically, and smoothly; I have a highlight reel of Marvin backing away and re-setting, to one side or the other. Marvin was a master at side to side movement, switching angles and stances fluidly, and often as a way of quickly halving the distance to his opponent. But he also was far over the hill, slower, punching wide, pushing his jab, and slower on his feet, after the Hearns fight. hauler of 1979-80 was the best version, but he was also just getting known to the TV audience by that point. Marvin fought Hearns chest to chest for long periods because he had to get inside, he had been buzzed early in the first, and knew he had to end the fight quickly - and that Hearns could be worn down. Marvin was a BOXER, who could be very destructive when he saw an advantage...but he often boxed conservatively, with liberal movement, for long periods, wearing his opponent down with well-timed salvos. He had many gears....he could come forward brutally as soon as he saw an opening....but he was never reckless. By 1985, again he didn't really resemble the Hagler who fought Monroe, nor even Sibson.
Mortcola, you've presented a very persuasive argument for a younger Hagler! Given that his war with Hearns contained what may be the best single round in ring history, it's easy to assume that Hagler was at his overall best then. As you pointed out, such assumptions may be wrong.
your assessment of Hags is 100% on target.. Most people havent seen him in his prime years like the two of us. They think of him only as "the guy that fought Hearns & Leonard" and that "he retired too soon" What a joke!
@@ET-RAMBLINGS Thank you. Hagler at the time of the Hearns fight was still a formidable fighter, and still would’ve likely beaten most middleweights in history. Some of the most exciting fights, and exciting rounds in boxing history have been contested by boxers who were far from their best. Sometimes it’s because they are great and they still have plenty in the tank even if it’s not the same as during their prime; sometimes it’s because a boxer with subtly diminishing athletic sharpness must do more and more effective work at close range, because speed and elusiveness are no longer their strengths. With the marvelous one, you’re talking about, in the opinion of almost every expert and ranking system, the third greatest middleweight in history. After 60 fights, he had still only been a major broadcast presence for about five years; imagine if, today, the most feared and highly touted boxer in a popular division didn’t even have a widely televised match until his 50th fight, it would seem ridiculous. And since today’s managers and promoters rarely want to match a cash cow against a worthy opponent, we’re not all that used to seeing an elite boxer have to fight a tough war. By the time Hagler fought Vito Antuofermo, he not only had 50 fights on his record, but those 50 included far more battles against first rate opposition then we ever see these days. Marvin’s prime was winding down by the time the public just had a few chances to see him. What they saw was still an amazing boxer, but if you watch some of the poor quality clips of, for example, the Benny Briscoe fight, or even the losing efforts and rematches against Watts and Monroe, you see a very fluid, agile and balanced middleweight who rarely ever remained in front of an opponent for more than a second or two. Rest in peace champ.
This was right on the money!! Whitey Bimstein saw everyone from ketchel to Robbinson said Greb would have beat them all!!! HARRY GREB is the G.O.A.T. hands down!!!
In 1919 Harry greb fought 45 times and was undefeated on that year the amount of times these old time boxers fought they were allways injured and the very real likely hood you would die young was very high these kind of warrior won't be around ever again
Love your analysis of this fight and agree Greb would win . How about a fight between Langford and Hagler which is a dream fight I've always thought about next to Langford vs Marciano . Would love to see your analysis on that one ET .
The peds are a wash. Exactly been saying that for years. What i will say is the training science behind todays boxers ( because of these experience of past fighters and trainers passing know how and improved training methods)
Greb was amazing. He was a fighting fool. He had some honor too. Didn't draw the color line. Hagler was a throwback in his own right. Both men all substance ahead of style. Lost his title similar to Hagler by a razor think margin.
Greb would win. His record against the elite of light heavyweights, middleweights and handing Tunney his first defeat along with Greb handling himself with Dempsey in sparring says it all. When someone fights as often as Greb did and against the best it, creates a unique fighter that is not in the world anymore, that kind of fistic furnace tempers a man of steel, Greb by unanimous decision.
Hagler's early losses to guys no one knew of is a comment by someone who has little knowledge of boxing. Watts and Monroe were well known tough entities in pro boxing. Hagler was not fed no hopers in his early years. Since Greb fought bigger guys and had an unorthodox style, he would create problems for Marvin. Roberto Duran was not a slugger, but a complete boxer. He lasted 15 rounds with Hagler and there's no reason to think Greb would not have done less. By the way, Duran is the most complete boxer I have ever seen (I was born 1955). Also, I am a fan of all 3 men and find it hard to pick a winner. Greb wins because he competed against bigger/stronger men throughout his career. Look at his skull! He was created to take punishment but was a very skilled fighter who could push Hagler backward where he was not effective. One more thing to point out. The old timers are long gone but many of them said Greb would have created hell for Robinson who has been acknowledged for decades as the greatest boxer of all time.
I've seen other things this guy has posted and he's been wrong a lot. Hagler was not just a slugger. He was a very skilled boxer as well. He could do anything the ring and he would have found a way to handle Greb.
Greb smokes him. Greb was a speed demon and very hard to hit. One of the best defensive fighters of his era. If heavyweight punches couldn't slow Harry down how would Marvin? Hagler was my fav fighter when I was young. But he has nothing to threaten Greb with. Great fighter, but Greb was far greater
what do you mean "Hagler cant fight backing up>? Hagler boxed all the time! vs Hamsho vs Mugabi vs Sibson vs Scypion vs Duran vs Briscoe vs Warren have you not seen any of his outs outside his last three? I would say Hagler has the edge on account of him being southpaw, black, the superior puncher and technician, greater reach
Gene Tunney officially lost once professionally, and that was to Greb. Many accounts from those attending the other bouts agree with your account that Gene was gifted his wins. That Tunny ranks among the all-time greats ... holding both light heavy & heavyweight titles. That a natural middleweight could beat him speaks loudly to Greb's ranking at the top of P4P listings.
one can put peds out there, but how do we even know hagler used them. hagler in his early prime was as strong as he was later. in the late 70's few boxers, if any were using peds. hagler just happened to be blessed genetically and also trained his ass off..... greb himself, was also strong, though more wiry then haglers bulk. but in the shoulders and lats (most important for a boxer upper body wise), he had strength.... where greb gets an edge is mental toughness. hagler was no doubt old school mental tough for his era, but he still didnt grow up in grebs era. that generation of males in this nation across the board were tougher people. the econ, lack of luxury items, type of labor, lack of wuss pc codes etc dictated it. most working class males who grew up in grebs era were out of school by 12 and were doing hard ass manual work. & if they were in a gang, the gangs were actually more violent & ruthless then todays gangs. you cant be an intangible number on that, but bank on this, greb hate nails for breakfast compared to haglers era. look how many fights the guy had. its an edge that wouldve helped him.
Michael, I've uploaded several videos extolling advantages of compound-joint progressive weight training over machines. For "seniors" or anyone with lumbar and other issues issues, machines have some value.
This is a joke. What a way to once again disrespect the greatest middleweight of all time, Marvelous Marvin Hagler. Besides the eye test that should tell you everything you need to know about the differences in their skills and athletic abilities, there is a huge separation in talent that each of those fighters faced during their careers. Yes, Greb fought with big named fighters including heavyweights like Tunney and Dempsey but let's not forget that this was an era where none of those guys wanted to fight black fighters and as we all know, African Americans dominate most sports when given the opportunity. There's a big difference between tough white boys and tough black boys! This is not a racist comment as I am Caucasian myself, it's just a fact. Imagine if Hagler never fought Brisco, Hearns, Mugabi, Leonard, etc. and only fought white fighters. What kind of a discussion would we be having? As it turns out, those were some of his greatest opponents. Let's also not forget that both Tunney and Dempsey were small heavyweights that weighed somewhere around 192-193 lbs. It's not like Greb was fighting George Foreman's and Mike Tyson's. I dare you to list just one top 5 fighter of all time in any category that Greb fought and defeated. That's what I thought but I can name a few that Hagler has on his resume. He defeated Duran who was maybe the greatest lightweight of all time, a 4-division champion and easily a top 5 pound for pound fighter. He defeated Hearns who was arguably one of the greatest to ever do it at junior middleweight and a 5- division world champion and he defeated Leonard (despite of the bogus decision) who is regarded as one of the best welterweights to ever lace them up, a 5-division champion and one of the top pound for pound fighters of all time. The competition wasn't even close here and that means everything. As for their styles, yes Harry Greb was a swarmer but it's a whole different story when you're coming in and getting hit with the kind of sustained power that Hagler had. Duran was also a swarmer but he was smart enough to back off of Hagler. Hearns DID try to swarm Hagler and you saw what happened to him. To sum it up, Hagler would have been able to handle Greb. The question is, could Greb handle Hagler? The only thing I agree with here is that Hagler won the Leonard fight.
eye test is the poorest metric to evaluate a fighter lmao thats why nobody gets every fight predicition right and even casinos get upset regularly. Greb was greater fighter p4p than Hagler, that is undisputed fact
Light heavyweight and heavyweight champion Gene Tunny lost but one fight in his long career, to natural middleweight Harry Greb. That alone should illustrate how good Greb was. It is true, however, that athletic performances have improved, especially since the early 1960s. This is due to better conditioning, training methods, improved nutrition plus advances in chemistry. Only a few fighters of old could compete successfully today against top opposition, despite the above mentioned advantages of modern boxers. Greb and Sam Langford are, IMO, among those few.
@@ET-RAMBLINGS I disagree, maybe only a portion of elite guys can hang from the 1900s to 1920s but from 30s to 60s id say most top boxers would beat modern guys p4p. Pro boxing itself has watered down and most the top competitors have amateur habits with more amateurish styles. The experience and development from old timers negates most of the general athletic benefits of the modern age, especially when you match up guys with the same weight. The old timers were more fine tuned and honed for the job, more developed and more proven
@@dguitar3831 but his record don't! There isn't even many movies of langford and Robinson but still they are the greatest and goats! There isn't video of Greb but just check his record so video would not prove anything! Beat 15 HOFamers and went 44-0 in just one year!Then he was 70-1 next year! There is nothing to say more!
@@dguitar3831 if we didnt have films of Hagler, Leonard, Duran we would still know they were the greatest of their eras, based on what they accomplished, who they beat and the impression they left in their eras. Imagine if the only films of Duran were Benitez, Hearns, and some losses way past his best. If you went solely by the film Duran would be a bum, you have to take resume into context thats the only true way to measure a fighter is who they beat. Take Carlos Monzon if you just watched his films with no context on who he's fighting etc. He would just look like a solid tough boxer not some phenom. But when you look at his resume and who hes fighting there's no denying he was a great fighter
@@JeffPenaify Fair points, but I don't agree. You can't assess their style, strengths and weaknesses without film to make comparisons against fighters we have film of. Duran is rated above any of those he lost to in pound for pound all time lists, based on his skills and overall ability that we SAW! Your last point on Monzon makes no sense at all?
I love Greb but have to be realistic he lost to only good black fighter he fought Tiger Flowers and hes going to beat Hagler? One of the best middles that ever lived? Maybe he last a 12 distance and keeps it close or maybe the firepower is too much. I have to bet my kids tuition? Im betting Marvin.
Steve, you make good points, and this subject is simply speculation, but one based on data. In the end, however, it's simply a guess considering the very different rules for different eras, plus the post 1960s introduction of PEDs into most sports. Greb's 2 losses to Flowers (one of the greats, BTW) were split decisions, and Greb was at his career's end following almost 300 bouts. For this hypothetical bout, Greb was in better health and had 2 working eyes. I wasn't exactly pleased with the results because Hagler was and remains one of my ring favorites.
First, FLowers being black has absolutely nothing to do with it. Second, both fights were controversial decisions where many felt Greb won them. In 1922 Greb went public about corruption within the sport. He said NY reporters were trying to extort money from him to "further his career" and if not they would ruin him.He said, "Certain sports writers in NY had demanded thousands from him." After this Greb had become angry with the judging of his fights and NY articles written about him. Greb had made himself a target with everyone from the boxing commission to the press. In both the Flowers fights in 1926 the refs awarded the fight to Greb while the judges scored them for Flowers. Both controversial and split as far as scoring and result. Many said the last fight was unjust and Greb famously said himself, "Well, that was one fight I won if I ever won any." Less than a month later he switched to a glass right eye. Using these fights as a testament to why he wouldn't beat Hagler is very short sited, and if anything would show how good and game he was even at the very end of his career. Like ET said, these were at the very end of his career and he still arguably could've gotten the decision in both fights.
greb fought a prime Kid Norfolk who was 20 lbs heavier on the scale and put him out of comission for 2 months. Norfolk is an ATG light heavyweight and heavyweight contender
I'll open by saying that Hagler was my favorite boxer, he is I believe the best inside fighter I have seen closely followed by Mike Tyson. So Grebb may have been strong and obviously tough but Hagler scored highly in fights on the inside, was relentless in attack ,virtually impossible to hurt and could fight efficiently both orthodox or southpaw. I'm also sure Grebbs good eye would have been swollen shut by about round 7 to 8 if Hagler knew of his physical impairment. I also believe Hagler won on points in the Leonard fight, Leonard would throw a flurry of punches mostly blocked by Haglers great defense, 2 or 3 times a round exciting the crowd ( who wanted him to win after 5 years absence ) and then run away back peddling all the rest of the round while Hagler pounded him blows all over his head and body. Hagler did look a bit slow, ring rust, he hadn't fought for 18 months either as no one would take him on but behind the scenes in secret Leonard had 3 full on fights, not sparing sessions, closed off to any media or public to prepare against Hagler. This was disclosed after the fight. Leonard was a great fighter so was Hearns and Duran but Hagler was the best. I also agree that the 1st round of the Hagler v Hearns fight the best ever, I've heard recently that Hearns broke his right hand in the first round (a previously broken hand recurrence ) but in respect to Hagler wanted it kept quiet and not detract from the war they went through, just brutal from both fighters.
You make a great case for Hagler. I did consider that Greb's good eye might be banged shut, something that would be on Hagler's mind. I gave the decision to Greb based on his ability to deliver punches from all angles, elusive footwork and history of banging with the best in heavier weight classes ... even Dempsey. At this point, it's armchair guessing.
Greb is the most overrated boxer of all time. It's been totally to the advantage of his overhyped legend that no actual fight film exists. This allows "historians" to fill in the blanks and Greb ALWAYS gets the reverential treatment. Maybe he was the greatest ever,but the actual evidence is extremely thin.
the actual evidence is overwhelming, look at his career and resume lol film is the weakest metric to determine quality the most aesthetically pleasing fighters are not always better than uglier awkward looking fighters, the quality and quantity of competition, overcoming adversity like larger opponents, dangerous opponents, etc all a much more important factor. Greb is underrated in all truth
Hey Hagler ko'd 52 out of 62. That's 83.87% so 84% Interestingly, Stanley Ketchel and Gerald McClellan both had 94% two of the biggest punchers in history. Julian Jackson was the best one punch ko artist at middleweight. 🤜🫨🤛✌️👹
First off, Marvin Hagler was among the finest fighters ever. No one was going to steam role him and they weren't going to scare him. He was my second favorite fighter growing up. I disagree a little on his loses to Watts and Monroe. They were good fighters and maybe not so known but very skilled. And I have heard that the Watts decision was a bad one. With all that being said, it's a little unfair to Marvin to expect him to match up with the greatest fighter of all time. Greb wins with relative ease. His lack of power is overblown. He never planted his feet but he knocked out heavyweight great Gunboat Smith with one punch in one round. I have read countless fight accounts that said Greb probably could have knocked out his foe but backed off and allowed him to last the distance. Add that to the fact that he very often fought larger men. Greb fought 16 Hall of Famers, a record know one touches. He was 32-11-5 in those fights. Another unmatchable record. These were middleweight greats, light heavyweight greats AND heavyweight greats. Another unmatchable record. He went 45-0 in 1919, with fights against 6 Hall of Famers! He beat them 11 times! His dirty style of fighting was way overblown. He was DQ'ed only once and most people thought they DQ'ed the wrong fighter. Both Gobbons' boys, Gene Tunney and Tommy Loughran said he was NOT a dirty fighter. Just very rough, which a lot of them were. I think that the Hearns fight and the Tunney fight were a little passed these guys prime but it's a good place to start. But I remember the draw with Antuofermo and the win against Duran. Hagler gave both too much respect, especially Duran, who was a naturally smaller man. He would stand in awe of Greb. No doubt he would have been there at the end. But his only hope is a knockout and that wasn't happening. Greb by easy decision.
