Harry Greb and Weightlifting

[greynotsoold]

Harry Greb is considered the ultimate guy that stayed in shape by fighting. Look at his arms in this picture.Did he do presses with his opponents?
Harry Greb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[IamInuit]

Fought 49 times in a year once.

[Andre]

You know how some people just have that energy that raises as they fight into long rounds he was one of them so Ive read. Probably the hardest bastard there was, turned out he was blind in one eye and still fought on for a few years. That mans an old style machine.These boys would work with axes or load coal in the sun into rail carts all day long with hardly a break. Tough as they come.Who needs weights?

[beenKOed]

Fought 49 times in a year once.

Sounds like dynamo with some insanity thrown in. Man, once a week. Amazing!

[IamInuit]

Fought 49 times in a year once.

Sounds like dynamo with some insanity thrown in. Man, once a week. Amazing!

I think Young Stribling fought 55 times one year but would have to check.

[powerpuncher]

i always say that the difference between fighters now and then is that at that time, people had to just keep fighting to put food on the table. its not like now to where these fighters will have a match 2-3 times and year and get out of shape in between fights. as you can see now, all of the best fighters of the past decade have stayed in shape year round (mayweather, bhop, jones, etc). this is no coincidence.

i wish more than anything that there were fight tapes of greb. i wish that i could see what his windmill style really looked like.

[Beanflicker]

Fighting once a week sounds impressive until you realize that a lot of those guys didn't belong in the ring with him and were little more than sparring sessions.

It's not like these guys were fighting world beaters every time out. Nobody can do that.

[IamInuit]

Fighting once a week sounds impressive until you realize that a lot of those guys didn't belong in the ring with him and were little more than sparring sessions.

It's not like these guys were fighting world beaters every time out. Nobody can do that.

Of course. I mean why say anything good about anyone prior to the primedonna era? They were all scrubs. Unlike the little spoiled brats today that can barely make it past 4 rds before they are gassed and I'd like to see one of these posers today fight 49 sparring partners a year. People act as if everyone today can fight a pace equal to Floyd and Manny. Sorry but in order to see fights that even resemble a fight in most cases takes watching a domestic card with fighters nobody has heard of. Most title fights and ppv events today are complete duds and mismatches. I bet Jeanette v Mcvy was quite the sparring session. In addition people look at records and dismiss opponents not realizing that these people lost because they fought every other week and when you do that, at times you lose to lesser men.

Carry on

[IamInuit]

i always say that the difference between fighters now and then is that at that time, people had to just keep fighting to put food on the table. its not like now to where these fighters will have a match 2-3 times and year and get out of shape in between fights. as you can see now, all of the best fighters of the past decade have stayed in shape year round (mayweather, bhop, jones, etc). this is no coincidence.

i wish more than anything that there were fight tapes of greb. i wish that i could see what his windmill style really looked like.

He was not a flailing wild man like the term windmill suggests. He was way ahead of his time and like Armstrong probably had an over-sized heart. He got his nickname from throwing over a hundred punches a round and seemed to run on perpetual motion. Dempsey wouldn't fight him.

[IamInuit]

Harry Greb is considered the ultimate guy that stayed in shape by fighting. Look at his arms in this picture.Did he do presses with his opponents?
Harry Greb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@greynotsoold Joe Gans is another mutant and most definitely a top 5 atg lightweight. Fought close to 180 times only losing ten times and scored 100 ko's. Only stopped 5 times and two of those to the crazy man Nelson in the 17th and 21st rounds in scheduled 45 round fights at the very end of his career. On one occasion the guy fought Holly who was 27/0 and after the fight jumped on a train traveled cross country and then fought Langford the next day and at a higher weight. Child's play I suppose for today's crop of elite lightweights LOL.

[Beanflicker]

Of course. I mean why say anything good about anyone prior to the primedonna era?

That statement had nothing to do with era vs era quality. It's a shame you seem to have a stick up your ass about the golden era and have to make everything a comparison.

The fact is, there's not enough quality opponents for ANYBODY of ANY ERA to fight one quality guys once a week.

Look at Greb's record: for every quality opponent, there are about 20 opponents who have losing records, or even less than 10 fights.

Tom Burns: 1-5
Ray Nelson: 0-1
Frankie Ritz: 1-3
Johnny Papke: 2-3
Billy Briton: 14-8
Soldier Buck: 8-11
Jim Nuss: 10-7
Otis Bryant: 3-4
Ed Smith: 1-1
Joe Lohman: 14-20
Fay Keiser: 21-13

That's just from a quick scan of the first page of his record. And these were guys he fought AFTER he was world champ. He had over 80 pro fights and was fighting guys who were 0-1 and 1-5.

And I don't slag the guy for fighting bums: it was a different time, there was no PPV and big network deals, you fought as many times as you could because you needed the pay days, and if you could get paid to fight a severely out classed guys, you'd do it. It was the 1920s, you had to make a buck however you could. No disrespect to Greb whatsoever.

The guys I do slag are guys like you who gush over the fact that they fought so often, like that was a great accomplishment and somehow makes them superior to modern fighters. But if Floyd was to fight once a week with the same opposition, you and other like-minded people would call him a sissy for picking on bums.

Floyd is getting dissed because he chose to fight a fellow world champion who is 35-3 with a KO percentage over 80%, and you guys are gushing over this dude because he fought bums once a week? PLEASE.

[Beanflicker]

Most of Greb's opponents would be worthy to even spar a guy like Mayweather or Pacquaio.

I reckon Pacquiao sweat more and suffered more trauma sparring monsters like Provodnikov everyday than a world champion with 80+ fights rolling over a bunch of guys with 1-3 records.

Get out of here with that nonsense...

[Rantcatrat]

Most of Greb's opponents would be worthy to even spar a guy like Mayweather or Pacquaio.

I reckon Pacquiao sweat more and suffered more trauma sparring monsters like Provodnikov everyday than a world champion with 80+ fights rolling over a bunch of guys with 1-3 records.

Get out of here with that nonsense...

From your point, won/loss records at that time meant less because fighters fought way more often to make ends meet. In other words, a guy who was 25-25 might have only been a professional for two years, and because of the number of fights, might still be a novice at the professional game. So, it's difficult to accurately gauge how good some of the guys with so-so records actually were.

As to Floyd, I'm sorry but there is real reason for criticism at the choice of Maidana. Floyd is a former Olympian, undefeated professional, with a record of 46-0. We can poke holes in his record, and talk about the guys he missed on his way up, sure, but no one can deny he's at least one of the best in the last 20 years.

Floyd's facing Marcos Maidana. The odds are 15-1 in favor of Floyd. Speaking of built up records, in a day and age where fighters fight 2-3 times per year, Maidana, who is 35-3, fought guys with losing records until his 14th professional fight and, even then, in his fourteenth fight fought a guy he had previously knocked out. Moreover, he did that in this day and age, not when fighters fought 50 times per year. He didn't even fight anyone recognizable until his 27th fight, when he lost to Kotelnik--which means that he has only been operating at the world level for approximately ten fights. His only notable wins have come against Broner and Ortiz. Ortiz never won a big fight and Broner, well, Broner is Broner. Devon Alexander took Maidana to school. So, yes, Maidana is better than the 3-5 guy on Greb's record, but he ain't nothing to write home about either.

Floyd's the biggest name in boxing. He's the self-proclaimed TBE - The Best Ever. Frankly, the question is not why people would be hard on Floyd when he fights twice a year for choosing Maidana as an opponent: the question is why wouldn't they? If he fought five times a year, Maidana is maybe just ok as an opponent. If he fought 10 times, which is far less than Greb did, Maidana makes more sense. Conversely, if he fought 30 times a year, Maidana as an opponent might be damn impressive. If he fights twice, however, fighting a guy who has faced guys with losing records in approximately half his fights, not so much.

Speaking of Ruslan, he has 25 total fights. In this day and age when fighters fight two or three times a year, 10 of 25 of his opponents were against guys with losing records. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, there are probably six recognizable names on his resume. He lost to two of six.

So, how can we be certain Maidana and Ruslan are quality when almost half of their opponents have losing records and they have lost on multiples times when they step up? How much credit do we give Floyd and Manny for facing them?

Greb fought 30 times in 1919. Keeping in mind there are 52 weeks in a year, he fought Battling Levinsky, who is in the Hall of Fame, three times. He fought Billy Miske, a tremendous fighter. He fought Mike McTigue, another tremendous fighter. He fought Willie Meehan, antother great fighter. In the same year. Maidana isn't making the Hall Of Fame unless he shocks people come Mary 3rd. So, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and same somehow he compares on a p4p sense to McTigue or Miske Or Meehan. Greb fought three guys at his level in the same year that he faced a Hall of Famer in Battling Levinksy three times and fought a total of 30 times. By the way, 1919 wasn't Greb's best year.

[Andre]

Of course. I mean why say anything good about anyone prior to the primedonna era?

That statement had nothing to do with era vs era quality. It's a shame you seem to have a stick up your ass about the golden era and have to make everything a comparison.

The fact is, there's not enough quality opponents for ANYBODY of ANY ERA to fight one quality guys once a week.

Look at Greb's record: for every quality opponent, there are about 20 opponents who have losing records, or even less than 10 fights.

Tom Burns: 1-5
Ray Nelson: 0-1
Frankie Ritz: 1-3
Johnny Papke: 2-3
Billy Briton: 14-8
Soldier Buck: 8-11
Jim Nuss: 10-7
Otis Bryant: 3-4
Ed Smith: 1-1
Joe Lohman: 14-20
Fay Keiser: 21-13

That's just from a quick scan of the first page of his record. And these were guys he fought AFTER he was world champ. He had over 80 pro fights and was fighting guys who were 0-1 and 1-5.

And I don't slag the guy for fighting bums: it was a different time, there was no PPV and big network deals, you fought as many times as you could because you needed the pay days, and if you could get paid to fight a severely out classed guys, you'd do it. It was the 1920s, you had to make a buck however you could. No disrespect to Greb whatsoever.

The guys I do slag are guys like you who gush over the fact that they fought so often, like that was a great accomplishment and somehow makes them superior to modern fighters. But if Floyd was to fight once a week with the same opposition, you and other like-minded people would call him a sissy for picking on bums.

Floyd is getting dissed because he chose to fight a fellow world champion who is 35-3 with a KO percentage over 80%, and you guys are gushing over this dude because he fought bums once a week? PLEASE.

You have a point, but theres the other side of the coin in those old times; a challenge was a challenge some of those tough bastards would try to FIGHT ALL COMERS and hop on trains across states to do it within the week.

Doesnt happen now and fights are not as long either,buts that ok dont have to get protective about it, because its impossible in these modern times in light of our law with rules and regulations.

Its just two different situations. Too many fighters these days there are literally millions of them all after the money day, so you cant fight all comers and all challenges,you cant skip weights and you cant fight till you drop instead of just 12 rounds max.

So why try to compare or make out one is better?

One thing is for sure that today with so many fighters around you have to pick a road through them all cheery picking is an art now. It still happened but the further you go back it was a rarer occurrence.

[powerpuncher]

i always say that the difference between fighters now and then is that at that time, people had to just keep fighting to put food on the table. its not like now to where these fighters will have a match 2-3 times and year and get out of shape in between fights. as you can see now, all of the best fighters of the past decade have stayed in shape year round (mayweather, bhop, jones, etc). this is no coincidence.

i wish more than anything that there were fight tapes of greb. i wish that i could see what his windmill style really looked like.

He was not a flailing wild man like the term windmill suggests. He was way ahead of his time and like Armstrong probably had an over-sized heart. He got his nickname from throwing over a hundred punches a round and seemed to run on perpetual motion. Dempsey wouldn't fight him.

im not saying that he was out of control but from everything that i have heard, he was very aggressive in the ring and his opponents said that he tended to use his head and elbows. i hold greb in very high regard. i just think that if he fought today a lot of people would call him a cheater just like people call ward a cheater for his tactics despite his greatness.