Harry Greb vs Roy Jones Jr.

Who wins and how?

Harry Greb vs Jake LaMotta

Who wins and how?

Harry Greb vs Roy Jones Jr.

Who wins and how?

Harry Greb vs Jake LaMotta

Who wins and how?

Roy Jones beats Grebb... Jones to fast and skillfull, Jones had amazing legs at 160lbs and with his `in and out`movement was virtually impossible to hit, add to this his amazing hand-speed & hand-eye-co-ordination then Jones wins by UD.

Grebb beats LaMotta... although i have never seen Grebb fight as there is no available film-footage of him, i have seen quite a few fights of LaMotta... from what i have read about Harry Grebb and his achievements i take Grebb to beat LaMotta by UD due to his far superior boxing skills which was good enough to beat the first great scientific fighter Gene Tunney.

Well that's the reason I started this thread. I noticed a lot of people had RJJ below Greb on their lists and I'm trying to figure out why. I haven't seen much film on him either, just some sparring and training video's. Basically when he spars, it looks like the impression Conan O'brien does when he imitates an 1800's boxer. Arms curled and hopping back and forth. I couldn't imagine him having a shot against RJJ or the guys he fought.

I also believe that Jake LaMotta would pick him apart.

For his time he may have been a great, but how would he do against modern fighters with modern day techniques, knowledge, training, conditioning, and nutrition?

Or do we not take this into account when we talk all time greats? Do we just consider what they did "for their time" and disregard the fact that a lot of modern day fighters would pick them apart?

For his time he may have been a great, but how would he do against modern fighters with modern day techniques, knowledge, training, conditioning, and nutrition?

Or do we not take this into account when we talk all time greats? Do we just consider what they did "for their time" and disregard the fact that a lot of modern day fighters would pick them apart?

If you aren't comparing the fighters on a level playing field then you're wasting your time. It's pointless and nothing is learned.

If you pit an old-timer against a modern fighter in todays time than the old-timer gets access to all the knowledge, nutrition, conditioning that the modern fighter does. If you pit them back in th old-timers era than the modern fighter has to make do with THAT eras knowledge, nutrition, conditioning. You don't get to have it both ways. Both fighters have to play on the same playing field or not play at all.

Poet

If you aren't comparing the fighters on a level playing field then you're wasting your time. It's pointless and nothing is learned.

If you pit an old-timer against a modern fighter in todays time than the old-timer gets access to all the knowledge, nutrition, conditioning that the modern fighter does. If you pit them back in th old-timers era than the modern fighter has to make do with THAT eras knowledge, nutrition, conditioning. You don't get to have it both ways. Both fighters have to play on the same playing field or not play at all.

Poet
Totally agree with what you say

If you aren't comparing the fighters on a level playing field then you're wasting your time. It's pointless and nothing is learned.

If you pit an old-timer against a modern fighter in todays time than the old-timer gets access to all the knowledge, nutrition, conditioning that the modern fighter does. If you pit them back in th old-timers era than the modern fighter has to make do with THAT eras knowledge, nutrition, conditioning. You don't get to have it both ways. Both fighters have to play on the same playing field or not play at all.

Poet

So then it's really impossible to determine an all time great. The best we can do is determine "the best of the era?"

So then it's really impossible to determine an all time great. The best we can do is determine "the best of the era?"

You can compare them but you have to take into account the differences in the eras that they fought in. There's more work involved and a lot more thought has to go into it as it doesn't lend itself to glib conclusions. It's like baseball: You can't compare hitters between eras unless you adjust for the fact that some eras have better pitching than others.

Poet

Harry Greb vs Roy Jones Jr.

Who wins and how?

Harry Greb vs Jake LaMotta

Who wins and how?

I don't know how anyone could make a good conclusion about either of these fights considering the lack of footage of Greb. I know how great Greb is based off what I have read of him but I don't think I could analyze how a fight would turn out without any footage of the fighter being available.

For his time he may have been a great, but how would he do against modern fighters with modern day techniques, knowledge, training, conditioning, and nutrition?

What exactly do you think are better about the techniques and knowledge? Fighters back then learned their trade by fighting many more times than todays fighters. Techniques haven't changed all that much. I would even argue they may have digressed. Fighters today don't parry, feint, are catch punches with their gloves nearly as much as the old timers, they rely more on athletic ability than learned skills. Training hasn't changed all that much. Condition is definitely in favor of the old timers, thats really not even arguable. Nutrition I'll give you, but that it.

Or do we not take this into account when we talk all time greats? Do we just consider what they did "for their time" and disregard the fact that a lot of modern day fighters would pick them apart?

Again, what are you basing your assumption on that modern day fighters would "pick them apart"?

So then it's really impossible to determine an all time great. The best we can do is determine "the best of the era?"

No. You base it on level of competition and longevity. How can Roy Jones be rated a greater middleweight than Greb when he never fought the same quality of fighters as Greb and didn't do it as long?

No. You base it on level of competition and longevity. How can Roy Jones be rated a greater middleweight than Greb when he never fought the same quality of fighters as Greb and didn't do it as long?

Greb was dead by 32.

How are you so sure his competition was tougher than RJJ? Back up what you're saying. I have a ton of film that show's why RJJ has a good chance to beat any middleweight in history.

Greb was dead by 32.

What does that mean, he still had nearly 300 fights.

How are you so sure his competition was tougher than RJJ? Back up what you're saying. I have a ton of film that show's why RJJ has a good chance to beat any middleweight in history.

His competition was more accomplished at 160 than Roy, and they fought better fighters compared to the comp RJJ. There is plenty of film and historical data to back that up.

Still waiting on you to answer my other post in this thread.

Kinda hard to choose, since there's no actual fight footage of Greb.

Wasn't Jones at Middleweight long enough to maybe have a cup of coffee early in his career and that was about it?

Poet

Wasn't Jones at Middleweight long enough to maybe have a cup of coffee early in his career and that was about it?

Poet

Yup, and his most notable wins there are over a green Hopkins and Frank Tate, who would go on to lose to Rocky Gannon just two years and two fights later. Do this make an all time great middleweight?

Yup, and his most notable wins there are over a green Hopkins and Frank Tate, who would go on to lose to Rocky Gannon just two years and two fights later. Do this make an all time great middleweight?

Why do people always say it was a green Hopkins? They act like Jones wasn't green, as well..

Why do people always say it was a green Hopkins? They act like Jones wasn't green, as well..

This actually strengthens my point why Jones shouldn't be considered an all time great middle. You're right. In terms of pro experence and against top comp, Roy was green too. I do think he fought the slightly better fighters on his way to that title though and he had his lengthy amateur career and Olympic experience. I believe that has to count for something compared to learning your trade inside a prison with men who are tough, but not very well trained.

This actually strengthens my point why Jones shouldn't be considered an all time great middle. You're right. In terms of pro experence and against top comp, Roy was green too. I do think he fought the slightly better fighters on his way to that title though and he had his lengthy amateur career and Olympic experience. I believe that has to count for something compared to learning your trade inside a prison with men who are tough, but not very well trained.

I agree with you about the all-time great middleweight ratings. He definitely doesn't belong.

I just don't get why people considered Hopkins to be green, when the same could've been said about Jones.

Jones might've fought in the amateurs longer and had the Olympic experience, but the amateurs are a lot different from the pros. Hopkins had more pro fights than Jones, too.

My point is that Hopkins was pretty much on the same level as Jones. I know this has very little to do with the thread topic, but I just had to comment on that. :lol1:

I agree with you about the all-time great middleweight ratings. He definitely doesn't belong.

I just don't get why people considered Hopkins to be green, when the same could've been said about Jones.

Jones might've fought in the amateurs longer and had the Olympic experience, but the amateurs are a lot different from the pros. Hopkins had more pro fights than Jones, too.

My point is that Hopkins was pretty much on the same level as Jones. I know this has very little to do with the thread topic, but I just had to comment on that. :lol1:


Its cool. You pointed out something that often gets overlooked, by myself included. I do disagree however about the amateurs being a lot different than the pros. Style wise, yes. But at the level Roy fought at in the amateurs help you become a more polished fighter than the average amateur who doesn't get to face that type of competition.