Originally Posted by JAB5239
How can it be intellectually dishonest when we have footage of almost every great fighter he beat? We have fighter testimony, eye witness and newspaper accounts of his greatness in the ring. He could have the ugliest, worst style ever in the ring....it doesn't matter, he still dominated other greats. For that to be dishonest everyone who fought or saw him would have to be lying about Greb.
Edit: jabsRstiff just wrote this in another post and it illustrates exactly why you can rate fighters you have not seen.
"If you're talking about how fighters rank in terms of greatness.....then you rank them for how great they were for their particular era. I never saw any real footage of Harry Greb, so I don't know how he'd do against Marvin Hagler if they (magically) fought. But, I'm willing to concede that Greb was greater for his era than Hagler was his...."
going by eye witness testimony of journalists and former foes can be very misleading and not accurate at all.
Humans are prone to hyperbole and sensationalism.