harry greb

[rightsideup]

He is highly rated as an alltime great. Where do you rate him?
1. pound for pound
2 as a middle weight

[JAB5239]

Originally Posted by rightsideup

He is highly rated as an alltime great. Where do you rate him?
1. pound for pound
2 as a middle weight

I have him number 2 p4p, only behind Langford and number 3 at middleweight behind Monzin and Hagler.

[DTMB]

it is intellectually dishonest to rank fighters with no fight footage.

it just is.

especially a fighter with two sets of records; his official one and newspaper one.

greb should not be ranked ahead of other atgs with extensive fight footage where you can make a honest analytical take of their boxing career and skills.

[Prince_Pugilist]

Originally Posted by DTMB

it is intellectually dishonest to rank fighters with no fight footage.

it just is.

especially a fighter with two sets of records; his official one and newspaper one.

greb should not be ranked ahead of other atgs with extensive fight footage where you can make a honest analytical take of their boxing career and skills.

very good point

[rightsideup]

Originally Posted by Prince_Pugilist

very good point

Yes I guess both you points about footage are correct. Dempsey sparred with greb and tunney fought him a number of times both men admitted to having problems with him. We as fans are so lucky that men such as Jim Jacobs have collected the footage of earlier fighters so we can get a sense of there skills.

[SBleeder]

Originally Posted by DTMB

it is intellectually dishonest to rank fighters with no fight footage.

it just is.

especially a fighter with two sets of records; his official one and newspaper one.

greb should not be ranked ahead of other atgs with extensive fight footage where you can make a honest analytical take of their boxing career and skills.

Lack of footage makes things difficult, but an examination of Greb's resume, coupled with what was said and written about him, tells us that he was a phenom. To rank him behind fighters who had the fortune to be born in the television era is most certainly "intellectually dishonest", and unfair.

I rank him 4th P4P behing Robinson, Armstrong, and Gans. At 160, I rate him a shade behind Robinson.

[JAB5239]

Originally Posted by DTMB

it is intellectually dishonest to rank fighters with no fight footage.

it just is.

especially a fighter with two sets of records; his official one and newspaper one.

greb should not be ranked ahead of other atgs with extensive fight footage where you can make a honest analytical take of their boxing career and skills.

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...."

[DTMB]

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.

[JAB5239]

Originally Posted by DTMB

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.

So everybody saying the same thing about Greb was either lying or exaggerating to make Greb out to be a great fighter almost 100 years later because they knew no film of him would be available. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? And it still doesn't change the FACT that we have film of the greats he did fight. The bottom line is no fighter beats that many great fighters without being great themselves. I don't need film to know this.

[Mannie Phresh]

[QUOTE=JAB5239;12777398]So everybody saying the same thing about Greb was either lying or exaggerating to make Greb out to be a great fighter almost 100 years later because they knew no film of him would be available. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? And it still doesn't change the FACT that we have film of the greats he did fight. The bottom line is no fighter beats that many great fighters without being great themselves. I don't need film to know this.[/QU

Were talking about a conspiracy going all the way to the white house. Get squeal in here to debunk the Harry Greb conspiracy.