In your opinion who is the GOAT

Spaddy Floyd's sparring conquering

I'm gonna keep this short and sweet because you really didn't reply to my points. the only point that you replied to was jack johnson vs sam langford (with ANOTHER persons side of how things happened) and even that wasn't the main point. (the main point was) news paper wins were many times iffy because of the difference in opinion......... And that I why you don't just read one account of a fight. Come in man have some common sense! "Your stance? I thought it was the stance of "most historians", isn't that what you said? So I guess I shouldn't be expecting that list and links to you backing up your claim, huh?" No, that's not what I said at all. But I have no doubt there are plenty of historians who rate Greb as the best. Of course you want to make it a pissing contest of what historian is more credible so its a pointless exercise. There is little doubt ANY historian can see a case being made for Greb and that the whole argument is entirely subjective anyway. YES. most historians..........agree that visual (which means the memorable moments/how great a fight they had) skills & resume are the combination for greatness. (i don't go by 2nd hand accounts i have to see at least one of your fights to gain that visual inspirational feeling) you seem to have a problem with the "visual" part. gatti was inducted into the hall of fame. do i agree with that? NO. but some boxing historians look at his performances & think they were inspiring enough. (the way he would over come adversity broken arm & still getting knock outs. people remember those feelings. thats the "visual" Links pleae. You saying it doesn't mean they said it. Chop, chop!! dude that came directly from the horses mouth. in the first fight he claimed that greb may have head butted him & he went into the first fight with a cut that was only re injured (from a head butt) his own words.......attack tunney not me. See now you're starting to fat out lie. This is what you p "I am convinced that the adrenalin solution that had been injected softened the tissue that the first blow or butt I received cut the flesh right to the bone" I have greb in my top ten (from reading, & his resume alone) he's in my top 10 without watching single one of his fights (you just aren't satisfied with my ranking of him) he's extremely dirty fighter & that was also very well known. we're talking about harry greb here............. So you know hes a dirty fighter from what you've read, but just not how good he was? That's laughable!! I didn't know where you rated Greb til just now. My issue is with you thinking its beyond reason to rank Greb number 1. By the way, would still love to see that top10 list. Whats the hold up?

.......... I'm gonna keep this short and sweet because you really didn't reply to my points. the only point that you replied to was jack johnson vs sam langford (with ANOTHER persons side of how things happened) and even that wasn't the main point. (the main point was) news paper wins were many times iffy because of the difference in opinion......... "Your stance? I thought it was the stance of "most historians", isn't that what you said? So I guess I shouldn't be expecting that list and links to you backing up your claim, huh?" YES. most historians..........agree that visual (which means the memorable moments/how great a fight they had) skills & resume are the combination for greatness. (i don't go by 2nd hand accounts i have to see at least one of your fights to gain that visual inspirational feeling) you seem to have a problem with the "visual" part. gatti was inducted into the hall of fame. do i agree with that? NO. but some boxing historians look at his performances & think they were inspiring enough. (the way he would over come adversity broken arm & still getting knock outs. people remember those feelings. thats the "visual" "I believe it was in Bill Paxtons biography of Greb. I'll find it and let you know. Either way, you offer no proof Greb fought Tunney dirty." dude that came directly from the horses mouth. in the first fight he claimed that greb may have head butted him & he went into the first fight with a cut that was only re injured (from a head butt) his own words.......attack tunney not me. "You said you can't judge greatness without a visual. If you can't judge greatness without seeing a fighter you sure as well can't judge if he was a dirty fighter. Can't have it both ways kid" I have greb in my top ten (from reading, & his resume alone) he's in my top 10 without watching single one of his fights (you just aren't satisfied with my ranking of him) he's extremely dirty fighter & that was also very well known. we're talking about harry greb here.............

This I where are thinking differs most I think. Ideally you would like all 3, but certainly in my opinion you don't need all 3. I'm gonna keep this short and sweet because you really didn't reply to my points. the only point that you replied to was jack johnson vs sam langford (with ANOTHER persons side of how things happened) and even that wasn't the main point. the main point of that was-news paper wins were many times iffy because of the difference in opinion......... "Your stance? I thought it was the stance of "most historians", isn't that what you said? So I guess I shouldn't be expecting that list and links to you backing up your claim, huh?" YES. most historians..........agree that visual (which means the memorable moments/how great a fight they had) skills & resume are the combination for greatness. (i don't go by 2nd hand accounts i have to see at least one of your fights to gain that feeling) you seem to have a problem with the "visual" part. gatti was inducted into the hall of fame. do i agree with that? NO. but some boxing historians look at his performances & think they were inspiring enough. the way he would over come adversity........broken arm & still getting knock outs. people remember those feelings. thats the "visual" "I believe it was in Bill Paxtons biography of Greb. I'll find it and let you know. Either way, you offer no proof Greb fought Tunney dirty." dude that came directly from the horses mouth. in the first fight he claimed that greb may have head butted him & he went into the first fight with a cut that was only re injured (from a head butt) his own words.......attack tunney not me. "You said you can't judge greatness without a visual. If you can't judge greatness without seeing a fighter you sure as well can't judge if he was a dirty fighter. Can't have it both ways kid" I have greb in my top ten (from reading, & his resume alone) he's in my top 10 without watching single one of his fights (you just aren't satisfied with my ranking of him) he's extremely dirty fighter & that was well known.

I'm gonna keep this short and sweet because you really didn't reply to my points. the only point that you replied to was jack johnson vs sam langford (with ANOTHER persons side of how things happened) and even that wasn't the main point. the main point of that was-news paper wins were many times iffy because of the difference in opinion......... "Your stance? I thought it was the stance of "most historians", isn't that what you said? So I guess I shouldn't be expecting that list and links to you backing up your claim, huh?" YES. most historians..........agree that visual (which means the memorable moments/how great a fight they had) skills & resume are the combination for greatness. (i don't go by 2nd hand accounts i have to see at least one of your fights to gain that feeling) you seem to have a problem with the "visual" part. gatti was inducted into the hall of fame. do i agree with that? NO. but some boxing historians look at his performances & think they were inspiring enough. the way he would over come adversity........broken arm & still getting knock outs. people remember those feelings. thats the "visual" "I believe it was in Bill Paxtons biography of Greb. I'll find it and let you know. Either way, you offer no proof Greb fought Tunney dirty." dude that came directly from the horses mouth. in the first fight he claimed that greb may have head butted him & he went into the first fight with a cut that was only re injured (from a head butt) his own words.......attack tunney not me. "You said you can't judge greatness without a visual. If you can't judge greatness without seeing a fighter you sure as well can't judge if he was a dirty fighter. Can't have it both ways kid" I have greb in my top ten (from reading, & his resume alone) he's in my top 10 without watching single one of his fights (you just aren't satisfied with my ranking of him) he's extremely dirty fighter & that was well known.

Bryan Vera

visual is one aspect (theres a combination of things you need) This I where are thinking differs most I think. Ideally you would like all 3, but certainly in my opinion you don't need all 3.

visual is one aspect (theres a combination of things you need) will be back..........don't have the time to reply to all of that as of now. fight night............

I won't go over what greatness is again because I think you know my stance on it & would rather just play clueless at this point. it's like repeating myself while you play clueless. instead for this post i will just present facts. Your stance? I thought it was the stance of "most historians", isn't that what you said? So I guess I shouldn't be expecting that list and links to you backing up your claim, huh? "You obviously know little of Greb as his being branded a dirty fighter is a result of the second Norfolk fight where Norfolk initiated the dirty fighting. Gene Tunney himself said Greb never initiated dirty tactics and would only respond in kind. Who would know better, him or you?" what? gene tunney never said that...........gene tunney claimed that he entered the ring (for the first fight) at a disadvantage & may have been butted by greb causing the 1st long streak of blood that blinded him through out the fight. from tunney himself you doke lol "While training for the Greb match, which took place just four months after the Levinsky match, I had the worst possible kind of luck. My left eyebrow was opened, and both hands were sorely injured. I am convinced that the adrenalin solution that had been injected softened the tissue that the first blow or butt I received cut the flesh right to the bone" I believe it was in Bill Paxtons biography of Greb. I'll find it and let you know. Either way, you offer no proof Greb fought Tunney dirty. harry greb has always been known as a very dirty fighter. butting, foot stomping, biting, thumbing. he was a dirty fighter. YOU my friend don't even know who harry greb was........(and i am dead serious) i guess john harvey (of sports illustrated) is also lying on greb? "Before and after the injury to his eye, Edward Henry Greb was one of the busiest, most notable—and dirtiest—fighters in his era. In contrast to the clean-fighting Sugar Ray, Greb was a master of holding and hitting, butting, thumbing—and he was not averse to belting the occasional referee who became too obtrusive" i could go on and on about harry greb. Is John Harvey a boxing historian? Does it really matter though? You said you can't judge greatness without a visual. If you can't judge greatness without seeing a fighter you sure as well can't judge if he was a dirty fighter. Can't have it both ways kid. YOU MY FRIEND HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU'ERE TALKING ABOUT. (you clearly don't even know who the hell harry greb is) it's embarrassing...... Lol, what aspect of his career would you like to talk about? Im no historian or expert but I've done plenty of research to debate a guy who just makes blanket statements and likes to announce others have no clue what they're talking about. & sam langford vs jack johnson.......ALL accounts do not point towards johnson giving langford a beating. some accounts say that johnson simply outclassed langford. others point towards langford almost having johnson out on his feet. (that wasn't even the point) the point was, due to the conflicting stories, it created a double win for both guys in the news papers. news papers many times were IFFY. "Two and a half years before the start of Johnson's legendary reign as World Heavyweight Champion, he met Sam Langford at the Lincoln Athletic Club in Chelsea, Massachusetts in defense of his "colored" portion of the heavyweight crown. Johnson, who had met the best heavyweight contenders (compared to the 156 lbs Langford, who had just recently started fighting heavyweights), dominated the bout and won by a lopsided fifteen-round decision. However, Langford's manager, Joe Woodman, told everyone who would listen that Langford floored the "Galveston Giant" with a right uppercut and gave him a tremendous battle. Woodman's account persisted for years, which offended Johnson greatly and prompted him to issue a series of vehement denials. In an open letter to The Ring in 1934, Johnson wrote: “I have accounts of the fight from my dear old friend, Tad (legendary sports writer and cartoonist Tad Dorgan), which show how badly Sam Langford was whipped. Please note the account of our fifteen-round fight at Chelsea, Mass., which I am enclosing. The report shows that I gave poor Sam such a severe trimming that he had to find his way into a hospital to recuperate. The records of that fight prove that statement to be correct." In 1945, Joe Waterman, who believed Johnson was the greatest of all the heavyweight champions, backed up Johnson's account. Waterman stated that he was at the fight and witnessed Johnson dish out a "terrible beating" to the smaller Langford. In his 1958 book, 50 Years at Ringside, Nat Fleischer, founder of The Ring, produced the testimony of his father-in-law, Dad Phillips, who allegedly saw the fight. Said Phillips: “Jack Johnson decisively defeated Sam Langford. He was complete master of the situation. Jack so far outclassed Langford that for a time, until he purposely eased up on his onslaughts, the fight was one-sided." Fleischer once cornered Woodman and good-naturedly demanded the true version of events. According to Fleischer, this was Woodman’s response: “You’ve got me, Nat. Langford never dropped Johnson. But I was anxious to fix up another fight between the two and, knowing Jack’s pride, I invented the story of that knockdown to goad him into the ring against Sam again. Although it never happened, all the newspapermen believed it. They just never took the trouble to investigate. That knockdown was just a publicity gimmick.” This was the only time Johnson ever met Langford in the ring. After Johnson defeated Tommy Burns to win the title, Langford established himself as the leading contender for Johnson's title. However, in spite of many challenges by Langford and his handlers, Johnson never gave Langford a shot at the title." Get back to me son. Oh, and how about your top 10 all time list?

? I won't go over what greatness is again because I think you know my stance on it & would rather just play clueless at this point. it's like repeating myself while you play clueless. instead for this post i will just present facts. "You obviously know little of Greb as his being branded a dirty fighter is a result of the second Norfolk fight where Norfolk initiated the dirty fighting. Gene Tunney himself said Greb never initiated dirty tactics and would only respond in kind. Who would know better, him or you?" what? gene tunney never said that...........gene tunney claimed that he entered the ring (for the first fight) at a disadvantage & may have been butted by greb causing the 1st long streak of blood that blinded him through out the fight. from tunney himself you doke lol "While training for the Greb match, which took place just four months after the Levinsky match, I had the worst possible kind of luck. My left eyebrow was opened, and both hands were sorely injured. I am convinced that the adrenalin solution that had been injected softened the tissue that the first blow or butt I received cut the flesh right to the bone" harry greb has always been known as a very dirty fighter. butting, stomping, biting, thumbing. he was a dirty fighter. YOU my friend don't even know who harry greb was........(and i am dead serious) i guess john harvey (of sports illustrated) is also lying on greb? "Before and after the injury to his eye, Edward Henry Greb was one of the busiest, most notable—and dirtiest—fighters in his era. In contrast to the clean-fighting Sugar Ray, Greb was a master of holding and hitting, butting, thumbing—and he was not averse to belting the occasional referee who became too obtrusive" i could go on and on about harry greb. YOU MY FRIEND HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU'ERE TALKING ABOUT. (you clearly don't even know who the hell harry greb is) it's embarrassing...... & sam langford vs jack johnson.......ALL accounts do not point towards johnson giving langford a beating. some accounts say that johnson simply outclassed langford. others point towards langford almost having johnson out on his feet. (that wasn't even the point) the point was, due to the conflicting stories, it created a double win for both guys in the news papers. news papers many times were IFFY.

Greatness is determined by who you beat, its as simple as that. You can look like a horrible fighter, but as long as you keep winning you're the better man. Im gonna need a list and links to all these historians saying you need to witness on film or in person a great fight to accurately judge a fighters place in history. Get crackin' son! You obviously know little of Greb as his being branded a dirty fighter is a result of the second Norfolk fight where Norfolk initiated the dirty fighting. Gene Tunney himself said Greb never initiated dirty tactics and would only respond in kind. Who would know better, him or you? It was a different era with different rules, you just need to understand the era. A lot of things are iffy today. That doesn't mean a great fighter isn't a great fighter then or now. ALL accounts from those at the fight say Johnson gave Langford a beating. Langford even admitted this. You need to do more research son. We can talk about Greb thoroughly outclassing Dempsey in sparring and Jacks subsequent refusal to give Greb a shot at the title even though he was fighting all Grebs leftovers in the mean time. Please though, do explain why you don't have Greb in the top 5. Why don't you give us a list of your top 10 while your at it. I won't go over what greatness again because I think you know my stance on it & would rather just play clueless at this point. it's like repeating myself while you play clueless. instead for this post i will just present facts. "You obviously know little of Greb as his being branded a dirty fighter is a result of the second Norfolk fight where Norfolk initiated the dirty fighting. Gene Tunney himself said Greb never initiated dirty tactics and would only respond in kind. Who would know better, him or you?" what? gene tunney never said that...........gene tunney claimed that he entered the ring (for the first fight) at a disadvantage & may have been butted by greb causing the 1st long streak of blood that blinded him through out the fight. from tunney himself you doke lol "While training for the Greb match, which took place just four months after the Levinsky match, I had the worst possible kind of luck. My left eyebrow was opened, and both hands were sorely injured. I am convinced that the adrenalin solution that had been injected softened the tissue that the first blow or butt I received cut the flesh right to the bone" harry greb has always been known as a very dirty fighter. butting, foot stomping, biting, thumbing. he was a dirty fighter. YOU my friend don't even know who harry greb was........(and i am dead serious) i guess john harvey (of sports illustrated) is also lying on greb? "Before and after the injury to his eye, Edward Henry Greb was one of the busiest, most notable—and dirtiest—fighters in his era. In contrast to the clean-fighting Sugar Ray, Greb was a master of holding and hitting, butting, thumbing—and he was not averse to belting the occasional referee who became too obtrusive" i could go on and on about harry greb. YOU MY FRIEND HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU'ERE TALKING ABOUT. (you clearly don't even know who the hell harry greb is) it's embarrassing...... & sam langford vs jack johnson.......ALL accounts do not point towards johnson giving langford a beating. some accounts say that johnson simply outclassed langford. others point towards langford almost having johnson out on his feet. (that wasn't even the point) the point was, due to the conflicting stories it created a double win for both guys in the news papers. news papers many times were IFFY.

Greatness is determined by who you beat, its as simple as that. You can look like a horrible fighter, but as long as you keep winning you're the better man. Im gonna need a list and links to all these historians saying you need to witness on film or in person a great fight to accurately judge a fighters place in history. Get crackin' son! You obviously know little of Greb as his being branded a dirty fighter is a result of the second Norfolk fight where Norfolk initiated the dirty fighting. Gene Tunney himself said Greb never initiated dirty tactics and would only respond in kind. Who would know better, him or you? It was a different era with different rules, you just need to understand the era. A lot of things are iffy today. That doesn't mean a great fighter isn't a great fighter then or now. ALL accounts from those at the fight say Johnson gave Langford a beating. Langford even admitted this. You need to do more research son. We can talk about Greb thoroughly outclassing Dempsey in sparring and Jacks subsequent refusal to give Greb a shot at the title even though he was fighting all Grebs leftovers in the mean time. Please though, do explain why you don't have Greb in the top 5. Why don't you give us a list of your top 10 while your at it. I won't go over what greatness again because I think you know my stance on it & would rather just play clueless at this point. it's like repeating myself while you play clueless. instead for this post i will just present facts. "You obviously know little of Greb as his being branded a dirty fighter is a result of the second Norfolk fight where Norfolk initiated the dirty fighting. Gene Tunney himself said Greb never initiated dirty tactics and would only respond in kind. Who would know better, him or you?" what? gene tunney never said that...........gene tunney claimed that he entered the ring (for the first fight) at a disadvantage & may have been butted by greb causing the 1st long streak of blood that blinded him through out the fight. from tunney himself you doke lol "While training for the Greb match, which took place just four months after the Levinsky match, I had the worst possible kind of luck. My left eyebrow was opened, and both hands were sorely injured. I am convinced that the adrenalin solution that had been injected softened the tissue that the first blow or butt I received cut the flesh right to the bone" harry greb has always been known as a very dirty fighter. butting, foot stomping, biting, thumbing. he was a dirty fighter. YOU my friend don't even know who harry greb was........(and i am dead serious) i guess john harvey (of sports illustrated) is also lying on greb? "Before and after the injury to his eye, Edward Henry Greb was one of the busiest, most notable—and dirtiest—fighters in his era. In contrast to the clean-fighting Sugar Ray, Greb was a master of holding and hitting, butting, thumbing—and he was not averse to belting the occasional referee who became too obtrusive" i could go on and on about harry greb. YOU MY FRIEND HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU'ERE TALKING ABOUT. (you clearly don't even know who the hell harry greb is) it's embarrassing...... & sam langford vs jack johnson.......ALL accounts do not point towards johnson giving langford a beating. some accounts say that johnson simply outclassed langford. others point towards langford almost having johnson out on his feet. (that wasn't even the point) the point was, due to the conflicting stories it created a double win for both guys in the news papers. news papers many times were IFFY.

lol @ people saying Mayweather

1. THE GOAT SUGAR RAY ROBINSON 2. ALI Then everyone else

kid, greatness is defined by 3 things that almost all boxing historians agree with. the greatness of a fight (such as a thrilla in manlia) meaning the memorable moments that you witnesses on film or in person. did the guy overcome adversity? how did he over come adversity? what tactic did he use to holt the other guys offense & so on. (visual) the last 2 are skills, & resume. greatness is not defined by just one of those attributes. thats why guys like bert sugar, mike silver, custa mato have never had greb close to being number one......... Greatness is determined by who you beat, its as simple as that. You can look like a horrible fighter, but as long as you keep winning you're the better man. Im gonna need a list and links to all these historians saying you need to witness on film or in person a great fight to accurately judge a fighters place in history. Get crackin' son! you just can't crown someone as the greatest fighter of all time just based on resume (you have to have a good combination of things) and not to be repetitive but in grebs case we really need to see some film before we can come close of doing that because greb was known as being a very dirty fighter. elbows, headbutts, bites, thumbing in the eyes. you name it. (even in those times where things were tougher he was known as an extremely dirty fighter) theres even been reports where greb has attacked referees (who tried to stop him from thumbing or biting) You obviously know little of Greb as his being branded a dirty fighter is a result of the second Norfolk fight where Norfolk initiated the dirty fighting. Gene Tunney himself said Greb never initiated dirty tactics and would only respond in kind. Who would know better, him or you? also a lot of things were iffy in those days. It was a different era with different rules, you just need to understand the era. A lot of things are iffy today. That doesn't mean a great fighter isn't a great fighter then or now. sometimes news reports wasn't reported correctly (nothing was set in stone as a fact if you didn't attend the event. if it wasn't filmed. or the 2 fighters didn't confirm the report themselves) thats why sam langford & jack johnson both have A "double" win against each other. when they fought the first and only time one reporter said that jack johnson won & another reporter said that langford won (it went down as a double win for both men in the news papers) ALL accounts from those at the fight say Johnson gave Langford a beating. Langford even admitted this. You need to do more research son. anyway i need you to explain more..........I will be here to explain to you up and down why greb is not even in my top 5. We can talk about Greb thoroughly outclassing Dempsey in sparring and Jacks subsequent refusal to give Greb a shot at the title even though he was fighting all Grebs leftovers in the mean time. Please though, do explain why you don't have Greb in the top 5. Why don't you give us a list of your top 10 while your at it.

According to skysports it's Floyd Mayweather JR LOL In my humble opinion, there are 2 men who stand at ranks one and two and no one else even comes close, not even Pep, Armstrong and co. No. 1 Robinson No. 2 A very, very close second in Muhammad Ali /Thread

Yeah, these modern fighters throwing 400 punches in 12 rounds and gassing out by the 5th or 6th are in so much better condition than guys who went 15. Name the guys you on about kid , generalizations is very vague and throwing a blanket over things like this is not accurate at all , what evidence do you have , what 2 fights or fighters are you comparing , be specific . It takes a lot more energy to throw 80% power every shot than pity patter for 20 rnds , the ignorance of you guys is amazing , the proof of sporting improvement is everywhere you look and in every record book , but you idiots cant see it , show me some video of anybody you like from Grebs era and you can see they had nothing on a modern champ , just in technique alone they weren't even taught with the same level of tuition , let alone the speed power game of today . Do you have any powers of evaluation at all , the record books PROVE modern athletes are stronger faster and more powerful than olden times , if you cant see that your more hype swallower than boxing enthusiast , you think a title in 1930 has the same performance value as a title in 2000 , there was a time in boxing that it was more glorified tent fights than superfights . Show some videos of your great old school fighters , we can all see what they can do , what their speed looks like , technique , power , punch rate , foot work , come on put the videos up ?

Floyd Mayweather He beats Corrales

You don't know it if you have never actually seen that fighter fight. You are going off what people have told you not what you witnessed. I don't call Floyd the GOAT just the best I've seen live. Good Post!!! Roy is the GOAT in my book....I've never seen a better fighter in my lifetime!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Guillermo_Rigondeaux_after_the_win_vs._Rico_Ramos_20JAN2012_Las_Vegas_-_Palms_Casino.jpg/800px-Guillermo_Rigondeaux_after_the_win_vs._Rico_Ramos_20JAN2012_Las_Vegas_-_Palms_Casino.jpg GOAT status for beating another GOAT beast................