would Greb is p4p number 1?

yeah I guess I can give him the nod in a very close rematch. I say neither 1 of them did anything the first 8 rounds of the first fight but Hopkins put some hurt on him in the last 4 Yes i agree but unforntuately they score round by round and not the whole fight If memory serves me right, i think hopkins won rounds 4,6,9,10,11,12 with neither guy doing much at all, but taylor was really the only one throwing punches early, and his jab was dictating the pace of the fight... I think hopkins gave away more rounds than taylor actually winning them

I had the first fight a draw,,, hopkins did nothing till the last 4 but what about the rematch,,, Taylor clearly won that yeah I guess I can give him the nod in a very close rematch. I say neither 1 of them did anything the first 8 rounds of the first fight but Hopkins put some hurt on him in the last 4

I'm in agreement with Larry, here. For all I know, Sugar Ray Robinson at welterweight might very well be the finest fighter of all time, but, quite simply, there is no way for me to attest to that. For me to support that claim, I'd need to be able to witness and assess his performances myself. If proof does not exist, then it is simply left to question. Sure, resume can help support that position, but once again, we're left with the same problem. You have to accept the strength of his opposition at the time purely on the faith of others' words. How reliable would it be to declare Picasso the greatest artist of all time without the luxury of being able to actually view his work today? Would it be enough for you to just be told via word of mouth that, back in the day, people who saw his work were really, really impressed? What if we never had the musical manuscripts for the works of Mozart and his music could never be recreated or heard again. Would it be enough for you just to know that the people who did get a chance to hear it back in the 1700s heartily declared it the greatest music of all time, never to be challenged? Boxing is not an objective sport - hence why we have judges. If boxing was more like sprinting, we wouldn't need video evidence. If the records of history had shown a man to have run the 100m in 9 seconds flat in the early 1900s, it wouldn't matter how that 9 seconds looked on camera, we could objectively call him the fastest sprinter in recorded history. Boxing, sadly, cannot be afforded that luxury. So to say, X is the greatest fighter of all time, having seen little to none of his greatest performances is, I feel, a very sketchy position to hold. You're relying on the strength of other peoples words. And that's how myths get started. not really you're judging whos the goat off records. who would beat who in a fight is impossible to know

NO... Not at all especially the first fight he got a beating. Although I acknowledge it was the last 4 rounds but still. He did nothing either in the first 8 I had the first fight a draw,,, hopkins did nothing till the last 4 but what about the rematch,,, Taylor clearly won that

I see your point but realize that guys dont fight every other week like they did back then,,, With the expansion of television you really only get one shot or maybe a trilogy,,, look at manny-jmm, they have given us 4 great fights and people whine about having to see a 5th, but if it was 70 years ago, jmm and manny would have fought about 8 times... Who in the 40s beat guys like ATG benetiz for welter belt, nearly prime duran, and made him quit, and defeated the monster that was hearns,,, all in about 2 years time, plus he beat ayublu for the jr mid belt in a tune-up fight,, SRL career was short but his accomplishments are amazing if you consider that he beat 4 top 100 fighters of all time, and 2 being at their peak, one being near prime, and one being the middleweight kingpin Hagler and SRL were both past primes,,, but the fact remains that nobody had ended hagler's reign till SRL did,,, Do you give jermain taylor credit for beating hopkins, or tarver beating roy,, they were past their primes but still the man,, and as the great ric flair says "TO BE THE MAN YOU GOT TO BEAT THE MAN" SRL was also a huge underdog in this fight, and lots of people thought hagler would kill him,,, but revisionist history will tell you that hagler was shot and old NO... Not at all especially the first fight he got a beating. Although I acknowledge it was the last 4 rounds but still. He did nothing either in the first 8

i don't have a ton of issues with the top 25-50 but 10 is way, way too high. hagler also was definitely past his prime when leonard fought him. it's an odd case, because leonard himself was so far gone and coming off of a layoff, but that's doesn't mean we credit him for a prime hagler when hagler clearly wasn't still prime. He was only 31 though although he had a lot of fights. Not leonards fault he liked the sauce

i have to post footage of harry greb to prove that i'm knowledgable about the history of boxing? by those criteria, nobody is knowledgable about boxing. that's how a child argues, kid. i forgot more about the history of boxing in the last 5 years than you will ever know. lets see your knowledge in the history section. i've been there for years, and i don't recall you posting there once. if you have knowledge of history, that's where you discuss it. hey ne what part of new england are u from?

I'm in agreement with Larry, here. For all I know, Sugar Ray Robinson at welterweight might very well be the finest fighter of all time, but, quite simply, there is no way for me to attest to that. For me to support that claim, I'd need to be able to witness and assess his performances myself. If proof does not exist, then it is simply left to question. Sure, resume can help support that position, but once again, we're left with the same problem. You have to accept the strength of his opposition at the time purely on the faith of others' words. How reliable would it be to declare Picasso the greatest artist of all time without the luxury of being able to actually view his work today? Would it be enough for you to just be told via word of mouth that, back in the day, people who saw his work were really, really impressed? What if we never had the musical manuscripts for the works of Mozart and his music could never be recreated or heard again. Would it be enough for you just to know that the people who did get a chance to hear it back in the 1700s heartily declared it the greatest music of all time, never to be challenged? Boxing is not an objective sport - hence why we have judges. If boxing was more like sprinting, we wouldn't need video evidence. If the records of history had shown a man to have run the 100m in 9 seconds flat in the early 1900s, it wouldn't matter how that 9 seconds looked on camera, we could objectively call him the fastest sprinter in recorded history. Boxing, sadly, cannot be afforded that luxury. So to say, X is the greatest fighter of all time, having seen little to none of his greatest performances is, I feel, a very sketchy position to hold. You're relying on the strength of other peoples words. And that's how myths get started. Great, great breakdown!!! I agree with most of it, but the Robinson example is not the best possible. There is so much footage available of Robinson and some of his best fights, opponents and performances took place at middleweight and even though he was past his best, he still beat the leading fighters at the time and managed to almost beat the reigning LHW champ too. That's some thing for a guy who is past his best and post 30. So from there, we can extrapolate how great he was in his 20s at 147 and there is some footage available during his reign at 147. Heck, I have even seen very rare footage of his turn in the Golden Gloves, where he was damn fast with cat like reflexes. There are fighters however, guys like Greb (mentioned so often) who just can't be accounted for. I'd still rank them pretty high based on resume and reports about his fights and skills but to claim he was p4p the best or near the best is ridiculous, how can you do so without seeing him fight or seeing many of his opponents fight? It doesn't sit well with me. And to make such a claim and say that it is definitive and to argue that claim maniacally is even worse. Was he the best ever? He MAY well have been but there is NO WAY for us to know that. Whereas we can quite clearly tell the likes of Robinson, Ali, Pep, Armstrong, Leonard, Duran and so on deserve to be ranked among the best if not the best.

There is no footage only tall tales. It's human nature to think the best fighters are fighters about the same age as yourself.So guys the same age as Greb would have said he was the best but the guys that are the same age as Robinson will say Robinson was better. Every sport that can be measured improves as time goes by. Any sport that has a record of times and distances is always breaking the old records. It makes no sense that modern boxers would not improve over the old timers. Big money gives good fighters more of a reason to fight pro. Mayweather makes more money in one fight than Greb made in his entire career.

You know nothing about credibility, as evidenced by your list. Plenty of fighters, actually. Name the fighters

I have plenty of footage to post on Robinson in which i can form an opinion on...how can i say a fighter was so great when i have 0 fottage of him and the footage i have people have to defend?? and yes i know who Jack obrien is i follow the sport just like you so please feel free to climb off of your high horse Because we do have footage of some of the fighters he beat, and we know they were exceptional. Gene Tunney for instance.

The fur is flying in this thread.

Well....I didn't see the point of mentioning every one of another 20-30 top fighters. A serious consideration of the absolutely top top fighters of all time would take the combined efforts of about 50 highly skilled analysts-historians-trainers-fighters-promoters and would last a year, and half of them might end up in hospital with assorted inflicted injuries..... . Since others were giving their choices, I gave mine, but hedged the last five.... And then there would be many who would complain about it. Ali was only "The Greatest" because that was the gimmick he and his composer buddy Bundini Brown threw around as a comedy act. His mouth caused us to acclimatise to it. It is a FACT that a huge pile of experts said that when Ali slowed down, his very obvious lack of boxing skills would make him pay heavily... And we KNOW that this is exactly what happened. In the first half of the 20th century there were often 20-25 boxing promotions going on in New York City ALONE.... and the earlier champs only became champs by beating their ways through dozens of top fighters who never became champs, but who, if they were around today certainly would. So they deserve especial consideration in choosing the very best. At least, so I do believe. There were several experts who had seen every top fighter from Jim Jeffries up to and including Ali's best years, and they all concurred that Johnson and Louis were considerably better. That Johnson could do everything that Ali did, but much better, as well as much that Ali couldn't do. etc.etc. Well, I respect the experts, and have never been starstruck past my 15th birthday...so ! So ridiculous. Ali had a lack of skills? Really? I'm an Ali "hater" I dislike the guy and always did when I was growing up but to say he lacked skills is absolutely ridiculous. And you really honestly believe that both Johnson and Louis can do everything Ali can but better? Like, you seriously and genuinely believe that?

Louis, JJ and Benny Leonard above Ali? Locche above Duran??? You mention RJJ, Zarate and the Klits but no Hagler, Leonard or Chavez Sr? Be real fam Well....I didn't see the point of mentioning every one of another 20-30 top fighters. A serious consideration of the absolutely top top fighters of all time would take the combined efforts of about 50 highly skilled analysts-historians-trainers-fighters-promoters and would last a year, and half of them might end up in hospital with assorted inflicted injuries..... . Since others were giving their choices, I gave mine, but hedged the last five.... And then there would be many who would complain about it. Ali was only "The Greatest" because that was the gimmick he and his composer buddy Bundini Brown threw around as a comedy act. His mouth caused us to acclimatise to it. It is a FACT that a huge pile of experts said that when Ali slowed down, his very obvious lack of boxing skills would make him pay heavily... And we KNOW that this is exactly what happened. In the first half of the 20th century there were often 20-25 boxing promotions going on in New York City ALONE.... and the earlier champs only became champs by beating their ways through dozens of top fighters who never became champs, but who, if they were around today certainly would. So they deserve especial consideration in choosing the very best. At least, so I do believe. There were several experts who had seen every top fighter from Jim Jeffries up to and including Ali's best years, and they all concurred that Johnson and Louis were considerably better. That Johnson could do everything that Ali did, but much better, as well as much that Ali couldn't do. etc.etc. Well, I respect the experts, and have never been starstruck past my 15th birthday...so !

We have footage of guys he beat, that's something. His resume speaks for itself.

I'm glad you're talking respectfully and trying to dicuss civily. I'll come from the other side of the spectrum to counter argue. I agree it is very hard to judge how Greb would do in a fight because we don't know how he fights or his style. We know he was aggressive and liked to brawl but that has many variables. Much similar to Joe Walcott in the sense we don't know how he'd do in a fantasy fight. or Young Griffo, and that relatively short list goes on. But, what we do have, is footage of the fighters Greb beat which we can fairly say were pretty damn good. Most notably Tunney. You've got to be pretty good to be the only person who beat Tunney, right? I see your point, I do. I get where you're coming from. But again to be the other side of the coin, why do we need footage to rank how great a fighter is? If we read about a fighter and take witness accounts, and also who they beat (Who we do have footage of) isn't it fair to assess them? I think it is. I mean, we can read about the old warriors, right? We don't need footage to know what Gengis Khan got up to. Or Alexander the Great. Except for Greb was obviously a lot more recent and a lot easier to access what he did and didn't do. he'll get no such respect from me :lol1:. this is carry over from beef long gone, when he tried to classify me as an old blowhard because i had black and white pictures in my sig, and cared for the history of the sport more than the current landscape i'm actually younger than he is.

I'm in agreement with Larry, here. For all I know, Sugar Ray Robinson at welterweight might very well be the finest fighter of all time, but, quite simply, there is no way for me to attest to that. For me to support that claim, I'd need to be able to witness and assess his performances myself. If proof does not exist, then it is simply left to question. Sure, resume can help support that position, but once again, we're left with the same problem. You have to accept the strength of his opposition at the time purely on the faith of others' words. How reliable would it be to declare Picasso the greatest artist of all time without the luxury of being able to actually view his work today? Would it be enough for you to just be told via word of mouth that, back in the day, people who saw his work were really, really impressed? What if we never had the musical manuscripts for the works of Mozart and his music could never be recreated or heard again. Would it be enough for you just to know that the people who did get a chance to hear it back in the 1700s heartily declared it the greatest music of all time, never to be challenged? Boxing is not an objective sport - hence why we have judges. If boxing was more like sprinting, we wouldn't need video evidence. If the records of history had shown a man to have run the 100m in 9 seconds flat in the early 1900s, it wouldn't matter how that 9 seconds looked on camera, we could objectively call him the fastest sprinter in recorded history. Boxing, sadly, cannot be afforded that luxury. So to say, X is the greatest fighter of all time, having seen little to none of his greatest performances is, I feel, a very sketchy position to hold. You're relying on the strength of other peoples words. And that's how myths get started. a comparison between great artists and fighters isn't valid. boxing is not fully subjective, the way art is. you judge the effectiveness of the blows when there isn't a stoppage. as long as the judges are on the up and up, we don't neccessarily need footage of a fight to recognize who beat who. plenty of grebs opponents were filmed. in addition, we have the context of their careers to go on. you don't have any of that with artists. artists are generally "ranked" in terms of their ability, and impact on art moving forward. fighters are ranked on who they beat and when. mythical h2h matchups are fully subjective. resume are not fully subjective. we know who greb beat according to the rules for judging a boxing match under the marquis de queensbury rules. if people want to say that they don't consider greb when they're ranking fighters because they've never seen him fight, that's fine. if you're talking about resume you need to consider him, because the wins happened and we have context for them by our knowledge of his opponents. i think you'll find that many of the truths you hold dear are based on the words of others. once you establish your sources as credible, there's nothing wrong with that in the advent of a lack of a physical record

Thing that gets me is, Ya'll will rank someone so high who you have 0 footage of...yet critisize fighters you get to see on a regular basis...i just do not understand that logic at all. I'm glad you're talking respectfully and trying to dicuss civily. I'll come from the other side of the spectrum to counter argue. I agree it is very hard to judge how Greb would do in a fight because we don't know how he fights or his style. We know he was aggressive and liked to brawl but that has many variables. Much similar to Joe Walcott in the sense we don't know how he'd do in a fantasy fight. or Young Griffo, and that relatively short list goes on. But, what we do have, is footage of the fighters Greb beat which we can fairly say were pretty damn good. Most notably Tunney. You've got to be pretty good to be the only person who beat Tunney, right? I see your point, I do. I get where you're coming from. But again to be the other side of the coin, why do we need footage to rank how great a fighter is? If we read about a fighter and take witness accounts, and also who they beat (Who we do have footage of) isn't it fair to assess them? I think it is. I mean, we can read about the old warriors, right? We don't need footage to know what Gengis Khan got up to. Or Alexander the Great. Except for Greb was obviously a lot more recent and a lot easier to access what he did and didn't do.

larry, lots of the greatest fighters of all time weren't well filmed. hell, robinson, the consensus goat, is not well filmed at welterweight. he's well filmed at middleweight, but those fights are well into a hard career, and took place when he was past his best. the history of boxing isn't all well filmed, larry. boxing was a much more popular and significant sport in the past. if you want to know about the important periods in boxing's history, you have to read in addition to watching film. greb wasn't well filmed. many of his top opponents were. he fought just under 300 fights, beating 13 hall of famers and several all time greats along the way. his record reads like a hall of fame register. his accomplishments in boxing are without a doubt among the top 10 of all time. if you don't recognize that, it's because you don't know what you're talking about. I'm in agreement with Larry, here. For all I know, Sugar Ray Robinson at welterweight might very well be the finest fighter of all time, but, quite simply, there is no way for me to attest to that. For me to support that claim, I'd need to be able to witness and assess his performances myself. If proof does not exist, then it is simply left to question. Sure, resume can help support that position, but once again, we're left with the same problem. You have to accept the strength of his opposition at the time purely on the faith of others' words. How reliable would it be to declare Picasso the greatest artist of all time without the luxury of being able to actually view his work today? Would it be enough for you to just be told via word of mouth that, back in the day, people who saw his work were really, really impressed? What if we never had the musical manuscripts for the works of Mozart and his music could never be recreated or heard again. Would it be enough for you just to know that the people who did get a chance to hear it back in the 1700s heartily declared it the greatest music of all time, never to be challenged? Boxing is not an objective sport - hence why we have judges. If boxing was more like sprinting, we wouldn't need video evidence. If the records of history had shown a man to have run the 100m in 9 seconds flat in the early 1900s, it wouldn't matter how that 9 seconds looked on camera, we could objectively call him the fastest sprinter in recorded history. Boxing, sadly, cannot be afforded that luxury. So to say, X is the greatest fighter of all time, having seen little to none of his greatest performances is, I feel, a very sketchy position to hold. You're relying on the strength of other peoples words. And that's how myths get started.

No the truth is he is a racist alt and his past history shows this alt? what is that? racist my bestfriend brother from another mother is black never went through this white guilt chit in real life everyone is held to the same stanards mayweather should be treated as a coward for avoiding and ducking the best of his era not praised for having money and being of african decent