Greb, Langford, p4p and lack of film

[JAB5239]

The resumes of Harry Greb and Sam Langford are very comparable to that of the great Sugar Ray Robinson. It seems they are hurt though by the lack of footage or no footage at all. If there were quality film on both these fighters and they were as dominant on it as they are on paper is it concievable one of them could surpass Ray as the mythical greatest p4p fighter of all time?

[$Full Clip$]

I say def if they do look good. But it really goes to show was Jack Johnson as great as some people make him out to be? He's this national hero of his culture because he was the first Black Heavyweight champion but refused to give Sam Langford the same opportunity he was given.

[JAB5239]

I say def if they do look good. But it really goes to show was Jack Johnson as great as some people make him out to be? He's this national hero of his culture because he was the first Black Heavyweight champion but refused to give Sam Langford the same opportunity he was given.

Even without the Johnson rematch (a travesty) Langford beat most of the top fighters from lightweight thru heavyweight that his era had to offer. Walcott, Gans, Blackburn, Jeannette, Flynn, McVey, Hague, Ketchel, Clark, O'Brien, Smith, Wills, Jim Johnson, Norfolk, Meehan, Godfrey, Flowers.....and most of them he fought multiple times. Had he been given his chances I think he would have won the middleweight, light heavy and heavyweight titles.

[RINGG]

I don't think video's would make their accompishments even close to the great Sugar Ray, if I understand the question right.

[NChristo]

I don't think video's would make their accompishments even close to the great Sugar Ray, if I understand the question right.

But their accomplishments are close to Ray's, real close, a strong argument can be made for them to be #1 as well as Ray, with footage to back it up then maybe more people would sway towards thinking they was greater but imo most people would still rate them behind him.

[sonnyboyx2]

The difference between Langford & Greb compared to Robinson is that it is like trying to compare Duran & Henry Armstrong to Roy Jones Jr. in that although Langford, Greb, Duran & Armstrong are all brilliant fighters they do not match up to Robinson & Jones in the skills department with Robinson & Jones most likely being the 2 most skilled fighters of all time (speed, footwork, combinations, KO power both hands, etc ) there is a difference in their abilities, Robinson went 129-1-1 against the best in the world and Jones was unbeaten in 13yrs and thought by most to be "Unbeatable".. i don't think its lack of fight film-footage as there is footage of Armstrong & Langford available as well as sparring footage of Greb yet Robinson seems to be on a different level.

[McGrain]

Jones and Robinson would always look better on film than Langford, I think. Greb, not so sure.

However, looking good on film is subjective and in my opinion, often misunderstood. Comparing Jones and Langford directly, I woud say that as an execution of their individual styles there is probably very little difference. In terms of counter-pressure there has very likely been a better execution of that style on film by many, if any fighters, ever, and in terms of a mover-box-puncher, Jones is amongst the very tops. That being the case, it comes down to what you personally thinks looks better on film. Opinions then, then, matched across very very different styles.

It is interesting you mention Armstrong. To me, Armstrong looks the equal of anyone ever on film. Sonnyboy has defined skill as "speed, power, combinations...". That is such a limited definition as to be unacceptable to me. Like the perma-pressure stylings of Armstrong don't require just as much exceptional skill.

Regardless, Armstrong's execution of his style is as perfect as any execution of any style on film, ever. It's not accurate to state that Jones and Robinson are better because they hold more firmly to a given definition of skills.

[sonnyboyx2]

Jones and Robinson would always look better on film than Langford, I think. Greb, not so sure.

However, looking good on film is subjective and in my opinion, often misunderstood. Comparing Jones and Langford directly, I woud say that as an execution of their individual styles there is probably very little difference. In terms of counter-pressure there has very likely been a better execution of that style on film by many, if any fighters, ever, and in terms of a mover-box-puncher, Jones is amongst the very tops. That being the case, it comes down to what you personally thinks looks better on film. Opinions then, then, matched across very very different styles.

It is interesting you mention Armstrong. To me, Armstrong looks the equal of anyone ever on film. Sonnyboy has defined skill as "speed, power, combinations...". That is such a limited definition as to be unacceptable to me. Like the perma-pressure stylings of Armstrong don't require just as much exceptional skill.

Regardless, Armstrong's execution of his style is as perfect as any execution of any style on film, ever. It's not accurate to state that Jones and Robinson are better because they hold more firmly to a given definition of skills.

i have around 20 fights of Henry Armstrong on dvd and he simply is not in the same league as Jones & Robinson in terms of skill (speed, footwork, hand-eye-co, KO power both hands, variety of punches, etc etc )... What is your definition of Boxing skills?

[Sugarj]

The resumes of Harry Greb and Sam Langford are very comparable to that of the great Sugar Ray Robinson. It seems they are hurt though by the lack of footage or no footage at all. If there were quality film on both these fighters and they were as dominant on it as they are on paper is it concievable one of them could surpass Ray as the mythical greatest p4p fighter of all time?

I like the word 'mythical', it implies a legendary quality. If there were more footage they would both have a greater claim, if it indeed showed some degree of genius. Ray's genius was clear to all who saw him, but I've got a sad feeling that even in 1080p HD Langford and Greb would look as dated as their eras actually were. I'd hope otherwise!

They were both splendid and have truely amazing records......so yes, in a 'mythical' sense they might rightly have a claim. BUT over 12/15 rounds at a comparable weight (hence the P4P intent to my mind at least!) to the likes of Robinson or Jones jnr, I honestly think they would be severely shown up.

I will say that were they born into a more modern era, then they might well have both become truely amazing. They clearly had the warrior mentality.

Like Sonnyboy, I am very impressed by tangible skills rather than a written record. I think the availability of fight film as the decades have passed has benefitted fighters greatly on the whole. The ability to study opponents' weaknesses or to work on boxers own defensive shortcomings is surely been invaluable.

I suppose it comes down to what you like in your pound for pound list......the written legend or the skills you can judge for yourself.

Its why I dont have a personal pound for pound list!

[Obama]

I honestly think Robinson has the best resume when losses are looked at (while the guy is still capable, not shot to pieces). That said, Langford by far fought the more difficult opposition, so naturally it makes sense he lost a lot more.