Ranking Harry Greb above Sugar Ray Robinson. Can it be justified?

[Barn]

I'm not discrediting, I'm just not ranking him. It's different. He sort of exists outside of my lists. Now, if I see some real film of him, I expect that that should change pretty quickly, at least if the stories are to be believed. But I just feel like you shouldn't have a different set of principals based on circumstance. If you can't fill out the list of criteria on a fighter, you can't really rank him. And if your criteria doesn't include at least a bit of an eyeball test, what's the point of watching the sport? Why not jsut read newspaper articles?

We have just got to hope in an attic or something, something will show up.

[BigStereotype]

I'm sure there is Greb footage somewhere out there. It's just in the hands of some collector who would rather die than share it. HOPEFULLY, when that collector passes (not saying hopefully he passes, just saying that when it happens), his children don't care about the footage enough to keep it. They just sell it. And then I can download it.

[Barn]

I'm sure there is Greb footage somewhere out there. It's just in the hands of some collector who would rather die than share it. HOPEFULLY, when that collector passes (not saying hopefully he passes, just saying that when it happens), his children don't care about the footage enough to keep it. They just sell it. And then I can download it.

Why the **** would you not share it lol?

[bklynboy]

I'm not discrediting, I'm just not ranking him. It's different. He sort of exists outside of my lists. Now, if I see some real film of him, I expect that that should change pretty quickly, at least if the stories are to be believed. But I just feel like you shouldn't have a different set of principals based on circumstance. If you can't fill out the list of criteria on a fighter, you can't really rank him. And if your criteria doesn't include at least a bit of an eyeball test, what's the point of watching the sport? Why not jsut read newspaper articles?

Well said. He, as with a lot of early fighters, stand outside of my lists for just that reason. Where does Stanley Ketchel stand for instance? Still, it's hard to make a middleweight list and not include them. Boxers, trainers, managers all saw them and said they were among the best we saw. I have no problem putting Greb in a TOP 5 list of middleweights simply by resume and word-of-mouth. I do think it's difficult to say that he's better than SRR by resume alone.

[BigStereotype]

Why the **** would you not share it lol?

I don't know, I guess there's some prestige in being the only living person to have seen something. It adds to the mystique of a collection? I would probably share it too, but you have to consider the elitist who has the kind of money to dig up footage from the teens. That's a long time ago and a lot of digging for something we're not even sure exists.

[NChristo]

Why the **** would you not share it lol?

The film would lose it's value, once it's on the internet and everyone has seen it how much would it be really be worth ?, like Big said there's also a kind of prestige to be had and mystique behind it.

Also if someone does find it chances are they have spent an extremely long time searching and quite a bit of money trying to get hold of it, their first intention wouldn't be to share it, all that hard work so other people could see it easy ?.
It's kind of selfish but that's how some people would see it I'm sure.

[Joeyzagz]

I'm not discrediting, I'm just not ranking him. It's different. He sort of exists outside of my lists. Now, if I see some real film of him, I expect that that should change pretty quickly, at least if the stories are to be believed. But I just feel like you shouldn't have a different set of principals based on circumstance. If you can't fill out the list of criteria on a fighter, you can't really rank him. And if your criteria doesn't include at least a bit of an eyeball test, what's the point of watching the sport? Why not jsut read newspaper articles?

We dont have much film of Robinson at Welterweight, yet you dont need this to conclude he was the greatest WW of all time. The record speaks for itself.


The same goes for Greb. Grebs record and the HOF names are enough.

The Newspaper Articles are ancillary.

[BigStereotype]

We dont have much film of Robinson at Welterweight, yet you dont need this to conclude he was the greatest WW of all time. The record speaks for itself.


The same goes for Greb. Grebs record and the HOF names are enough.

The Newspaper Articles are ancillary.

We have enough footage of him at middleweight that we can say "ok, him but better is pretty ****ing good." You can see his style, you can see the obvious physical gifts that carried even past his prime and there is more footage of Ray at welterweight than there is of Greb at any point.

[JAB5239]

I'm not discrediting, I'm just not ranking him. It's different. He sort of exists outside of my lists. Now, if I see some real film of him, I expect that that should change pretty quickly, at least if the stories are to be believed. But I just feel like you shouldn't have a different set of principals based on circumstance. If you can't fill out the list of criteria on a fighter, you can't really rank him. And if your criteria doesn't include at least a bit of an eyeball test, what's the point of watching the sport? Why not jsut read newspaper articles?

What would film change of his achievements though? Say he's not aesthetically pleasing to watch, would that make anything he did less impressive?

[Miburo]

What would film change of his achievements though? Say he's not aesthetically pleasing to watch, would that make anything he did less impressive?

Personally I don't compare fighters prior to the Long Count to those after. I consider it a different variant of the sport, no neutral corner rule was a vital part of the success of many fighters of the era like Dempsey.