Greatest Light Heavyweight ever Charles or Greb?

[Humean]

Of course it highlights quality. I didn't refute that.

What I did refute, is it add's to their standing at a different weight. Which, to me, is glaringly obvious.

Spinks moving up and having success at HW adds to his ATG legacy, that goes without saying. It doesn't add notches to his LHW standing, though.

Beating and "He would probably beat" are black and white. You don't get ranked highly in my book by "Probably being able to beat" someone.

As for the nice heads and tails evalutation. Don't really see how that works. Plenty in here will tell you I am more than reasonable and unbiased (For the most part) in regards to who I rank where.

The reason you don't think it adds to a light heavyweights evaluation as a light heavyweight is because you are obsessed with resume rather than a fighter's actual abilities. The great bulk of your evaluations seem to want to be about what hoops a fighter jumped through rather than what these wins signify. Shouldn't greatness be largely, although not wholly, about how good the fighter was?

I know many people, especially lots of boxing 'historians' are in agreement with you about Pep and Saddler but it is clearly a heads you win, tails the other loses with you on this. There doesn't seem to be any reason why Saddler's wins against Pep should be discounted the way you seem to think they are because there is no good evidence besides the fact that he lost that Pep wasn't in his prime. What happened after the Pep-Saddler fights are not really good evidence in any direction because fighter's can fight and lose in their prime and then fall downhill straight after either because they took too much punishment, such as being knocked out, or they lose their motivation.

Here's another example of your heads you win tails the other loses form of arguing. You take the boxing 'historian's' claim about who is an all time great and then you say that fighter A beat such and such all time greats and then you come to the conclusion that because fighter B did not fight and beat any supposed all time greats that this means that fighter B is clearly not as great a fighter as A. How can anyone argue you out of this position when it is a form of circular reasoning? Surely the correct way to judge is to judge each fighter independently where possible, rather than accept the 'historian's' judgement and thus end up presuming what you are trying to prove. I'm not blaming you entirely or specifically for this, it is very common amongst most boxing fans when they judge fighters historically.

[IronDanHamza]

The reason you don't think it adds to a light heavyweights evaluation as a light heavyweight is because you are obsessed with resume rather than a fighter's actual abilities. The great bulk of your evaluations seem to want to be about what hoops a fighter jumped through rather than what these wins signify. Shouldn't greatness be largely, although not wholly, about how good the fighter was?

No, the reason I don't think it's adds to it, is because it's at an entirely different weight. How someone performs at 175 in comparison to say, 195, is completely different.

The great bulk of my evaluations are on resume, because to me, your resume is the best way to evalute how great a fighter is. Who you beat and when is what's important, or most important.

Of course I also take into consideration a fighters skills and ability.

I know many people, especially lots of boxing 'historians' are in agreement with you about Pep and Saddler but it is clearly a heads you win, tails the other loses with you on this. There doesn't seem to be any reason why Saddler's wins against Pep should be discounted the way you seem to think they are because there is no good evidence besides the fact that he lost that Pep wasn't in his prime. What happened after the Pep-Saddler fights are not really good evidence in any direction because fighter's can fight and lose in their prime and then fall downhill straight after either because they took too much punishment, such as being knocked out, or they lose their motivation.

No it's not.

I just added that to the discussion. I wasn't aware you consider almost nobody to be a legitmate Historian with any merit.

Here's another example of your heads you win tails the other loses form of arguing. You take the boxing 'historian's' claim about who is an all time great and then you say that fighter A beat such and such all time greats and then you come to the conclusion that because fighter B did not fight and beat any supposed all time greats that this means that fighter B is clearly not as great a fighter as A. How can anyone argue you out of this position when it is a form of circular reasoning? Surely the correct way to judge is to judge each fighter independently where possible, rather than accept the 'historian's' judgement and thus end up presuming what you are trying to prove. I'm not blaming you entirely or specifically for this, it is very common amongst most boxing fans when they judge fighters historically.

Where exactly have I stated that what I personally consider to be an ATG is due to other Historians saying so?

Who I consider an ATG, is exactly that, my personal view on who is an ATG. Absolutely nothing to do with how another person views that fighter.

When I am judging a fighter, it's exclusively my view. I'm not "accepting a Historians view". That's my view.

[Humean]

No, the reason I don't think it's adds to it, is because it's at an entirely different weight. How someone performs at 175 in comparison to say, 195, is completely different.

The great bulk of my evaluations are on resume, because to me, your resume is the best way to evalute how great a fighter is. Who you beat and when is what's important, or most important.

Of course I also take into consideration a fighters skills and ability.



No it's not.

I just added that to the discussion. I wasn't aware you consider almost nobody to be a legitmate Historian with any merit.



Where exactly have I stated that what I personally consider to be an ATG is due to other Historians saying so?

Who I consider an ATG, is exactly that, my personal view on who is an ATG. Absolutely nothing to do with how another person views that fighter.

When I am judging a fighter, it's exclusively my view. I'm not "accepting a Historians view". That's my view.

Well it certainly has seemed like, in other posts on other topics and fighters, that your view runs fairly consistent with the views of boxing historians even if you don't consider yourself to rate fighters because boxing historians say so.

An example would be the argument we had last week, or whenever it was, about the relative merits of Booker and Lytell for the hall of fame compared to Calzaghe. Booker and Lytell perhaps beat more guys in the hall of fame, or guys boxing historians would consider 'good names' compared to Calzaghe and thus it is easy to conclude from that that Booker and Lytell are more deserving than Calzaghe for the hall of fame. That seems to be your reasoning and position. I just think too many of the names of the past have become inflated and they sort of become engraved as notable fighters and thus newer fighters and champions don't get the credit they deserve because few of their opponents have been so engraved with the mark of quality even if they were/are actually as good or better fighters.

You brought up Pep and Saddler, now to me this is a typical example, both are rated extremely highly in the pantheon of featherweights as well as pound for pound. Indeed it seems to be a fairly typical view that not only was Pep better than Saddler but that he is the greatest featherweight of all time and ring magazine had him number 6 in their top 80 fighters of the last 80 years in 2002. That is a fairly common opinion. When I look through the film I think it would be hard for me to place either of these fighters in the top 5 featherweights of all time or perhaps even the top 10. Sugar Ramos, Davey Moore, Saldivar, Marcel, Olivares, Arguello, Salvador Sanchez, Pedroza, Azumah Nelson, Naseem Hamed, Morales, as well as many others seem to me to be as good or better than Pep and Saddler. I don't think the phenomenal number of fights and wins both Pep and Saddler had counts nearly as much as people make out because the opposition was very poor, indeed even their best wins are not really so significant except the wins against each other. Maybe you or someone else can try and convince me in a new thread that Pep and Saddler really are as great as everyone seems to believe.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Ok this thread made me go back over the pst few days and do some serious reading on the light heavys.... I have come to conclusion when adding in resume, skills, wins, etc

1. Ezzard Charles
2. Greb
3. Moore
4. Spinks
5. Foster

[IronDanHamza]

Well it certainly has seemed like, in other posts on other topics and fighters, that your view runs fairly consistent with the views of boxing historians even if you don't consider yourself to rate fighters because boxing historians say so.

How many examples of this have you seen? One? Two, perhaps?

An example would be the argument we had last week, or whenever it was, about the relative merits of Booker and Lytell for the hall of fame compared to Calzaghe. Booker and Lytell perhaps beat more guys in the hall of fame, or guys boxing historians would consider 'good names' compared to Calzaghe and thus it is easy to conclude from that that Booker and Lytell are more deserving than Calzaghe for the hall of fame. That seems to be your reasoning and position. I just think too many of the names of the past have become inflated and they sort of become engraved as notable fighters and thus newer fighters and champions don't get the credit they deserve because few of their opponents have been so engraved with the mark of quality even if they were/are actually as good or better fighters.

I'd say it's a safe bet that the vast majoirty of historians would rank Calzaghe a lot higher than Lytell and Booker on their ATG list and the chance of Calzaghe getting into the HOF over them is extremely high.

Meaning your example of my view aligning with "Historians" is a poor one.

You brought up Pep and Saddler, now to me this is a typical example, both are rated extremely highly in the pantheon of featherweights as well as pound for pound.

I brought up Pep and Saddler because that's the most obvious example of a case of styles making fights. In response to your comment on Charles going 3-0 against Moore.

Despite from the seldom few, seemingly yourself included, most people (including myself) would consider Pep to be ranked higher than Saddler historically despite losing 3 out their 4 fights.

It's funny, because you have this idea that my views are identical to all of historians views (Not sure what exactly that's based off) yet I consider Pep to be slightly overrated and is ranked outside of my Top 10. Which most Historians I'd imagine would strongly disagree with.

It seems, to me, that your claims about me are based off very little.

Indeed it seems to be a fairly typical view that not only was Pep better than Saddler but that he is the greatest featherweight of all time and ring magazine had him number 6 in their top 80 fighters of the last 80 years in 2002. That is a fairly common opinion. When I look through the film I think it would be hard for me to place either of these fighters in the top 5 featherweights of all time or perhaps even the top 10. Sugar Ramos, Davey Moore, Saldivar, Marcel, Olivares, Arguello, Salvador Sanchez, Pedroza, Azumah Nelson, Naseem Hamed, Morales, as well as many others seem to me to be as good or better than Pep and Saddler. I don't think the phenomenal number of fights and wins both Pep and Saddler had counts nearly as much as people make out because the opposition was very poor, indeed even their best wins are not really so significant except the wins against each other. Maybe you or someone else can try and convince me in a new thread that Pep and Saddler really are as great as everyone seems to believe.

I rank both Saddler and Pep quite highly at Featherweight. Both are ATG Featherweights in my view.

That said, most of the Featherweight's you've listed I also consider to be ATG Featherweights.

[Humean]

How many examples of this have you seen? One? Two, perhaps?


I'd say it's a safe bet that the vast majoirty of historians would rank Calzaghe a lot higher than Lytell and Booker on their ATG list and the chance of Calzaghe getting into the HOF over them is extremely high.

Meaning your example of my view aligning with "Historians" is a poor one.

I'm not sure this is correct, there sure are a lot of boxing writers who write on the history of boxing who gave very little time to any modern fighters.


I brought up Pep and Saddler because that's the most obvious example of a case of styles making fights. In response to your comment on Charles going 3-0 against Moore.

Despite from the seldom few, seemingly yourself included, most people (including myself) would consider Pep to be ranked higher than Saddler historically despite losing 3 out their 4 fights.

I know why you brought up Pep and Saddler, I was just re-using that example for other purposes seeing as you had already brought them up.

It's funny, because you have this idea that my views are identical to all of historians views (Not sure what exactly that's based off) yet I consider Pep to be slightly overrated and is ranked outside of my Top 10. Which most Historians I'd imagine would strongly disagree with.

It seems, to me, that your claims about me are based off very little.

I'm not saying that your views are identical with these 'historians' after all I have no way of possibly knowing that, it is just the way in which I have seen you argue about fighters that have given me the impression that your opinions run fairly consistent with them. For example you have said on a number of occasions when evaluating someones resume how great the fighter's resume is because he beat such and such ATG or such and such hall of famer. That at least suggests that your opinions are fairly conventional in that regard because it implies there really are these fighters who are very obviously all time greats and hall of famers. There are of course some but not as many as people make out because there really are so many fantastic fighters who have fought throughout the divisions over all the years.

I actually do know you think Pep is overrated because I have seen you say once or twice that you thought his resume was overrated.



I rank both Saddler and Pep quite highly at Featherweight. Both are ATG Featherweights in my view.

That said, most of the Featherweight's you've listed I also consider to be ATG Featherweights.

I certainly don't dispute that Pep and Saddler are all time great featherweights but to me the very idea that Pep is anywhere near the top 10 all time pound for pound just seems laughable. How high would you say you'd rank him?

^^^ inside the quotations because it was easier to respond that way.

[Humean]

Ok this thread made me go back over the pst few days and do some serious reading on the light heavys.... I have come to conclusion when adding in resume, skills, wins, etc

1. Ezzard Charles
2. Greb
3. Moore
4. Spinks
5. Foster

Foster and Greb over Galindez, Matthew Saad Muhammad and Dwight Qawi? Even John Henry Lewis might even be a shout ahead of Greb, unfortunately there is no footage of him at light heavyweight. Why do you have Greb so high at light heavy?

[IronDanHamza]

I'm not sure this is correct, there sure are a lot of boxing writers who write on the history of boxing who gave very little time to any modern fighters.

It is absolutely correct.

Neither Lytell or Booker are ranked highly amongst historians. Booker is not even on the HOF Ballot for crying out loud.

One of the main writers for The Ring Magazine's 1900-2000 issue a few years ago Cliff Rold (Who also posts on this site) for example has Calzaghe in his Top 100 ATG list and certainly doesn't include Lytell or Booker as ATG's in his view.

The chance of Calzaghe getting into the HOF this year is extremely high. The chance of Lytell and Booker getting in is impossible as I don't think either of them are even on the Ballot. I know Booker isn't and I'm unsure on Lytell.

So I'd say once again, the Lytell and Booker Vs Calzaghe example is a poor one.

I'm not saying that your views are identical with these 'historians' after all I have no way of possibly knowing that, it is just the way in which I have seen you argue about fighters that have given me the impression that your opinions run fairly consistent with them. For example you have said on a number of occasions when evaluating someones resume how great the fighter's resume is because he beat such and such ATG or such and such hall of famer. That at least suggests that your opinions are fairly conventional in that regard because it implies there really are these fighters who are very obviously all time greats and hall of famers. There are of course some but not as many as people make out because there really are so many fantastic fighters who have fought throughout the divisions over all the years.

It doesn't suggest that. Not at least nor at most.

Like I stated earlier, when I say "He beat so and so who is an ATG" that is nothing more than my personal ranking. "Historians" views on who is an ATG has absolutely no influence on who I personally consider an ATG.

I don't see how you can have any impressions. Unless you've been following me closely for a while. As far as I'm aware we've had one discussion on this site outside of this one.

I certainly don't dispute that Pep and Saddler are all time great featherweights but to me the very idea that Pep is anywhere near the top 10 all time pound for pound just seems laughable. How high would you say you'd rank him?

I don't have a certified list but I know I wouldn't have him in my Top 10 at this moment in time. In the past I've had him in my Top 10.

I'd imagine he'd feature somewhere amongst the Top 15-20 on my list.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Foster and Greb over Galindez, Matthew Saad Muhammad and Dwight Qawi? Even John Henry Lewis might even be a shout ahead of Greb, unfortunately there is no footage of him at light heavyweight. Why do you have Greb so high at light heavy?

because greb was a helluva fighter from middleweight all the way up,, his win over tunney stands out,,, honestly these guys are all so good, you can switch them out,, just personally i feel that greb has to be up there,,, the dude literally fought everyone and fought all the time, and was half blind for half his career,,

there is no way i could have saad muhammed or qawi as top 5,, top 10 for saad muhammed but i never thought qawi was top 10 material,,,

[Sugar Adam Ali]

@irondan and humean

for what its worth i think pep is higher than saddler,, yes saddler beat him and owned the series, but i think you have to look at the big picture,, Tarver owned roy jones but i wouldnt have tarver ahead of jones on any list,,,