Greatest Light Heavyweight ever Charles or Greb?

[IronDanHamza]

@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,,,

The vast majority would. Not that that necessarily makes it written in stone or right.

I'm sure everyone has views that completely go against the "norm". For example I don't consider Jimmy Wilde to be ranked highly despite most Historians consider him to one of the greatest. Infact, I find it difficult to rank him at all.

[Humean]

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.

Perhaps we are thinking of different people, even if my example isn't the strongest the point still stands. Maybe Holman Williams and Charley Burley would be stronger examples?

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 inlfuence 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 do read discussions that I don't join in. I think I am right in thinking that in assessing Ezzard Charles, a fighter I think you rate extremely high, that you would rank his wins against Joey Maxim (by your criteria you can only have the first two if assessing as a light heavyweight) as wins against, at least, a hall of famer? Indeed I may have read you say or suggest that before somewhere. Do you honestly think Maxim is as good as saying something like that suggests? I suppose I think you have been inconsistent because you will say that such and such is a hall of famer and therefore imply that this means he must be good. If you think there are fighters in the hall of fame (Gatti?) that you disagree with them being there then this claim shouldn't be made like that. This is part of what I mean by the importance of evaluating fighter's individually. You say you do actually do that but then some of your arguments you have made try to win the argument by a kind of sleight of hand, intentional or not. I have seen you say a lot about how such and such is 'clearly' or 'obviously' a great or hall of famer or some such thing as if it was definitely the case.


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.

Only very slightly overrated then.What is it that still makes you have him so high?

^^^^ Again in quotes

[Humean]

@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,,,

The difference though with Saddler and Pep is that Saddler had a career not too dissimilar to Pep. I think the idea that Pep was in decline is what drives this view but as I suggested earlier this view is very questionable. Tarver's career was very largely based around beating Jones with a genuine sense that Jones was on the slide, evidence being how dominant he had been before against fighters of comparable or greater quality than Tarver.

[Humean]

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,,,

Like I said earlier I base my view largely on how good I think they were. Doesn't having never seen Greb not make you question him? I know we have seen a little bit of Tunney so that does shed some light on Greb's abilities. Do you consider in greatness things such as cultural impact, development and pionerring of skill and other such things? I think if you did all that kind of stuff I would agree with ranking the older guys a lot higher than I do but the extent to which people do use such criteria in their greatest lists they are very inconsistent with it.

[IronDanHamza]

Perhaps we are thinking of different people, even if my example isn't the strongest the point still stands. Maybe Holman Williams and Charley Burley would be stronger examples?

Holman Williams, no. Because he's another that plenty don't consider an ATG that I personally do. Makes your example a little weaker than it already is

Burley though I suppose would relate considering I think he's an ATG and as do just about everyone else. Do you not think he's an ATG?

I do read discussions that I don't join in. I think I am right in thinking that in assessing Ezzard Charles, a fighter I think you rate extremely high, that you would rank his wins against Joey Maxim (by your criteria you can only have the first two if assessing as a light heavyweight) as wins against, at least, a hall of famer?

Well, Joey Maxim is a very good fighter. Perhaps not great, but certainly very good and definitely HOF worthy as far as I'm concerned.

Indeed I may have read you say or suggest that before somewhere. Do you honestly think Maxim is as good as saying something like that suggests? I suppose I think you have been inconsistent because you will say that such and such is a hall of famer and therefore imply that this means he must be good. If you think there are fighters in the hall of fame (Gatti?) that you disagree with them being there then this claim shouldn't be made like that.

I might say he beat so and so who is a HOF'er. I might also say something like "He beat Pastrano, who is a HOF'er, although I don't consider him to be so" for example.

A fighter being a HOF'er is just something to add to a conversation. Doesn't necessarily mean beating them is better than someone who isn't (But should be).

You're calling me inconsistent then follow that statement by having your own version of how you think that I think.

Where have I said every HOF'er is deserved or good? I've not said that and have in fact said the opposite on many occasions.

A lot of what you're saying is your own baseless opinion.

If I make a statement, it's not to say that that applies every single time. There can be exceptions and that can easily be highlighted. If I say "This guy is a HOF'er" then that will be my view. More times than not if I feel someone isn't deserving for the HOF I will specify that when breaking it down.

This is part of what I mean by the importance of evaluating fighter's individually. You say you do actually do that but then some of your arguments you have made try to win the argument by a kind of sleight of hand, intentional or not. I have seen you say a lot about how such and such is 'clearly' or 'obviously' a great or hall of famer or some such thing as if it was definitely the case.

Again, nothing but my personal view.

If I were to say "Ezzard Charles clearly and obviously is a great fighter" then that's how I feel about it.

Only very slightly overrated then.What is it that still makes you have him so high?

Overrated none the less.

I think Muhammad Ali is overrated I still think he's one of the greatest fighters to lace them up.

I would rank Pep that highly because I think his combination of resume and skills, ability etc is of that standard.

[Humean]

Holman Williams, no. Because he's another that plenty don't consider an ATG that I personally do. Makes your example a little weaker than it already is

I'd say that a lot do think that Holman Williams is an all time great nowadays.

Burley though I suppose would relate considering I think he's an ATG and as do just about everyone else. Do you not think he's an ATG?


Maybe not. I wish he'd have got a shot at Armstrong or Zivic at welterweight in a championship fight and Zale at middleweight because then i'd have a better way to assess him. However he did not, to me he seemingly went from being someone few remembered to someone who is suddenly one of the greatest welterweights and middleweights and on most peoples top 100 pound for pound. To me he is just an unfortunate case of what might have been rather than a bona fide great. Actually he is a great reminder of the flaws of that era in boxing.


Well, Joey Maxim is a very good fighter. Perhaps not great, but certainly very good and definitely HOF worthy as far as I'm concerned.


Hall of fame worthy yes because he was one of the best light heavyweights of his era but I personally don't think he was especially good comparably speaking. So having beaten Joey Maxim at light heavyweight shouldn't register the way it often seems to register, to me it sounds better because he is a 'name'. Someone, perhaps not you, might say that Roy Jones never fought anyone as good as Maxim at light heavyweight because he didn't beat anyone at light heavyweight with a name as well known as Maxim but i'd conjecture that Jones probably beat a number of opponents at light heavyweight who were better than Maxim.

I might say he beat so and so who is a HOF'er. I might also say something like "He beat Pastrano, who is a HOF'er, although I don't consider him to be so" for example.

A fighter being a HOF'er is just something to add to a conversation. Doesn't necessarily mean beating them is better than someone who isn't (But should be).

You're calling me inconsistent then follow that statement by having your own version of how you think that I think.

Where have I said every HOF'er is deserved or good? I've not said that and have in fact said the opposite on many occasions.

A lot of what you're saying is your own baseless opinion.

It seems to be implied in what you are saying even if you don't mean it that way.

If I make a statement, it's not to say that that applies every single time. There can be exceptions and that can easily be highlighted. If I say "This guy is a HOF'er" then that will be my view. More times than not if I feel someone isn't deserving for the HOF I will specify that when breaking it down.



Again, nothing but my personal view.

If I were to say "Ezzard Charles clearly and obviously is a great fighter" then that's how I feel about it.



Overrated none the less.

I think Muhammad Ali is overrated I still think he's one of the greatest fighters to lace them up.

I would rank Pep that highly because I think his combination of resume and skills, ability etc is of that standard.

You think Chalky Wright, Bartolo and Terranova are comparably to Sanchez's wins against Lopez, Laporte, Gomez and Nelson?

^^^^ again above

[IronDanHamza]

I'd say that a lot do think that Holman Williams is an all time great nowadays.

I don't think. I've yet to see anyone to consider him an ATG.

Maybe not. I wish he'd have got a shot at Armstrong or Zivic at welterweight in a championship fight and Zale at middleweight because then i'd have a better way to assess him. However he did not, to me he seemingly went from being someone few remembered to someone who is suddenly one of the greatest welterweights and middleweights and on most peoples top 100 pound for pound. To me he is just an unfortunate case of what might have been rather than a bona fide great. Actually he is a great reminder of the flaws of that era in boxing.

I disagree.

Burley might not have achieved his potential but he certainly did enough in my mind to be an ATG.

Hall of fame worthy yes because he was one of the best light heavyweights of his era but I personally don't think he was especially good comparably speaking. So having beaten Joey Maxim at light heavyweight shouldn't register the way it often seems to register, to me it sounds better because he is a 'name'. Someone, perhaps not you, might say that Roy Jones never fought anyone as good as Maxim at light heavyweight because he didn't beat anyone at light heavyweight with a name as well known as Maxim but i'd conjecture that Jones probably beat a number of opponents at light heavyweight who were better than Maxim.

Well, that's why I include him, he's HOF worthy and a very good fighter.

I disagree again, he's definitely more than just a name.

I don't think Roy Jones beat anyone as good as Maxim at LHW.

It seems to be implied in what you are saying even if you don't mean it that way.

A lot of your view on these particular views of mine are what you "seem" to think.

You think Chalky Wright, Bartolo and Terranova are comparably to Sanchez's wins against Lopez, Laporte, Gomez and Nelson?

I think he has a better resume than Sanchez, if that's what you're asking.

It's funny you include Laporte because he is someone I would consider one of the leading candidates for what a "Name" fighter is.

The Nelson win, despite good isn't overly impressive in my eyes considering the outlining details.

But Sanchez is a great fighter with a great resume. Especially if you consider the little time he had.

[SBleeder]

One name that's being left out in this thread is Tommy Loughran. I'd rank him a shade above Spinks and Foster.

[Humean]

I don't think. I've yet to see anyone to consider him an ATG.

Look online for lists, i'm sure I have seen his name. I'm certain that boxing.com had him somewhere in the top 100.

I disagree.

Burley might not have achieved his potential but he certainly did enough in my mind to be an ATG.

I think he fought, beat and sometimes lost and drew with fighters in the exact same boat as he was in making it difficult to tell just how good they all were.

Well, that's why I include him, he's HOF worthy and a very good fighter.

I disagree again, he's definitely more than just a name.

I don't think Roy Jones beat anyone as good as Maxim at LHW.

Maxim is the Clinton Woods of the 40s and early 50s.


A lot of your view on these particular views of mine are what you "seem" to think.

There is a lot that can be implied or seemingly implied. Unless you state it clearly then the reader has to understand what is being implied or else it is simply a case of reading your meaning as 'I like fighter A and that's it'.

I think he has a better resume than Sanchez, if that's what you're asking.

It's funny you include Laporte because he is someone I would consider one of the leading candidates for what a "Name" fighter is.

The Nelson win, despite good isn't overly impressive in my eyes considering the outlining details.

But Sanchez is a great fighter with a great resume. Especially if you consider the little time he had.

Laporte is something of a name fighter of that period but I included him because of the quality of Bartolo, Chalky Wright and Terranova. Laporte in his best years was surely of at least comparable quality of those three. Even with the circumstances of the Sanchez-Nelson fight surely even the version of Nelson on that night would defeat any fighter that Pep beat? I honestly think Azumah Nelson would wipe the floor with Willie Pep and Sandy Saddler.

^^^^^my last reply for the night.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

The vast majority would. Not that that necessarily makes it written in stone or right.

I'm sure everyone has views that completely go against the "norm". For example I don't consider Jimmy Wilde to be ranked highly despite most Historians consider him to one of the greatest. Infact, I find it difficult to rank him at all.

I agree about jimmy wilde,, i have never figured out why he is so highly ranked,, Im actually going to read about him tonight and try and figure it out,,

The difference though with Saddler and Pep is that Saddler had a career not too dissimilar to Pep. I think the idea that Pep was in decline is what drives this view but as I suggested earlier this view is very questionable. Tarver's career was very largely based around beating Jones with a genuine sense that Jones was on the slide, evidence being how dominant he had been before against fighters of comparable or greater quality than Tarver.

Thats revisionist history,, Jones was p4p #1 when he fought tarver the first time,, it was a close fight and in the rematch the excuse was jones was drained because of going to heavy and then back down, but for the rematch he will be fine and he will school tarver,, but actually tarver iced him and then jones lack of training and inactivity and also the fact that he was kinda overrated IMO, and tarver exposed him,,, if roy was a great boxer he would have made easy work of tarver just like a 40 year old hopkins did,, Roy beating a fat james toney, and old virgil hill and mccallum, beating a very average heavyweight in ruiz, and people hyped him to the moon

Like I said earlier I base my view largely on how good I think they were. Doesn't having never seen Greb not make you question him? I know we have seen a little bit of Tunney so that does shed some light on Greb's abilities. Do you consider in greatness things such as cultural impact, development and pionerring of skill and other such things? I think if you did all that kind of stuff I would agree with ranking the older guys a lot higher than I do but the extent to which people do use such criteria in their greatest lists they are very inconsistent with it.

Yeah its tough to judge a guy like greb because of lack of film but his resume speaks for itself,,, i usually rank him 6 or 7 on my ATG list,, I usually rank guys by how many other greats they would beat,,, SRR beats everyone, ali the same,, SRL i would favor over nearly everyone, Armstrong as well, and ezzard charles i think was fantastic,,, then comes the langfords,grebs, moores, pernell, and duran type guys,, I do consider a guys cultural impact but only if its huge like joe louis or ali,,, i honestly think h2h a guy like duran or chavez would beat up louis,, but his cultural impact gives him a higher ranking in my book,, that may be wrong of me, but thats how i feel