Greatest Light Heavyweight ever Charles or Greb?

[IronDanHamza]

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 can't recall any.

And even if there is, they're seldom.

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.

Perhaps.

It seems that you don't rate his era too highly as opposed to me who does rate it quite highly.

I think the likes of Jack Chase, O.Billy Smith, Cocoa Kid, Zivic, Burke etc are very good "second tier" wins along with Holman Williams and Moore which I consider to be very very good wins.

That, to me atleast, is ATG calibur.

I mean, I can understand your point of view. As there's almost no footage of Burley, and if you don't rate those fighters highly which from what I gather, you don't seem to rate that era as highly as some. So I can understand your view despite disagreeing.

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

Absolutely not. Just don't agree with that at all.

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'.

Yes but you seem to basing it off very little and sometimes nothing.

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.

Laporte is certainly a notch or a two lower than Maxim, that is for sure.

I just think using him is funny, because he's exactly what you seem to be against.

Laporte pretty much lost every single time he fought a top fighter. In my eyes what's often used as nothing but a name to throw in.

I just find the use of him funny considering what's been said by yourself in this conversation.

As for Nelson, I'd likely have that version of him that Sanchez fought beating all but Saddler.

[Adolf H]

Sergey Kovalev

[billeau2]

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.

You seem to have a relatively limited concept of evaluating fighters. Quite a few trainers, some of whom worked in a few generations of fighters....and had a working relationship with trainers who had done the same before them, speak of guys like Greb and Tunney.

The thing is that these trainers do not simply think of fighters like pretty colors on a rainbow, generally these trainers have specific technical criteria for which forms a basis for their opinions. Burley was by and large considered the best fighter never to win a championship. He was ducked repeteadly according to many in the game at the time.

Historical narratives in boxing are a little more than Burt Sugar's lists if you catch my drift. Why discount the opinions of some of the greatest trainers from the past?

its kind of like when people read Plato's work on Atlantis (Timaeus spelling?) and automatically think it is BS because it came from the past. Just something to think about.

[Ray Corso]

Can't believe I forgot Mr. Conn. One of the finest boxers of all time. Ray.

[billeau2]

Can't believe I forgot Mr. Conn. One of the finest boxers of all time. Ray.

So Ray:

imagine for a moment that by a twist of fate 12 rounds had been the standard instead of 15... That Louis Conn fight would have been a different story! in my opinion that is why 15 rounds is so much better. You need those championship rounds.

[Humean]

I can't recall any.

And even if there is, they're seldom.



Perhaps.

It seems that you don't rate his era too highly as opposed to me who does rate it quite highly.

I think the likes of Jack Chase, O.Billy Smith, Cocoa Kid, Zivic, Burke etc are very good "second tier" wins along with Holman Williams and Moore which I consider to be very very good wins.

That, to me atleast, is ATG calibur.

I mean, I can understand your point of view. As there's almost no footage of Burley, and if you don't rate those fighters highly which from what I gather, you don't seem to rate that era as highly as some. So I can understand your view despite disagreeing.

It is not so much that I don't rate them highly just not as high as other people rate them. I just can't see the basis for ranking them so high but not other top contenders in subsequent periods.

Absolutely not. Just don't agree with that at all.

I assume you have seen film of Joey Maxim, do you really think he is of a really high quality? Maxim had three great qualities which were almost vital for the period when he was champ, he was Caucasian, Italian-American and was managed by Jack Kearns. Beyond that I think he is actually pretty comparable with someone like Clinton Woods. Now nobody in their right mind is ever likely to consider Clinton Woods as a top 20 light heavyweight or even a candidate for a top 100 pound for pound but there have been people who will place Maxim in either or both of those categories. Anyway that is an example of overrating past fighters to me. I'm sure i'll find few who will agree.

Yes but you seem to basing it off very little and sometimes nothing.



Laporte is certainly a notch or a two lower than Maxim, that is for sure.

I just think using him is funny, because he's exactly what you seem to be against.

Laporte pretty much lost every single time he fought a top fighter. In my eyes what's often used as nothing but a name to throw in.

I just find the use of him funny considering what's been said by yourself in this conversation.

Surely the difference is that few hold Laporte in the esteem they hold Maxim? There is a lot more cachet in having defeated Maxim on your resume than defeated Laporte, something you obviously believe as you said you consider Maxim a notch or two above Laporte.

As for Nelson, I'd likely have that version of him that Sanchez fought beating all but Saddler.


I probably shouldn't have said that Nelson would wipe the floor with Saddler as Saddler did seem to have a granite chin after all.

^^^^ above again

[Humean]

You seem to have a relatively limited concept of evaluating fighters. Quite a few trainers, some of whom worked in a few generations of fighters....and had a working relationship with trainers who had done the same before them, speak of guys like Greb and Tunney.

The thing is that these trainers do not simply think of fighters like pretty colors on a rainbow, generally these trainers have specific technical criteria for which forms a basis for their opinions. Burley was by and large considered the best fighter never to win a championship. He was ducked repeteadly according to many in the game at the time.

Historical narratives in boxing are a little more than Burt Sugar's lists if you catch my drift. Why discount the opinions of some of the greatest trainers from the past?

its kind of like when people read Plato's work on Atlantis (Timaeus spelling?) and automatically think it is BS because it came from the past. Just something to think about.

It is something I have thought about but I do have reasons to not take the opinions of these great trainers (who obviously have far more knowledge of technical details than I ever will) at face value or indeed as igh a value as others have placed on their opinions. Firstly these trainers tend not to watch the sport as diligently and comprehensively as time goes on, thus they have a bias of perspective in regards to the past fighters. Secondly it is not surprising that they rate highly fighters that they themselves trained and fighters that beat their fighters. Thirdly memories are not very accurate, that is very well attested to scientifically thus I can't take such memories of trainers at face value. Fourthly there is a habit of people getting older to think things are getting worse (of course there is an inverse relationship with the young but I don't think it is as strong) 'everything is going to the dogs' attitude.

Burley may have been the best fighter never to win a world championship, he is certainly a fighter who should not be neglected simply because he was never given the chance of fighting for a world championship. However it is quite a stretch to go from the reasons why he never did get his title shot, a combination of the war freezing the championships, having bad/poorly connected managers, being considered, rightly or wrongly, a defensive and boring fighter and being African-American which combined with being thought of as boring was not conducive to getting a title shot, to the conclusion that he was just too good for people to fight. I'm sure he was too good for the money he'd generate relative to alternative opponents for champions at welterweight and middleweight, but it is a stretch to think he was as great as people now claim him to me.

[GeneralZod]

So Ray:

imagine for a moment that by a twist of fate 12 rounds had been the standard instead of 15... That Louis Conn fight would have been a different story! in my opinion that is why 15 rounds is so much better. You need those championship rounds.

in hindsight, moving to 12 was a far better idea health wise. Can you imagine if the Magomed had three more rounds to go? Chances are he wouldn't be waking up.

[IronDanHamza]

It is not so much that I don't rate them highly just not as high as other people rate them. I just can't see the basis for ranking them so high but not other top contenders in subsequent periods.

It depends on the era.

If the Era is weak then obviously the top contenders won't be considered as good as top contenders from a strong era bar one or two.

I'd consider that a pretty strong era.

I assume you have seen film of Joey Maxim, do you really think he is of a really high quality? Maxim had three great qualities which were almost vital for the period when he was champ, he was Caucasian, Italian-American and was managed by Jack Kearns. Beyond that I think he is actually pretty comparable with someone like Clinton Woods. Now nobody in their right mind is ever likely to consider Clinton Woods as a top 20 light heavyweight or even a candidate for a top 100 pound for pound but there have been people who will place Maxim in either or both of those categories. Anyway that is an example of overrating past fighters to me. I'm sure i'll find few who will agree.

Just completely absurd in my eyes.

Completely unfair to say that about Maxim.

Maxim beat very good fighters, arguable great ones and lost to great fighters but some of them very close fights. To say all of that was based on race is just plain ignorance to me.

To compare to Clinton Woods is ridiculous. Maxim is clearly better and greater historically than Woods who literally beat no one and his biggest feat was pushing Glen Johnson close.

Surely the difference is that few hold Laporte in the esteem they hold Maxim? There is a lot more cachet in having defeated Maxim on your resume than defeated Laporte, something you obviously believe as you said you consider Maxim a notch or two above Laporte.

Why does it matter what others think?

How can you critisize someone for using a "Name" fighter and then use Laporte to back up your claim? Pretty obvious hypocrisy isn't it?

And there should be more cachet in beating Maxim than there is Laporte.


It seems this conversation isn't going to go anywhere considering it's abudantly clear you don't consider that era to be a strong one whereas to me it's clear that it's an era full of a lot of talent. So when a fighter beats one of those top fighters from that era you'll say "Well, he's not good he's just a top fighter in an overrated era" (Whilst humourosly touting Laporte as a top class) so it's inevitably going to go in circles.

[Scott9945]

in hindsight, moving to 12 was a far better idea health wise. Can you imagine if the Magomed had three more rounds to go? Chances are he wouldn't be waking up.

While I can see two sides of this debate, I mostly agree with you. However, the fight you referred to was only 10 rounds.