The Best Fighter SRR Beat?

[billeau2]

I am the Greb's biggest cheerleader, but he was never Heavyweight champion. Could he have been had Dempsey provided the chance? I won't rule it out. But at the end of the day, we've seen Dempsey starch Heavyweights. Greb could beat good Heavyweights, he really was the best non-heavyweight in the world. But he was not bringing Dempsey's size and firepower.

Therefore, it's clear that Dempsey was Tunney's best scalp. I'd also argue that the Tunney who beat Dempsey would surely beat Greb.

If you want to argue that Greb was better than Tom Heeny or any of the Light Heavyweights that Tunney beat, OK. But Dempsey, even if you want to argue that he wanted no part of Greb, was the better man.



*BTW, let's remember LaMotta wasn't yet in his prime when he lost to Zivic. And by all accounts it was close. If Zivic were as good as Jake, why was he fighting at Welterweight instead of Middleweight?

I don't think the fact that Dempsey could beat Greb means Dempsey was the better fighter. Greb was not a heavyweight. Greb could fight up but that would not make him less steller a middle weight.

Sauce for the Goose my dear Rusty... To play devil's advocate, if we make a statement about LaMotta and his prime do we have to consider that the Dempsey that Tunney beat many felt was past his prime?

[Rusty Tromboni]

I don't think the fact that Dempsey could beat Greb means Dempsey was the better fighter. Greb was not a heavyweight. Greb could fight up but that would not make him less steller a middle weight.

Sauce for the Goose my dear Rusty... To play devil's advocate, if we make a statement about LaMotta and his prime do we have to consider that the Dempsey that Tunney beat many felt was past his prime?

It's the other way around: even if Greb could beat Dempsey, that doesn't mean he was the better fighter as far as Tunney would be concerned. Dempsey fought at Heavyweight, Greb was a Middleweight pretending to be a Light HEavyweight. He never starched anybody.

And Dempsey is almost as easy to scrutinize as Greb is to glorify, but who plastered Willard, sparked Sharkey, and put the best version of Tunney down for the long-count?

It's really hard to justify this conversation.

Weight divisions exist for a (ridiculously obvious) reason. And every division after Heavyweight is a concession on top of a successive concession. Clearly beating a bigger man is more impressive than beating a smaller man when the skills are fairly equal.

I don't think Maxim was as good as LaMotta P4P. And stylistically LaMotta is a tougher match-up than static Joey. But if Ray had won that night - accomplishing something even a Heavyweight champion couldn't do in 3 attempts, by running away with the scorecards - we'd be calling Maxim the best opponent whom Ray had beaten.

Put it this way: Do you think Armstrong could beat Gavilan? Could Gavilan beat LaMotta? Could LaMotta beat Maxim?

Even if you want to be the contrarian and pick the smaller man in one of those match-ups, try and tell me with a straight face that if substituted for the bigger man in his toughest fights, you'd pick the smaller man to perform as well.
Just like I wouldn't pick Greb to beat Willard, I wouldn't pick Armstrong to nearly upset Bobo Olson, or LaMotta to last the distance with Walcott.

If there's an argument to be made against LaMotta, it hasn't been made yet. In fact, his place is only being further reinforced.

[billeau2]

It's the other way around: even if Greb could beat Dempsey, that doesn't mean he was the better fighter as far as Tunney would be concerned. Dempsey fought at Heavyweight, Greb was a Middleweight pretending to be a Light HEavyweight. He never starched anybody.

And Dempsey is almost as easy to scrutinize as Greb is to glorify, but who plastered Willard, sparked Sharkey, and put the best version of Tunney down for the long-count?

It's really hard to justify this conversation.

Weight divisions exist for a (ridiculously obvious) reason. And every division after Heavyweight is a concession on top of a successive concession. Clearly beating a bigger man is more impressive than beating a smaller man when the skills are fairly equal.

I don't think Maxim was as good as LaMotta P4P. And stylistically LaMotta is a tougher match-up than static Joey. But if Ray had won that night - accomplishing something even a Heavyweight champion couldn't do in 3 attempts, by running away with the scorecards - we'd be calling Maxim the best opponent whom Ray had beaten.

Put it this way: Do you think Armstrong could beat Gavilan? Could Gavilan beat LaMotta? Could LaMotta beat Maxim?

Even if you want to be the contrarian and pick the smaller man in one of those match-ups, try and tell me with a straight face that if substituted for the bigger man in his toughest fights, you'd pick the smaller man to perform as well.
Just like I wouldn't pick Greb to beat Willard, I wouldn't pick Armstrong to nearly upset Bobo Olson, or LaMotta to last the distance with Walcott.

If there's an argument to be made against LaMotta, it hasn't been made yet. In fact, his place is only being further reinforced.

The argument would be when two fighters fight at a specific weight where they are matched. Your assuming that a fighter can't go up or down in weight. So for example, was Tunney the same weight when he fought Greb? I frankly do not know, but I do know that Ray at Welter was a different weight than at Middle. I know that Floyd was a different weight at 135 and a much better fighter than at Welter. Armstrong was a freak of nature and built like a pit bull, but even he I suspect changed weights to fight in different divisions.

That is just to answer your question about why it does not automatically go to the bigger man. It depends more on the relative weight of the two participants. Ray was a big welter... I don't think he was dwarfed by LaMotta.

With that said I don't have a problem with LaMotta. I do think you are enamored by weight differences.

Kudos to the point about Dempsey being more "Observable."