In your opinion who is the GOAT

[Daddy T]

I think some of the people who rank the old timers so highly do so based purely off reputation. You can say this and that about I dunno Gentleman Jim Corbett and who he beat and how this guy was so tough because he beat this other guy that some newspaperman from 1880 said was the toughest guy ever etc but it is all based on reputation and not on what you have actually seen ON TAPE with YOUR OWN eyes. If you want to judge solely by reputation then do so but really it's like comparing apples and oranges.

In a debate like this there should really be two divisions based on era.
The video/tv era ... which we can judge and have opinions based on what we see
and the pre-video era
which we can only judge by what was written about it. E.G according to boxrec so and so beat such and such, and such and such did well against whats his name, and whats his name was tkoed in six by some famous dude, hence so and so would clearly beat James Toney etc etc. etc

No solid opinions comparing a pre-video great, say John L Sullivan to a post video great e.g. Larry Holmes can be based on stuff like that. And its nonsensical to do so and most certainly nonsensical to be so sure that your opinions about a guy who you've never (or barely) seen in action would do today are right.

[ModernTalking]

Has to be Floyd, he beats Corrales.

[dc3383]

You don't need to see a fighter fight live to know a lot about them. If anything, you can put a career in true perspective when you aren't watching them live. You know all you need to know about who they fought and when they fought them.

Yes you do; being in that time tells you alot more about them than being told what happened. People say Jim Brown is the greatest RB of all time but look at the era he played in. I won't say someone is greater just because I'm told that I prefer to see it for myself. Archive films don't do justice for actually seeing it when it happens.

[JAB5239]

Yes you do; being in that time tells you alot more about them than being told what happened. People say Jim Brown is the greatest RB of all time but look at the era he played in. I won't say someone is greater just because I'm told that I prefer to see it for myself. Archive films don't do justice for actually seeing it when it happens.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

[Kuyukut]

Peter Buckley = Goat, record will never be broken.


http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=3372

[JAB5239]

Peter Buckley = Goat, record will never be broken.


http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=3372

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hum...4741&cat=boxer

[DannYankee]

Robinson easy If You said anyone who has fought in the last 10 years...

[Godsfly]

My point is that looking over Grebs resume and combing through old newspaper reports its not a crazy notion as you made it seem by asking for 5 names. I know I can find names that rank him number one, but than we get in the pissing contest about historians and their credibility. I myself rank him second with Langford first, Robinson third, Armstrong fourth. Those are the only four I have cast in stone. Does it make it wrong because the majority have Robinson number one? I don't think so because I know I can back my opinions up with facts and logic. At the end of the day its still very subjective. Its much easier rating weight classes in my opinion.

class begins.........

dude, you pointed me towards a paid online community (i thought you were talking about historians such as mike silver, bert sugar, cus damato) even on the online community they themselves didn't have greb as number one. they had him at 2nd (which i don't know how they ranked greb over langford) i don't even know how they ranked duran over willie pep.

I'm thoroughly educated in historical boxing thats why you can't tell me anything that i know thats wrong. (from what I've noticed the wanna be boxingscene historians are just as delusional as the guys who's ranking roy jones as the GOAT)

greatness is defined by 3 things kiddo. skill, visual, & resume. (not skill alone, not visual alone, not resume alone) you must have a combination of those three.

skill includes.......the guys footwork. the way he cuts off the ring. the way he throws a jab, combination punching, digs to the body, bobs and weaves, tucks his chin. i could go on and on and on......all of these little things goes under his skill.

resume is obviously how great your competition is. title defenses, & so on.


visual is the memorable moments. the feeling that you felt when watching A thriller in manila or a ray robinson St. Valentines Day Massacre. (the greatness of the fight)

greb has a great resume but he fails at skills (because we don't know what he looks like) & the visual (he has no memorable fights in which we actually watched and was in *aw* from the performance)

robinson does.........robinsion is head and shoulders over almost everyone when it comes to those 3 combination of categories..........which makes him the greatest of all time.

"I know I can back my opinions up with facts and logic"

you do that sir................

[Godsfly]

Has to be Floyd, he beats Corrales.

x that......hatton is the greatest of all time.

[crold1]

class begins.........

dude, you pointed me towards a paid online community (i thought you were talking about historians such as mike silver, bert sugar, cus damato) even on the online community they themselves didn't have greb as number one. they had him at 2nd (which i don't know how they ranked greb over langford) i don't even know how they ranked duran over willie pep.

I'm thoroughly educated in historical boxing thats why you can't tell me anything that i know thats wrong. (from what I've noticed the wanna be boxingscene historians are just as delusional as the guys who's ranking roy jones as the GOAT)

greatness is defined by 3 things kiddo. skill, visual, & resume. (not skill alone, not visual alone, not resume alone) you must have a combination of those three.

skill includes.......the guys footwork. the way he cuts off the ring. the way he throws a jab, combination punching, digs to the body, bobs and weaves, tucks his chin. i could go on and on and on......all of these little things goes under his skill.

resume is obviously how great your competition is. title defenses, & so on.


visual is the memorable moments. the feeling that you felt when watching A thriller in manila or a ray robinson St. Valentines Day Massacre. (the greatness of the fight)

greb has a great resume but he fails at skills (because we don't know what he looks like) & the visual (he has no memorable fights in which we actually watched and was in *aw* from the performance)

robinson does.........robinsion is head and shoulders over almost everyone when it comes to those 3 combination of categories..........which makes him the greatest of all time.

"I know I can back my opinions up with facts and logic"

you do that sir................

So are you saying Greb shouldn't be rated at all? or just behind any great who there is film on?