In your opinion who is the GOAT

[JAB5239]

I won't go over what greatness is again because I think you know my stance on it & would rather just play clueless at this point. it's like repeating myself while you play clueless. instead for this post i will just present facts.

Your stance? I thought it was the stance of "most historians", isn't that what you said? So I guess I shouldn't be expecting that list and links to you backing up your claim, huh?

"You obviously know little of Greb as his being branded a dirty fighter is a result of the second Norfolk fight where Norfolk initiated the dirty fighting. Gene Tunney himself said Greb never initiated dirty tactics and would only respond in kind. Who would know better, him or you?"

what? gene tunney never said that...........gene tunney claimed that he entered the ring (for the first fight) at a disadvantage & may have been butted by greb causing the 1st long streak of blood that blinded him through out the fight. from tunney himself you doke lol "While training for the Greb match, which took place just four months after the Levinsky match, I had the worst possible kind of luck. My left eyebrow was opened, and both hands were sorely injured. I am convinced that the adrenalin solution that had been injected softened the tissue that the first blow or butt I received cut the flesh right to the bone"

I believe it was in Bill Paxtons biography of Greb. I'll find it and let you know. Either way, you offer no proof Greb fought Tunney dirty.

harry greb has always been known as a very dirty fighter. butting, foot stomping, biting, thumbing. he was a dirty fighter. YOU my friend don't even know who harry greb was........(and i am dead serious)

i guess john harvey (of sports illustrated) is also lying on greb?

"Before and after the injury to his eye, Edward Henry Greb was one of the busiest, most notable—and dirtiest—fighters in his era. In contrast to the clean-fighting Sugar Ray, Greb was a master of holding and hitting, butting, thumbing—and he was not averse to belting the occasional referee who became too obtrusive"

i could go on and on about harry greb.

Is John Harvey a boxing historian? Does it really matter though? You said you can't judge greatness without a visual. If you can't judge greatness without seeing a fighter you sure as well can't judge if he was a dirty fighter. Can't have it both ways kid.

YOU MY FRIEND HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU'ERE TALKING ABOUT. (you clearly don't even know who the hell harry greb is) it's embarrassing......

Lol, what aspect of his career would you like to talk about? Im no historian or expert but I've done plenty of research to debate a guy who just makes blanket statements and likes to announce others have no clue what they're talking about.


& sam langford vs jack johnson.......ALL accounts do not point towards johnson giving langford a beating. some accounts say that johnson simply outclassed langford. others point towards langford almost having johnson out on his feet. (that wasn't even the point) the point was, due to the conflicting stories, it created a double win for both guys in the news papers.

news papers many times were IFFY.

"Two and a half years before the start of Johnson's legendary reign as World Heavyweight Champion, he met Sam Langford at the Lincoln Athletic Club in Chelsea, Massachusetts in defense of his "colored" portion of the heavyweight crown. Johnson, who had met the best heavyweight contenders (compared to the 156 lbs Langford, who had just recently started fighting heavyweights), dominated the bout and won by a lopsided fifteen-round decision. However, Langford's manager, Joe Woodman, told everyone who would listen that Langford floored the "Galveston Giant" with a right uppercut and gave him a tremendous battle. Woodman's account persisted for years, which offended Johnson greatly and prompted him to issue a series of vehement denials.

In an open letter to The Ring in 1934, Johnson wrote: “I have accounts of the fight from my dear old friend, Tad (legendary sports writer and cartoonist Tad Dorgan), which show how badly Sam Langford was whipped. Please note the account of our fifteen-round fight at Chelsea, Mass., which I am enclosing. The report shows that I gave poor Sam such a severe trimming that he had to find his way into a hospital to recuperate. The records of that fight prove that statement to be correct."

In 1945, Joe Waterman, who believed Johnson was the greatest of all the heavyweight champions, backed up Johnson's account. Waterman stated that he was at the fight and witnessed Johnson dish out a "terrible beating" to the smaller Langford.

In his 1958 book, 50 Years at Ringside, Nat Fleischer, founder of The Ring, produced the testimony of his father-in-law, Dad Phillips, who allegedly saw the fight.

Said Phillips: “Jack Johnson decisively defeated Sam Langford. He was complete master of the situation. Jack so far outclassed Langford that for a time, until he purposely eased up on his onslaughts, the fight was one-sided."

Fleischer once cornered Woodman and good-naturedly demanded the true version of events. According to Fleischer, this was Woodman’s response: “You’ve got me, Nat. Langford never dropped Johnson. But I was anxious to fix up another fight between the two and, knowing Jack’s pride, I invented the story of that knockdown to goad him into the ring against Sam again. Although it never happened, all the newspapermen believed it. They just never took the trouble to investigate. That knockdown was just a publicity gimmick.”

This was the only time Johnson ever met Langford in the ring. After Johnson defeated Tommy Burns to win the title, Langford established himself as the leading contender for Johnson's title. However, in spite of many challenges by Langford and his handlers, Johnson never gave Langford a shot at the title."

Get back to me son. Oh, and how about your top 10 all time list?

[Godsfly]

visual is one aspect (theres a combination of things you need)

will be back..........don't have the time to reply to all of that as of now.

fight night............

[JAB5239]

visual is one aspect (theres a combination of things you need)

This I where are thinking differs most I think. Ideally you would like all 3, but certainly in my opinion you don't need all 3.

[KingTito]

Bryan Vera

[Godsfly]

[B]..........[/COLOR][/FONT]

I'm gonna keep this short and sweet because you really didn't reply to my points. the only point that you replied to was jack johnson vs sam langford (with ANOTHER persons side of how things happened) and even that wasn't the main point. (the main point was) news paper wins were many times iffy because of the difference in opinion.........

"Your stance? I thought it was the stance of "most historians", isn't that what you said? So I guess I shouldn't be expecting that list and links to you backing up your claim, huh?"


YES. most historians..........agree that visual (which means the memorable moments/how great a fight they had) skills & resume are the combination for greatness. (i don't go by 2nd hand accounts i have to see at least one of your fights to gain that visual inspirational feeling) you seem to have a problem with the "visual" part. gatti was inducted into the hall of fame. do i agree with that? NO. but some boxing historians look at his performances & think they were inspiring enough. (the way he would over come adversity broken arm & still getting knock outs. people remember those feelings. thats the "visual"


"I believe it was in Bill Paxtons biography of Greb. I'll find it and let you know. Either way, you offer no proof Greb fought Tunney dirty."

dude that came directly from the horses mouth. in the first fight he claimed that greb may have head butted him & he went into the first fight with a cut that was only re injured (from a head butt) his own words.......attack tunney not me.

"You said you can't judge greatness without a visual. If you can't judge greatness without seeing a fighter you sure as well can't judge if he was a dirty fighter. Can't have it both ways kid"

I have greb in my top ten (from reading, & his resume alone) he's in my top 10 without watching single one of his fights (you just aren't satisfied with my ranking of him) he's extremely dirty fighter & that was also very well known.

we're talking about harry greb here.............

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE]

I'm gonna keep this short and sweet because you really didn't reply to my points. the only point that you replied to was jack johnson vs sam langford (with ANOTHER persons side of how things happened) and even that wasn't the main point. (the main point was) news paper wins were many times iffy because of the difference in opinion.........

And that I why you don't just read one account of a fight. Come in man have some common sense!

"Your stance? I thought it was the stance of "most historians", isn't that what you said? So I guess I shouldn't be expecting that list and links to you backing up your claim, huh?"

No, that's not what I said at all. But I have no doubt there are plenty of historians who rate Greb as the best. Of course you want to make it a pissing contest of what historian is more credible so its a pointless exercise. There is little doubt ANY historian can see a case being made for Greb and that the whole argument is entirely subjective anyway.

YES. most historians..........agree that visual (which means the memorable moments/how great a fight they had) skills & resume are the combination for greatness. (i don't go by 2nd hand accounts i have to see at least one of your fights to gain that visual inspirational feeling) you seem to have a problem with the "visual" part. gatti was inducted into the hall of fame. do i agree with that? NO. but some boxing historians look at his performances & think they were inspiring enough. (the way he would over come adversity broken arm & still getting knock outs. people remember those feelings. thats the "visual"

Links pleae. You saying it doesn't mean they said it. Chop, chop!!

dude that came directly from the horses mouth. in the first fight he claimed that greb may have head butted him & he went into the first fight with a cut that was only re injured (from a head butt) his own words.......attack tunney not me.

See now you're starting to fat out lie. This is what you p[osted befoe, now you're claiming Tunney said it was a butt like its factual.

"I am convinced that the adrenalin solution that had been injected softened the tissue that the first blow or butt I received cut the flesh right to the bone"

I have greb in my top ten (from reading, & his resume alone) he's in my top 10 without watching single one of his fights (you just aren't satisfied with my ranking of him) he's extremely dirty fighter & that was also very well known.

we're talking about harry greb here.............

So you know hes a dirty fighter from what you've read, but just not how good he was? That's laughable!!

I didn't know where you rated Greb til just now. My issue is with you thinking its beyond reason to rank Greb number 1. By the way, would still love to see that top10 list. Whats the hold up?

[UTEP]

Floyd Mayweather jr

The Catchweight King is the GOAT!

[SweetScience]

Spaddy

Floyd's sparring conquering