would Greb is p4p number 1?

[New England]

Thing that gets me is, Ya'll will rank someone so high who you have 0 footage of...yet critisize fighters you get to see on a regular basis...i just do not understand that logic at all.

larry, lots of the greatest fighters of all time weren't well filmed. hell, robinson, the consensus goat, is not well filmed at welterweight. he's well filmed at middleweight, but those fights are well into a hard career, and took place when he was past his best.

the history of boxing isn't all well filmed, larry. boxing was a much more popular and significant sport in the past. if you want to know about the important periods in boxing's history, you have to read in addition to watching film.


greb wasn't well filmed. many of his top opponents were. he fought just under 300 fights, beating 13 hall of famers and several all time greats along the way. his record reads like a hall of fame register. his accomplishments in boxing are without a doubt among the top 10 of all time. if you don't recognize that, it's because you don't know what you're talking about.

[way2strong]

lmao off you idiot,,, im about as white as you can get,,, dont get it twisted cuz i got a black guys nickname and last name in my username, and just because i rate SRL highly....
Race aint got nothing to do with how i rate guys

Did you notice that i have duran top 10 as well,,,,

You can make the excuse about the quick rematch, but then i can just say SRL was ****** in the first fight and just should have boxed duran's ears off instead of going toe-2-toe in a slugfest

its not about race for me its about equal rights everyone should be held to the same standards and im sure you wear skinny jeans and follow trends you give off that whole its cool to be "black" type of vibe judging by your post in other threads

[way2strong]

No the truth is he is a racist alt and his past history shows this

alt? what is that? racist my bestfriend brother from another mother is black never went through this white guilt chit in real life everyone is held to the same stanards mayweather should be treated as a coward for avoiding and ducking the best of his era not praised for having money and being of african decent

[Yes Sequitur]

larry, lots of the greatest fighters of all time weren't well filmed. hell, robinson, the consensus goat, is not well filmed at welterweight. he's well filmed at middleweight, but those fights are well into a hard career, and took place when he was past his best.

the history of boxing isn't all well filmed, larry. boxing was a much more popular and significant sport in the past. if you want to know about the important periods in boxing's history, you have to read in addition to watching film.


greb wasn't well filmed. many of his top opponents were. he fought just under 300 fights, beating 13 hall of famers and several all time greats along the way. his record reads like a hall of fame register. his accomplishments in boxing are without a doubt among the top 10 of all time. if you don't recognize that, it's because you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm in agreement with Larry, here.
For all I know, Sugar Ray Robinson at welterweight might very well be the finest fighter of all time, but, quite simply, there is no way for me to attest to that.
For me to support that claim, I'd need to be able to witness and assess his performances myself. If proof does not exist, then it is simply left to question.
Sure, resume can help support that position, but once again, we're left with the same problem. You have to accept the strength of his opposition at the time purely on the faith of others' words.

How reliable would it be to declare Picasso the greatest artist of all time without the luxury of being able to actually view his work today?
Would it be enough for you to just be told via word of mouth that, back in the day, people who saw his work were really, really impressed?
What if we never had the musical manuscripts for the works of Mozart and his music could never be recreated or heard again.
Would it be enough for you just to know that the people who did get a chance to hear it back in the 1700s heartily declared it the greatest music of all time, never to be challenged?

Boxing is not an objective sport - hence why we have judges. If boxing was more like sprinting, we wouldn't need video evidence.
If the records of history had shown a man to have run the 100m in 9 seconds flat in the early 1900s, it wouldn't matter how that 9 seconds looked on camera, we could objectively call him the fastest sprinter in recorded history.
Boxing, sadly, cannot be afforded that luxury.
So to say, X is the greatest fighter of all time, having seen little to none of his greatest performances is, I feel, a very sketchy position to hold.
You're relying on the strength of other peoples words.
And that's how myths get started.

[IronDanHamza]

Thing that gets me is, Ya'll will rank someone so high who you have 0 footage of...yet critisize fighters you get to see on a regular basis...i just do not understand that logic at all.

I'm glad you're talking respectfully and trying to dicuss civily.

I'll come from the other side of the spectrum to counter argue.

I agree it is very hard to judge how Greb would do in a fight because we don't know how he fights or his style. We know he was aggressive and liked to brawl but that has many variables.

Much similar to Joe Walcott in the sense we don't know how he'd do in a fantasy fight. or Young Griffo, and that relatively short list goes on.

But, what we do have, is footage of the fighters Greb beat which we can fairly say were pretty damn good. Most notably Tunney. You've got to be pretty good to be the only person who beat Tunney, right?

I see your point, I do. I get where you're coming from.

But again to be the other side of the coin, why do we need footage to rank how great a fighter is? If we read about a fighter and take witness accounts, and also who they beat (Who we do have footage of) isn't it fair to assess them? I think it is.

I mean, we can read about the old warriors, right? We don't need footage to know what Gengis Khan got up to. Or Alexander the Great.

Except for Greb was obviously a lot more recent and a lot easier to access what he did and didn't do.

[New England]

I'm in agreement with Larry, here.
For all I know, Sugar Ray Robinson at welterweight might very well be the finest fighter of all time, but, quite simply, there is no way for me to attest to that.
For me to support that claim, I'd need to be able to witness and assess his performances myself. If proof does not exist, then it is simply left to question.
Sure, resume can help support that position, but once again, we're left with the same problem. You have to accept the strength of his opposition at the time purely on the faith of others' words.

How reliable would it be to declare Picasso the greatest artist of all time without the luxury of being able to actually view his work today?
Would it be enough for you to just be told via word of mouth that, back in the day, people who saw his work were really, really impressed?
What if we never had the musical manuscripts for the works of Mozart and his music could never be recreated or heard again.
Would it be enough for you just to know that the people who did get a chance to hear it back in the 1700s heartily declared it the greatest music of all time, never to be challenged?

Boxing is not an objective sport - hence why we have judges. If boxing was more like sprinting, we wouldn't need video evidence.
If the records of history had shown a man to have run the 100m in 9 seconds flat in the early 1900s, it wouldn't matter how that 9 seconds looked on camera, we could objectively call him the fastest sprinter in recorded history.
Boxing, sadly, cannot be afforded that luxury.
So to say, X is the greatest fighter of all time, having seen little to none of his greatest performances is, I feel, a very sketchy position to hold.
You're relying on the strength of other peoples words.
And that's how myths get started.

a comparison between great artists and fighters isn't valid. boxing is not fully subjective, the way art is.

you judge the effectiveness of the blows when there isn't a stoppage. as long as the judges are on the up and up, we don't neccessarily need footage of a fight to recognize who beat who. plenty of grebs opponents were filmed. in addition, we have the context of their careers to go on.

you don't have any of that with artists. artists are generally "ranked" in terms of their ability, and impact on art moving forward. fighters are ranked on who they beat and when. mythical h2h matchups are fully subjective. resume are not fully subjective. we know who greb beat according to the rules for judging a boxing match under the marquis de queensbury rules.


if people want to say that they don't consider greb when they're ranking fighters because they've never seen him fight, that's fine. if you're talking about resume you need to consider him, because the wins happened and we have context for them by our knowledge of his opponents.


i think you'll find that many of the truths you hold dear are based on the words of others. once you establish your sources as credible, there's nothing wrong with that in the advent of a lack of a physical record [footage, in this case.]

[New England]

I'm glad you're talking respectfully and trying to dicuss civily.

I'll come from the other side of the spectrum to counter argue.

I agree it is very hard to judge how Greb would do in a fight because we don't know how he fights or his style. We know he was aggressive and liked to brawl but that has many variables.

Much similar to Joe Walcott in the sense we don't know how he'd do in a fantasy fight. or Young Griffo, and that relatively short list goes on.

But, what we do have, is footage of the fighters Greb beat which we can fairly say were pretty damn good. Most notably Tunney. You've got to be pretty good to be the only person who beat Tunney, right?

I see your point, I do. I get where you're coming from.

But again to be the other side of the coin, why do we need footage to rank how great a fighter is? If we read about a fighter and take witness accounts, and also who they beat (Who we do have footage of) isn't it fair to assess them? I think it is.

I mean, we can read about the old warriors, right? We don't need footage to know what Gengis Khan got up to. Or Alexander the Great.

Except for Greb was obviously a lot more recent and a lot easier to access what he did and didn't do.

he'll get no such respect from me . this is carry over from beef long gone, when he tried to classify me as an old blowhard because i had black and white pictures in my sig, and cared for the history of the sport more than the current landscape [which has actually shifted recently, but who really cares?]

i'm actually younger than he is.

[Young Money]

We have footage of guys he beat, that's something.

His resume speaks for itself.

[edgarg]

Louis, JJ and Benny Leonard above Ali? Locche above Duran???

You mention RJJ, Zarate and the Klits but no Hagler, Leonard or Chavez Sr?

Be real fam

Well....I didn't see the point of mentioning every one of another 20-30 top fighters. A serious consideration of the absolutely top top fighters of all time would take the combined efforts of about 50 highly skilled analysts-historians-trainers-fighters-promoters and would last a year, and half of them might end up in hospital with assorted inflicted injuries..... . Since others were giving their choices, I gave mine, but hedged the last five....

And then there would be many who would complain about it.

Ali was only "The Greatest" because that was the gimmick he and his composer buddy Bundini Brown threw around as a comedy act. His mouth caused us to acclimatise to it. It is a FACT that a huge pile of experts said that when Ali slowed down, his very obvious lack of boxing skills would make him pay heavily...

And we KNOW that this is exactly what happened.

In the first half of the 20th century there were often 20-25 boxing promotions going on in New York City ALONE.... and the earlier champs only became champs by beating their ways through dozens of top fighters who never became champs, but who, if they were around today certainly would. So they deserve especial consideration in choosing the very best. At least, so I do believe.

There were several experts who had seen every top fighter from Jim Jeffries up to and including Ali's best years, and they all concurred that Johnson and Louis were considerably better. That Johnson could do everything that Ali did, but much better, as well as much that Ali couldn't do. etc.etc.

Well, I respect the experts, and have never been starstruck past my 15th birthday...so !

[IronDanHamza]

Well....I didn't see the point of mentioning every one of another 20-30 top fighters. A serious consideration of the absolutely top top fighters of all time would take the combined efforts of about 50 highly skilled analysts-historians-trainers-fighters-promoters and would last a year, and half of them might end up in hospital with assorted inflicted injuries..... . Since others were giving their choices, I gave mine, but hedged the last five....

And then there would be many who would complain about it.

Ali was only "The Greatest" because that was the gimmick he and his composer buddy Bundini Brown threw around as a comedy act. His mouth caused us to acclimatise to it. It is a FACT that a huge pile of experts said that when Ali slowed down, his very obvious lack of boxing skills would make him pay heavily...

And we KNOW that this is exactly what happened.

In the first half of the 20th century there were often 20-25 boxing promotions going on in New York City ALONE.... and the earlier champs only became champs by beating their ways through dozens of top fighters who never became champs, but who, if they were around today certainly would. So they deserve especial consideration in choosing the very best. At least, so I do believe.

There were several experts who had seen every top fighter from Jim Jeffries up to and including Ali's best years, and they all concurred that Johnson and Louis were considerably better. That Johnson could do everything that Ali did, but much better, as well as much that Ali couldn't do. etc.etc.

Well, I respect the experts, and have never been starstruck past my 15th birthday...so !

So ridiculous.

Ali had a lack of skills? Really?

I'm an Ali "hater" I dislike the guy and always did when I was growing up but to say he lacked skills is absolutely ridiculous.

And you really honestly believe that both Johnson and Louis can do everything Ali can but better? Like, you seriously and genuinely believe that?