Originally Posted by Cael
Harry Greb has the most outstanding resume from that bunch, but the fact that there isn't any film with him fighting affects his legacy, and GOAT status.
This is the only knock you can really make on Greb (same with Fitzsimmons and Langford) but honestly, what does whether or not a fight is filmed have to do with how great a fighter is?
Film is of very limited value in assessing all time great legacy. Prime Riddick Bowe looked very impressive on film but he doesnt have the longevity to rate with many of the other all time greats.
Muhammed Ali looks to have many fundamental flaws on film, but it should hardly effect his legacy. It isnt that long ago that virtually nobody had video film of most fighters. Film can actually be very overated in assessing an ATG legacy, imo. If we finally get film of Greb and he looks crappy, does it really make one bit of difference to how good or bad he was?