Why was Greb ranked as no.1 so late?

Great sources bud, much appreciated :good

 

I feel like I've been given substantial evidence by others in this thread to suggest this win wasn't exactly that great. Yes it was over an ATG lightweight but from what I've researched, Gans appeared to have been the stand out lightweight but certainly did not dominate the division, (well at the time he fought Langford)

The way that people present the argument about Langford being so high as an ATG is that his loses don't mean anything (just how I'm perceiving it, I could be completely wrong) and why should someone's hinderances in their career (being short and not being able to see very well) effect everything so dramatically. Surely Manny Pacqiao shoud be very high on your ATG list then considering he's come up dramatically in weight and if were comparing it in pounds Sam only beats him by about 10.

At the end of the day there all fighters and Langfords loses just seem like a load of excuses like he can barely see or he's short. I could feel comfortable
In saying Lennox Lewis was the best HW of all time because he never lost in his prime, shouldn't have been stopped against McCall, was the second heaviest he'd ever been in a fight. I guess this perception of loses have changed over time with the more modern fighters, which considering the amount of fights they had annually is slightly justified.

Cheers for the history lesson though McGrain and the others that also chipped in, you've educated me on a subject that I've never really been bothered to even have a glimpse at it'd be much appreciated if you'd reply to these last few points :good

 

No, because how do all things become equal?

If you take a heavyweight and a mini flyweight and try and magically match them up, where is the middle ground? It makes no sense on any level.

 

I think it is a bit unfair to judge him just on that video without taking his record and who he beat into consideration.

 

Film is an invaluable reference tool.

Even if we only possessed Greb's first fight with Tunney and brawl with Walker the doubtful would be terribly tempted to change their minds.

 

That's what p4p is to many people & that is why it's absurd and made up for small guys as a consolation prize IMO.

Nature unfortunately is "unfair" in what it blesses people with & most guy's can't be HW's so they hang onto this like its something real.

 

I don't think it's made up for smaller guys as a consolation prize, It's not even an official title.
It's just something where people have an opinion on who their best fighter(skills, resume etc) is at their weight compared to other fighters at their respective weight.
IMO

 

A shining light in the fog. Thanks Al.

 

Actually, I've seen Heavyweights placed higher than they typically would be based on accomplishments using that type of formula. The guys in the lower weights (particularly LW to MW) have historically tended to be a whole lot more interesting and skilled. :yep A lot of great fighters have shifted through multiple divisions too quickly for standard divisional ratings to suffice. For instance, you won't typically see Henry Armstrong or Barney Ross rated at the top of any one division, although most would consider both greater overall than many they could be placed below in a strictly divisional sense, and it's based on how many rated/very good/great fighters they ran through. It's why some guys can also do a majority, if not all of their work in a single division and still rate high in a P4P sense, in addition to their skills, ability and perception of their quality of opposition. Some place a lot of emphasis on being able to move up and take out the best in higher weights, although that's become much easier with the addition of so many sub-divisions and the dilution it's inevitably brought on.

 

It doesn't, and that's why pound for pound is and always had been a mythical title. that's why most books don't say the 100 greatest p4p fighters as that would indicate some sort of head to head rating. Pound for pound lists are relatively recent.

What do you think the words pound for pound mean anyone?

 

There's no such title.

"Best fighter ever pound-for-pound" is not a real title. Not one that can be won, or earned, or figured out by some feat of intellectual intuition or reasoning..
People here might talk about it like it's real, but this place isn't normal. The home to a bunch of fanatics ..... and fantasists. :good

 

Again, he's outside my top 5... With no film evidence of him.. I just can't put him any higher.

 

Seems strange. If Ali wasn't filmed, would he cease being the best heavyweight?

 

The evidence suggests in due course it will happen. As there is no generally considered theory to work these things out, the 'experts' of their time, get to make these judgements, using their bias' and agendas.