Greatest Middleweight once and for all- Greb? Monzon? Hagler?

I may be "irrelevant" to you, but I know my facts. Being that Nat Fleischer "didn't " live to see Hagler fight [Nat died in 1972], and you did not see Harry Greb fight, than by your own words you are "irrelevant" also...
Great historians rate the greatest American Presidents by their RECORD in office,though never seeing 90% of the Presidents you will agree. And I on the basis of studying the amazing career of Harry Greb for decades and reading volumes of reports from old opponents, trainers and sportswriters
of his times and after, rate him the best MW ever...He as you know had 300 fights in his career tackling everyone from MW to heavyweights,with great success, ducking no one and in his last bout, old, creaky with 300 bouts
was still GOOD ENOUGH to beat the tough, tough southpaw Tiger Flowers
in his LAST bout...Your man Marvin Hagler had but a mere 67 bouts and
was downhill in his loss to Leonard. After 67 fights. Why Harry Greb in one
year had FORTY FIVE fights winning all of them. So though irrelevant
as you label me ,I will say what I believe whether you like it or not S, and
though you call me irrelevant for lauding the great Harry Greb, so be it.
P.S. I know Greb officially lost his last bout to Tiger Flowers, but most of the crowd booed the decision...

 

This is what I don't like about this place sometimes things are taken to personally on here it's a forum so as such there is bound to be widely differing views on various subjects .for me hagler if in grebs era would of probably had a hundred more fights and still been great given the chance colour permitting and greb no doubt given his fantastic all action fighting style would of been a great in hagler's era . Greb may of had more trouble reigning in his win at all costs as not get DQ'd in the more modern game than with the supposed advances in modern ringcraft

 

Mr B, of course there should be different points of views and opinions.
But to be called "irrelevant" because of my opinion choosing Greb over Hagler is foolish and "personal" to me. You can disagree as to who would beat who, but someone shouldn't disparage my thought at choice saying "you are irrelevant as USUAL "...

 

Greb

 

Burt I think the use of the term irrelevant as usual in your direction was wrong and was done so to annoy you to a degree and get a reaction

 

B. you are now officially deemed "irrelevant"...

 

Mr B, is that what ESB is coming to for some posters ? To annoy some sincere ,serious minded boxing lovers ? Isn't there enough high blood pressure around ? Thanks for your input Mr B...

 

ESB classic over the last year or so has got a little more that way sadly, but it is still the best classic/historical forum around

 

I think the majority of arguments here are semantics based.

I reckon most everyone believes Greb is a greater p4p fighter than haglerzon.

I also reckon most everyone believes haglerzon was a greater mw champion than Greb.

Quality of resume when being strict with the divisional limit is debatable.

I think on some level we all agree with each other and are arguing different things.

 

This is as good a summary as could be managed.

 

:rofl :rofl

Oh janitor, I'll never forget this one. :hat

 

I take it that you don't approve?

 

I absolutely ****ing approve.

Greb would've came in around 168 and whooped Foster and Spinks' ass.

 

I am not sure if you are being facetious or not??? I will leave Foster out of it for the minute because I am not as big on him as some are....But I don't think there is a LHW ever that whoops Spinks...beat him perhaps, but not whoop. Greb is certainly a candidate that might beat him...but I can't picture anyone @ 175 whooping him.

 

Some sensationalism. He would've fought them, though. Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles too.

He's beyond all and any doubt. A super-fighter, and boasts the greatest resume in the history of boxing.