We have no evidence that Harry Greb was that good.

Yeah, crazy idea, you might need to actually watch the fights to compare fighters across eras. Records and newspaper praise tell you someone was great in their time. They don’t show you what that greatness looked like or how it would hold up in other eras.

 

I missed the part where Sal said footage wasn't needed to determine how a fighter would hold up in other eras, could you point it out to me, please?

All I saw was him post, was that footage wasn't necessary to determine greatness, which can obviously only be attained by what a fighter actually achieved in their own time.

 

Yeah, Sal only explicitly said footage isn’t needed to determine greatness in Greb’s own era. But the second you start using that greatness to argue he belongs on all-time or P4P lists, you’re comparing him across eras. And that’s exactly where records and old newspaper accounts fall short, they don’t show you what that greatness actually looked like or how it would hold up against other eras.

 

Comparing his career with those of fighters from different eras, yes, but solely based on what each fighter achieved within their own era.

At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, greatness, and ATG P4P lists, aren't based on yours, or anyone else's, predicted outcomes in cross era fantasy fights that didn't, and never could, occur. They're based solely on what fighters achieved in reality, in their own era.

Sal's post was bang on.

 

Since when is a fighters greatest dependent upon how somebody IMAGINES that fighter would do against someone else???

 

Yeah, no, the idea that you have to see a fighter to compare him across eras is silly. If that was an accurate predictor we wouldnt have to actually stage fights. We could simply say “Canelo is bigger and stronger than Bud and has beaten bigger and better opposition so he would win.” It doesnt work like that. Boxing is full of upsets that Im sure you yourself envisioned going another way so why does your eyeball test need to be passed for a fighters P4P status to be established. A fighter like Greb beat everyone, he beat great welterweights through heavyweights. He beat every style you can imagine. Many of the fighters he beat continued to be at the pinnacle of the sport when Grebs era had passed. Men like Walker and Loughran were factor well out of their division, long after Greb was dead and buried. Grebs career is the definition of P4P greatness whether he passes your eye test or not.

 

Properly evaluating how impressive those achievements were still requires context: how good the opposition really was, how the fighter actually looked and performed, and how their style held up. For fighters from the 1940s onward we have enough film to judge that. For Greb we basically don’t. Sal’s post treats records and old newspaper accounts as enough for all-time lists, but they’re not when we’re stacking him against guys whose careers we can actually watch and analyze.

 

I do think if people had footage of Greb he would be rated even higher than he currently is.

 

Nobody’s talking about imagining hypothetical fight outcomes or predicting who beats who. P4P lists are about ranking real achievements, we can agree on that. But properly evaluating how impressive those achievements were still requires seeing the fighter's speed, pressure, footwork, how he handled different styles, how he aged, etc.

We have zero usable film of Greb himself. We have some film of the guys he beat (Walker, Loughran, Tunney, etc.) later in their careers, but that doesn’t magically show us Greb’s speed, style, or dominance. Records and newspaper praise tell us he beat everyone in his era. They don’t show us what that greatness actually looked like or how it translates when we stack him on all-time lists against fighters whose entire careers we can actually watch.

 

You're getting yourself all confused and conflating separate issues.

For predicting outcomes in cross era, fantasy fights, sure, you need footage, not to mention a whole host of other stipulations (e.g. what rules, round lengths, are the fighters fighting every 2 weeks like in Greb's era, or twice a year with 3-month training camps, do we imagine the older fighter with the benefit of PEDs, or the modern fighters without that benefit, etc).

Greatness/all time greatness is solely based on what fighters achieved in their own era. Predicted outcomes in cross era fantasy fights aren't relevant to greatness. Sal's correct, it stenches of self importance to claim that results in 100+ fights and reports in 1,000+ documented reports isn't sufficient to determine how great a fighter was in their era, because you haven't personally seen them fight.

 

Never said records aren't enough for greatness in their own era, and I never said we should rank based on hypothetical H2H. My point is simply that records alone aren't enough to accurately rank Greb against fighters from later eras whose careers we can actually watch on film. All-time P4P lists are cross-era comparisons by definition and the lack of footage is exactly why many historians place Robinson and Armstrong above him.

 

Cross era comparisons of careers, yes, but not of how good you think they look on film, which was Sal's point.

 

why on earth would you assume anything at all regarding crossing over of eras and comparing styles? Styles were different then, there is no magic key translation to other eras.

 

Then we agree that we do make cross-era career comparisons for all-time lists. Those comparisons require judging how impressive the careers were and film is a huge part of that. For Greb we don’t have it. That’s exactly what Sal’s post downplays, but it clearly matters for an accurate all-time list. Otherwise why should anyone have Robinson or Armstrong above Greb?

 

Then what's the point of all-time P4P lists if we're not supposed to compare fighters from different eras? No one claims there's a magic translation key, but these lists exist anyway. That's exactly where the lack of film for Greb actually matters.