We have no evidence that Harry Greb was that good.

I'll answer your question first. I'm not aware of the ATG p4p lists of many historians (btw, I hope ypu realise the likes of Bert Sugar and Teddy Atlas don't qualify as historians). The best, most thoroughly researched list I've seen, was on McGrain's 100 page+ thread, in which he had Langford at #1 and Greb ahead of both SRR and Armstrong. I have Greb behind SRR and ahead of Langford and Armstrong, as I value dominance more heavily than most, but essentially there is no "wrong" way to order these 4, indeed, they've all been my GOAT at different points in time.

Now to address your comments - You're proving Sal's point. You're saying that you would place more significance on your view of how Greb looked, than you do on actual outcomes, even if you agreed with those outcomes. Crazy.

You've made the below contradictory remarks in this thread:

1. You've conceded predicted outcomes in cross era fantasy fights aren't material to ATG rankings. Some people refer to this as P4P H2H, but speaking more plainly, it's who you think is the better fighter relative to size*

2. You need footage to be able to adequately compare fighters across different eras for the purposes of ATG rankings**

What do you need footage for, if who you believe would win in cross era fantasy fights, I.e. who you think is the most effective fighter, is immaterial to your ATG rankings? If not effectiveness, is it to assess how exciting their fights were? How aesthetically pleasing their style was? Something else?

*1. I agree with you. It would be sheer madness to factor predicted outcomes in cross era fantasy fights into your ATG rankings. Not only do actual outcomes carry more rate than predicted for obvious reasons, but from the start of gloved boxing to now, they're different sports, with different rules and vastly different conditions. So, you'd have to imagine a fighter not as they were, but as they would be were they born to a different era. Not just a fantasy fight, but a fantasy fight involving at least one fantasy boxer. You're clearly 100% correct to completely disregard cross era H2H from your ATG criteria.

**2. This is where you are wrong. I rank Mayweather higher than Billy Smith both p4p and at WW, even though I've never seen Smith box, because Mayweather was greater in his era, than Smith was in his, which can be established by analysing their respective careers, so Mayweather ranks higher on ATG lists. Don't tie yourself in knots, it's as simple as that.

 

I used to give that opinion some credence. I now believe it's irrelevant, or rather, its only value comes down to if we'd find Greb's style aesthetic.

When you've beaten so many good guys that we do have film of, it means he was better at the game of hitting and not getting hit. If, by some miracle, someone unearths a hundred complete Greb fights, it wouldn't matter if his style offended eyes, or confused perceptions regarding what's supposed to work in the ring. I know he spanked Gene Tunney. More than once. And I'm not confident picking any other middle in history to turn the trick.

 

Top post!

 

Great film that is stolen by Lee J Cobb,imo.

 

Well done!

 

Cheers, Mcvey, much appreciated.

 

I'll start with some historians ik. Monte Cox had SRR at #1 and Greb at #3. The IBRO had Robinson at #1 and Greb at #3. If we concede Greb has the deepest resume, why does a respected historical body in the sport rank Robinson higher? You dodged this, but the answer is that true historians weigh more than just pure outcomes.

Second, you’re still trying to frame film as either a tool for predicting fantasy fights or judging a beauty contest. It's neither.

Film is evidence for context. It allows us to evaluate pace, defensive responsibility, balance, shot selection, and how cleanly a fighter controlled their opponents.

Resume tells us what happened. Film helps us understand the quality and context of those results. When you compare fighters across eras, you aren’t just lining up numbers on a spreadsheet, you're judging how meaningful those achievements are relative to each other.

I’m not using footage to predict a fantasy H2H matchup. I’m using it to reduce the massive margin of error that comes with comparing careers across radically different conditions. We can do that with Robinson. We can't do that with Greb. If a raw resume was the only metric that mattered, there wouldn't be a debate about SRR vs. Greb. The debate exists precisely because proper historical analysis requires more than just reading the win column.

 

You said Greb spanked Tunney "more than once" But officially, Greb went 1-3-1 against Tunney. He beat him exactly once on the official record. If you are crediting Greb with multiple wins over Tunney, you are doing so because you are relying on the subjective accounts of 1920s newspaper reporters who either disagreed with the judges in the second fight or scored the 1924 bout for Greb which was officially a draw. You are choosing to trust the opinions of sportswriters over the official outcomes. Which is my point: without film to verify what actually happened in the ring, we are forced to rely on second-hand interpretations and subjective reporting.

Also you are falling back on "boxing math." Beating a fighter we do have film of doesn't automatically transfer their verified greatness to Greb. Styles make fights. Ken Norton was a nightmare for Ali, that doesn't mean Norton ranks higher on an ATG list than Ali or the guys Ali beat. Greb beating Tunney proves Greb was a stylistic nightmare for Tunney when they fought. It doesn't give us the data needed to objectively rank Greb above someone like Robinson.

And to reiterate: I am not talking about "aesthetics". I don't care if a style is ugly or offends the eyes. Film isn't a beauty contest. It is verifiable proof of how good a fighter actually is. When comparing the absolute greatest fighters to ever live, relying only on resumes and newspaper clippings leaves a margin of error that film eliminates.

 

I haven't dodged your question, I addressed it directly and will further address your points directly now. You've cited Monte Cox and IRBO ATG rankings, and in doing so have unwittingly undermined your own argument, in a massive way. They rank Greb, of whom there is no footage, above all but two fighters in history. How can these historians, whose ATG rankings you have cited as credible, rank a fighter with no footage above so many fantastic, incredible boxers, of whom footage is plentiful, if, as you claim, footage is required to adequately compare a fighters greatness across eras?

Now answer my previous question directly. You've stated the predicted outcomes of fantasy fights are immaterial to ATG rankings. I.e. you disregard how effective fighters would be competing in other eras (which you're correct to do so, for reasons outlined in my previous post). So, when analysing footage to help inform your ATG rankings, given you disregard effectiveness from a cross era perspective, what exactly is it you're comparing from a cross era perspective? Pace, defensive responsibility, balance etc., are not adequate responses, because they're factors which contribute towards effectiveness to win fights, which you disregard from a cross era perspective. So, if not effectiveness, or factors that controbute towards effectiveness, what is it your analysising from footage that you need to be able to compare the greatness of fighters from different eras?

Finally, you're tying yourself up in knots and contradicting yourself. You've said that you disregard predicted outcomes in fantasy fights, and then in defence of your position that footage is required to rank ATGs, you cite a debate on a SRR vs Greb as being relevant.

 

If film surfaces of Greb and he looks like horsesht, the logical thing to do is demote everyone in his era who competed in his weightrange.

Paul Spadafora looked like an ATG against Pito Cardona. Gatti looked like an ATG against Dorin. Maybe the same phenomenon was occurring on whatever favorable film evidence exists for 1920s fighters.

 

You're arguing against a version of my position I've never held. Let me clarify both points, then answer your direct question.

On the IBRO/Monte Cox rankings, I didn't cite them to say Greb can't be ranked. I cited them because they place Robinson #1 and Greb #3 despite Greb having a deeper resume. That supports my point, if pure resume were the sole criteria, Greb should top the list. The fact that historians still put Robinson ahead, even knowing Greb's record cold, implies they're weighing something beyond outcomes. The lack of direct footage is a reasonable reason for that gap. So no, it doesn't undermine my argument. It fits it perfectly.

And I notice you still haven't answered the central question I've now asked twice: if ATG ranking is purely about what a fighter achieved in their own era, and resume is the sole measure of that, why do historians who know Greb's record inside out consistently rank Robinson and sometimes Armstrong above him? You deflected first by questioning which historians count, then by pointing out how high Greb ranks despite having no footage. But neither of those answers the question. So I'll ask a third time: on your framework, where resume and intra era achievement are all that matters, what is the justification for placing Robinson above Greb?

Footage lets us assess the degree and nature of a fighter's mastery within their own era. Things like balance, shot selection, defensive responsibility, and the ability to adapt are universal boxing virtues, they aren't era bound. Watching Robinson control elite opponents with complete command of distance and technique tells us something real about the quality of his greatness that a newspaper report saying "Robinson won a decision" does not. I don't need to imagine Robinson in the 1920s to see that his mastery was of an extremely high level. When comparing two fighters for all-time ranking, the depth and completeness of their visible mastery is a legitimate differentiator, it's not a prediction of who beats whom, it's a measure of how impressive their achievements actually were.

Consider a concrete example. If two fighters both clear out their divisions, but film shows one did it as a crude brawler who took enormous damage to get wins, and the other did it as an untouchable technician who dismantled opponents without taking a scratch, the technician demonstrated a higher level of greatness. Evaluating how someone achieved their wins isn't a fantasy H2H prediction. It's grading their level of mastery. That's what film provides, and that's what newspaper accounts, which often lack technical detail, contradict each other, or reflect the biases and limited vocabulary of their era, simply can't replicate.

For Greb, we can't make that direct assessment. We're left with secondhand accounts that are often contradictory, exaggerated, or incomplete. That doesn't make Greb unrankable. It does create a margin of error that, at the very top of all-time lists, can explain why he tends to sit behind Robinson and sometimes Armstrong.

This is also directly relevant to your own stated criteria. You've said you value dominance more heavily than most. But how do you evaluate dominance without footage? Dominance isn't just winning, it's how you win. Did Robinson's dominance come from adaptable fundamentals that transcend era-specific conditions? Did Greb's volume of wins rely on 1920s fight frequency, shorter schedules, and different judging standards? Film doesn't tell us who would win in a time machine. It tells us how to weight the impressiveness of achievements when comparing across different contexts.

On the "contradiction": The SRR vs. Greb debate I referenced was about historical ranking, not a fantasy fight. I thought that was clear from context. I'm not using hypothetical H2H outcomes to inform rankings. I'm pointing out that even the most knowledgeable historians disagree on how to order the very best, precisely because factors beyond resume, including the weight and reliability of the available evidence, come into play when the margins are that fine.

So to answer your question directly: when I analyze footage for ATG ranking purposes, I'm comparing the observable quality and completeness of each fighter's mastery within their own era's level, not who I think would win in a time machine. Mastery within one's own era is an observable fact, not a cross-era prediction. I'm not comparing how Greb's mastery would translate to the 1960s. I'm comparing the documented depth of mastery each fighter demonstrated against the best available competition of their time. And for Robinson, we can verify that depth directly. For Greb, we can't. That gap is why the debate between them exists at all.

 

Must be his reach .... LOLOL

 

The problem is how good fighters look on film does fit into a lot people's criteria and ranking.

In boxing people don't tend to rate fighters just on resumes and what they did in there own time (I agree this is the fairest way to rank) but there is often a subjective element of watching how good a fighter looks or how they do in cross era comparisons. I feel like with Greb this will always be questioned by those who lean towards the later in criteria as well.

But if you don't care about how a fighter looks on film and just want to look at there resume or vise versa then the answer is clear obviously either Greb is one of the best ever or he isn't.

 

1. I don't need to speculate as to the rationale of historians. I've already told you I have SRR above Greb, and explained why, and it has nothing to do with the absence of footage. SRR went around 120-1-2. He was outweighed by around 15lbs in his sole defeat, to an opponent he beat 5 times during this run. Greb has a deeper resume, but did lose a few during his prime. Imo, an analysis of their careers suggests SRR was further removed from the field in his era, than Greb was in his. Now, please, that does directly answer your question. And yes, citing historians who rank Greb #3 all time (a perfectly reasonable, and very complimentary, ranking), does not support your stated position that fighters greatness cannot be adequately assessed across eras, without footage.

2. You state "Footage lets us assess a fighters mastery in their own era". Again, your proving Sal's point, by claiming your interpretation of footage, 100-years after the event, is more pertinent to a fighters ranking, than outcomes in 100's of fights and than 1000's of primary documented sources.

3. Ok, with regards to your brawler and technician analogy, we're finally getting somewhere towards understanding the underlying reason behind our different views in this regard. The technician may have taken no damage, but inflicted little, winning a points decision. The brawler may have taken plenty of damage, but inflicted loads, stopping their opponents. Both cleared out their era, assuming they did so in broadly similar levels, albeit very different types of, dominance (we don't need footage to assess how dominant a victory was, as per point 4. below), then all that matters to me is effectiveness, best judged by outcomes. In this extended analogy, both were equally great, imo. You're saying that you rank on style, not just effectiveness/outcomes. Assuming I've understood you properly, sure, for you, footage is material to your criteria. I entirely preclude style from my rankings. Just effectiveness, judged by outcomes and achievements.

4. Of course you can evaluate dominance without footage. Have you read reports of Greb vs Tunney 1? If so, do you consider Greb to be dominant?

5. Do you write for ChatGPT? Your last couple of responses don't half read like ChatGPT.

 

When I have a dog that can't get up the stairs or has trouble holding his bowels, I do the right thing and put him down.

That should have been this thread after the OP.