We have no evidence that Harry Greb was that good.

I've never known a poster contradict themselves as often as you do and I suspect it's because you use ChatGPT or similar to generate (at least some of) your responses.

Your 1st paragraph "footage can be used if comparing the best of the best who have comparable records". I.e. footage is a minor consideration that may be used in a tiebreaker.

Your 2nd paragraph "how do you make the judgement from records alone without any visual evidence". I.e. footage is EVERYTHING.

My responses:

1st paragraph - I assure you, I am not conceeding any point. If you'd have said "99% of my ATG ranking criteria is based on record and achievements in one's own era, but I use analysis of footage for tiebreaker when "great fighters have comparable records". I'd thought the approach reasonable.

2nd paragraph - SRR went around 120-1-2 during his prime. He won every fight contested at his prime weight, WW. He beat top #7 WW of all time Kid Gavilan twice. He went 5-1 with top 20 MW LaMotta when outweighed by the equivalent of two modern weight divisions in most of those fights. His wins over ranked fighters stack up against almost anybody. He was fighting the best of his era, often outsized, and won just about every time. If that's not evidence of removing one's self from the field, then I don't know what is.

 

I don't contradict myself you're extrapolating a binary from what I have said when I have never made a binary that either footage is everything or its not. My position has always been the first, that footage is used to separate great fighters from other great fighters when their resumes are roughly equal. I was asking you personally, based on your criteria, how you are able to know how dominant someone is without footage, purely based on records. That's not a contradictory statement.

Second I agree with you the SRR resume is amazing and one of the best there ever was but you yourself said that Greb's resume is better. So in your view how would you decide who was more dominant between the two based just on their resume, despite on paper Greb having the better resume?

 

C'mon, this is basic stuff. I've literally spent thousands of hours collating data and reports on fighters records and analysising them for the purposes of ATG rankings. I don't expect you do have done the same, but I do expect someone on the classic forum who challenges the approach to ATG rankings, of a poster with the vast knowledge of boxing history of Sal, to not need to ask this question.

I'm out so don't have the data of SRR and Greb to hand to be able directly answer your question, but I can answer it conceptually.

Imagine a hypothetical scenario where fighter A had a 45-10 record against ranked fighters and fighter B 31-1. Imagine the cumulative quality of the set of ranked opponents each fought was equal. Imagine judge scorecards and newspaper reports indicated all decisions fair, whilst Fighter B typically won in more dominant fashion. Fighter A would have the better, deeper resume. I'd rank Figher B higher as being more consistently dominant and further removed from your field.

Do you see how, based on my criteria, I can rank a more dominant fighter higher than another with a deeper resume, without the need for footage?

 

Im a big enough man to admit when Im wrong. It was Lonsdale who posted that list and not Greg and Lonsdale did credit others for those quotes so i hope they both accept my apology. That being said I am indeed the quote police and I am on patrol so watch your Ps and Qs .

 

Sure the hypothetical is fine, but it actually proves my point. You're ranking Fighter B higher not just because their record is better, but because newspaper reports said that they "typically won in more dominant fashion." That's a subjective judgment about their dominance based on how you're interpreting secondary sources. That's exactly what I've been arguing matters for cross-era comparison. The question is how reliable that interpretation is when the secondary sources are over 100 years old, vary in quality and detail, and can't be verified against film. For Robinson, even limited footage helps us better calibrate and conceptualize those reports. For Greb, we're taking them entirely on faith. Do you agree that creates a gap between the two?

 

LOL apology accepted.. sorry for calling u a lollipop

 

Does anyone know if its true that Greb sparred Johnson? I've read they boxed a 4 round exhibition in Chicago & they said this:

"It was a pleasure workin' with you, Jack," Greb said, and Johnson, the first Negro to hold the heavyweight championship, said, "Its almost impossible to set you up for a punch. You're the fastest man I ever boxed."

Langford said pretty much the same thing about Greb also from what i can gather..

 

And what is your view of available footage if not a subjective judgment of their dominance?

SRR's greatness is primarily based on fights that either weren't filmed or the full film of the fight no longer exists and even if all his fights were available, I'd put more faith in 1000s of assessments than one individuals, so, no, I don't agree.

 

Apology accepted.

 

I always enjoy learning more about Greb. The discussions on the top heavyweights and a couple other weight classes can get a little repetitive sometimes.

 

If a Greb falls in the forest and no one is around (100 years hence) to see it, does it still make greatness?

 

You just said film is a subjective judgment of dominance, I agree but so is interpreting newspaper reports. The difference is film is a direct observation of what happened, while newspaper reports are someone else's interpretation of what happened. You're choosing 1000 secondhand interpretations over firsthand evidence. That's not inherently more reliable it's just what's available. And notice how your argument has shifted from "footage doesn't matter" to "footage is subjective judgment", which is my argument. Film is subjective judgment of dominance. That's exactly what I've been saying matters for a cross-era comparison. You just conceded the point by agreeing that we need some subjective judgment to be able to evaluate dominance. The only difference in our perspective is what avenue it should come from.

 

Who doesnt like lollipops?? I thought you were giving me a compliment!

 

As is inevitable with you, we're going round & round in circles, as you contradict your own inconsistent arguments repeatedly, so I'll limit this response to the part of your post, quoted above, that I agree with.

By very definition, every boxing match that goes the distance requires subjective judgement to evaluate & determine which boxer got the better of it & to what extent. I'd obviously never suggest otherwise. As per your final sentence, it's which sources of that subjective judgement we trust, and, as you state, that's where we disagree, at least it's where we disagree based on your previous post.

Your perspective is that actual results and outcomes, as well as 1000s of primary sources of people who were paid to watch and summarise boxing matches, aren't sufficient, so you need to see the footage (well, that's your perspective on Greb, but not on SRR, who you rate as the GOAT (as I do) despite the fact that at best you've seen less than 1% of his career, and have probably never watched a full fight of his). Mine is, that I put more faith in results and 1000s of primary sources than in your interpretation of footage, were it available to you.

 

So we agree that subjective judgment is necessary for evaluating fighters, and the question is which source of subjective judgment is more reliable. That's been my position from the start while you spent this entire debate arguing footage doesn't matter. We now agree the debate is about which subjective judgment to trust. Film is direct observation of the event while newspaper reports are someone's written opinion about the event. I trust the recording more than the interpretation. You trust the interpretation more than the recording. We've identified the actual disagreement and I'm comfortable leaving it there.