Why you hate Greb so much? Cause that's the only possible explanation for him being anywhere lower than #5.
Greb is without doubt one of my all time favourite boxers. A lock in for the top 10 all time. Boxing lists are always subjective, and the names I have put ahead of him all have strong cases for being top 5. I could easily have put him in 5th position, but the top 4 all pick themselves in my opinion.
1. Greb 2. Langford 3. SRR 4. Armstrong 5. Charles 6. Benny Leonard 7. Duran 8. Fitz 9. Pep 10. Ali 11. Walker 12. Ross 13. Gans 14. Moore 15. Barbados Joe 16. SRL 17. Canzoneri 18. Monzon 19. Burley 20. Jofre That took me about 2 seconds and is shamelessly biased. I should have Whitaker in there, but I'm leaving him out just to be spiteful and because I'd have to take Jofre out in his place. I could also think of another 10 or or so fighters who are just as deserving of a spot in the lower 10. And I'd like to see somebody put Benny Leonard at number 1
So you rate Langford over the greatest lightweight of all time, a legitimate 4 weight champion, and the greatest light heavyweight champion of all time, with a legit win over Louis?
This, as Philip Larkin said, be the verse. Just realised I left out Saddler ffs. Oh well.......how the bleeding hell do people do top 100 lists? It's hard enough doing a top 15. Pointless, in fact.
It's not really. Surely instances of someone moving up to fight larger men in order to avoid someone their own size are extremely rare? Not numerous enough to call it a double-edged sword I wouldn't think. I can see why you would bristle at the 'mental frame' comment, but I stand by it. If a fighter ever comes along who is as good as say Langford or Armstrong, but stays at a single weight, then I would have a real problem placing him higher than those two. Not because I believe he was scared to move up in weight, but simply because he didn't prove that he wasn't. I don't think Hagler or Monzon were scared of facing Spinks or Foster, but they didn't prove they weren't. If they had faced them, and either won or gave a very good account of themselves, I think we would all be rating them higher. I very much wanted to rank Monzon higher than Leonard, but decided against it at the last minute, even though Monzon had far greater longevity (something I value very, very highly) and that long, brilliant undefeated streak. If Monzon had moved up, I'd have had no hesitation putting him above SRL as he would have proven that weight-jumping steel/desire.
There can be little doubt about this. The only possible debate which could potentially be made is a case for having Ezzard Charles over Armstrong, but I would take some convincing.
I have argued, in the case of a virtual dead heat, for the fighter who fights and succeeds at multiple weights, versus the fighter who stays in one division myself. I have no argument with that, only the assertion that you have to prove something by moving up - I don't believe that fighting a larger man is unequivocal proof that a tougher challenge is being had. You can't say that Jones moving up to 168 is immediately more difficult than sticking around to fight Hopkins again (as an example).
well that's just fine. If we all agreed on every point, boxing forums and subjective lists would be pointless. Still can't see a valid argument for any fighter other than SRR or Armstong at No 1.
In which case, you need to take a closer look at career records of Greb and Langford. Trust me, they both have more than a valid argument.
Some great wins at heavyweight, but apart from Gans his record isn't all that at other weights. Not enough to eclipse Armstrongs achievements.
As stated originally, my point is that in a close call I will usually go for the multi-weight fighter because they demonstrated a desire to fight larger men that the single-weight fighter obviously didn't demonstrate. There is no implication that I think there's anything lacking in the psyche of the single-weight fighter. It's about credit for doing something challenging that not everyone did. Of course there are many examples of single-weight fighters fighting more dangerous opponents and having better resumes than multi-weight fighters (eg Hagler to Mayweather), but I never attempted to propose a blanket rule anyway, just something which becomes a personal deciding factor in certain circumstances.