Who Ranks Greb As The Greatest?

Why do some say "Robinson is the no.1" as if it's an ABSOLUTE FACT ?
These things are open to opinion. There's not one single boxer who's record and resume and ability were so far above all others in history to make him factually without any doubt the greatest. And if there were that would be strange.

I think Robinson was the first man to ever be associated with the popularity of the concept "pound-for-pound greatest of all-time", and has gone down in lore as such. It's a testament to his greatness that he inspired some people to latch on to that idea. But it's not proof that he is undeniably the only man worthy of the title. In fact, any investigation of great fighters show there are a few or more who accomplished similar things and had similar reputations for their overall ability.

 

Bill **** sake, not everyone who has a different view from you has to be defective in some way. There is scant footage of Robinson at 147, most of the footage people base their opinions on is from his time at middleweight which is peppered with losses. If someone values resume extremely highly, then it's perfectly logical and justifiable for them to rank Greb higher than Robinson because Greb's resume is much better than Robinson's. I think any order of Robinson, Greb, Langford and Armstrong as the top four is perfectly acceptable. Why isn't it???

 

Popkins, Id petsonall add Charles to that list to make a top 5 that can fairly be argued a no.1 spot.

My top 5 consists of those fighters, though I can't ever see Greb leaving the top spot.

Bill, I have a good enough indication of his prowess due to te reports of his fights, and from taking into consideration the beatings he laid on those fighters, who are filmed beating seemingly much more destructive and imposing figures than Greb, which gives us a great look at how good HE must've been.

There is enough footage of Loughran, Tunney and Walker. And to think Greb pushed for fights with Dempsey, and that Carpentier and Siki nearly came off. If he'd had those 3, not only would his resume be unattainable (as it stands, with the way boxing is going I think it's unlikely his resume will ever be surpassed) we'd also have footage of him fighting Dempsey.

As it stands, the training footage gives us a very, very small glimpse of how he operated. The only reason people find Greb hard to believe is because he sounds unreal, a mish-mash of Sweet Pea and Henry Armstrong, with Chuavlo's chin :rofl


And I can take a look at his resume to see just how good he was :good

 

pound for pound is a funny one. IMO theres rare guys who for a time just wont be beat untill they fade. They all fade. Its just that there is a period when a guy who beats other great fighters and cant get beter because there is no beter to get. There are a few out there who did this. I think hagler is up there with armstrong, ali, duran, pep, joe louis, ray leonard, chavez and robinson. Its an elite level and its just personal choice who you like best. usualy they stand out so much they go mainstream and this usualy anoys the hell out of historians who like to have an edge on knowledge over casual sports fans. I think guys like greb creep into lists because its realy only heavy research that backs him up rather than just plain eye fan fare. He, burley and langford are the champions of researchers because they did not make the impact of the others and it requires that all important more complicated train of thought to rate them.

 

thats whats up

 

Charles is my number 5 mate. I think he is the only absolutely concrete ranking I have, period. I can mix the top 4 in any order, I can mix anything after 5 in different orders, but for me Charles must be number 5 - he is 100% the next best of all-time after the top 4. I definitely would not argue against you having an interchangeable top 5 with Charles included, that's every bit as valid as my own top 4/5, because you could probably argue as strongly for Charles to be the GOAT as you could for Armstrong. Personally I wouldn't, but I can certainly see how someone could. :good

 

good attitude popkins:good personally i feel that all time lists have to be flexible. making them set means you may end of constantly defending your position despite often substational evidence (ie: me having ali at the top)

 

Agreed, anyone too rigid with their lists is being silly. Defending your list like a lioness with her cubs is ridiculous because you yourself would probably change it a week later after watching some new fights or doing a bit more reading. Definitely Charles for 5th though!!

 

agreed. i have him at 6th currently but see no reason he shouldn't be higher:good

 

I have Charles at #6 currently as well. **** it, here's my list as of this moment (though it's constantly changing the more I learn, so nothing is really set in stone):

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I judge fighters on the strength of their accomplishments against quality fighters on an era by era basis. I lend credence to ability only when dealing with fighters of the same period (i.e. pre-modern and modern), though moreso when there's enough footage to properly analyze.

 

as expected pea, solid list. not in any position to bust your balls on this but burley at #20? seems a little low for me