Who Ranks Greb As The Greatest?

Marciano would crack the top 75, Holmes might be a bit further down the list as well. Jack Johnson is the only other HW I'd have in a top 100, most likely.

 

I think it's a fine ranking for him, the highest I've ever had him actually. A lot of the fighters would seem low on first glance. If you believe it to be so, present an argument as to who they should rank above. Again, I'm more than open to suggestion. As I said, not much in this list is set in stone.

 

I certainly wouldn't say Pacquiao's too low. In fact I may have been jumping the gun by placing him in the top 50. He's yet to even retire from the sport. A few more fights could either solidify his argument or bring his accomplishments into question. It's usually better to wait for proper perspective on topics like that, especially on a fighter like Pacquiao who's at the height of his powers.

 

sounds good. i would personally switch burley barbados joe and even consider placing burley in the top 10. walcott had a fine career but i feel burley places higher on talent and resume.

 

I'm not so sure. Barbados Joe was a 5'1 Welterweight that routinely KO'd the best Heavyweights in the world. I don't think you can get a much better definition of "pound for pound" than that.

 

Both guys beat 4 or 5 HOF caliber fighters. Roy fought two of them (better fighters than Pacquiao ever faced, at that) at a better stage of their career than any of the ones Pacquiao fought barring Marquez, whom he arguably never even beat in the first place. He was also more dominant in those fights than any outside of perhaps Barrera I. And as I said, I do take ability into accomplishments so long as the fighters are readily capable of being compared. Pacquiao has shown tremendous difficulties with fighters Roy would've beaten with ease.

 

true he was a terror in his time and faced the best available but contemporary results show him losing to the VERY best he faced (gans, langford, o'brien). the only man to truly master burley was the even greater charles.

 

i honestly think they should (sorry to butt in). hopkins has a technical brilliance but his resume is no greater than jones, H2H he's nowhere near jones, and he clearly lost their fight.

 

true, but the latter third of his career is his big saving grace his. his middleweight reign is notable for it's longevity and he had some reasonable opponents therein. but most of jones placement for me, if you buy into it, is the talent and skill portion. his light heavy reign was comparable in quality of opponents to hopkins but he DOMINATED them. hopkins struggled with lesser fighters light echols and allen while roy destroyed legitimate contenders such as toney, griffin and hill.

hopkins wins on longevity of career, jones destroys him terms of quality of performance and talent

 

I think so. I don't think they are far apart. Resumewise they are pretty even. Jones was a weight jumper, Hopkins dominated his and only went up at the end of his career. Both have good longevity (edge B-Hop), both were dominant (edge Jones). I would question ranking Hagler above both p4p more than either one of them above the other.

Pea was always very criical of B-Hop though - at least that's the impression I have.

 

Depends what you put more into...dominance of one division or winning titles in many.

Roy had like 12-13 defences of his lightheavy title...and only really missed out on one guy which you cant hold against him that much. Pretty dominant reign there.

I do think people tend to put to much in weight jumping and how good it sounds saying someone is like a 5 weight champ. Like Pac for instance didnt always face the best fighters in winning his titles Ledwaba and especially Diaz for instance.

But at least with Roy his short stay at 168 had the best p4p fighter in the world to go along with it...His heavyweight foray is an achievement but we shouldnt forget who it was and who he didnt fight up there.


You could definitely argue that one either way in terms of resume and achievements...but for mine Roy is clearly the better and more dominant fighter, so that really shoots down any argument for having Nard higher IMO.