Who Ranks Greb As The Greatest?

I think I'd have Pacquiao a little higher than Jones now, but as ever you make a very persuasive case for your p-o-v.

The Cotto fight tipped the balance towards Pacquiao for me. It just gives Pac's resume that bit more depth, so I go with him. Depth of resume is always a key factor for me, and if you pick out either man's ten most significant wins:

Jones (not in any real order)
1.Toney
2.Hopkins
3.Hill
4.Ruiz
5.Griffin II
6.Tarver I
7.Eric Harding
8.Clinton Woods
9.A very old Mike McCallum? (last 2 positions are difficult to decide on)
10.Sugarboy Malinga? Jorge Castro? Thomas Tate? Reggie Johnson?

Pacquiao (same, no real order)
1.Cotto
2.Barrera I
3.Marquez II
4.Hatton
5.Morales II
6.De La Hoya
7.Morales III
8.Larios
9.Sasakul
10.Barrera II/Ledwaba/Hussien/Solis/Diaz (again, tricky to decide on 1)


I think Pac's is stronger. Not by light years, but a definite 'close but clear' verdict. And that position will strengthen when Pacquiao beats Clottey, which I expect he will.

Pac had struggles with Marquez and Morales (but ultimately got the better of both), Jones had similar struggles with a similar outcome against Griffin and Tarver (I don't take anything post-Tarver I into account for Roy, he was done by then IMO, for whatever reason).

At their respective peaks, Roy was the better fighter. In a p4p sense though, I think Pac is edging ahead. For a guy who was at superfeather less than 2 years ago to have just laid waste to a top welterweight is a pretty solid achievement. I know Cotto isn't exactly SRL at ww, but he had beaten some good fighters there.

What do you think Pea?

 

2 opponents make up 4 of Pacquiao's top 10 wins though (Barrera and Morales), and each of those fights were against versions either past their prime or out of sorts (in regards to the first Barrera fight). The win over De La Hoya for Pacquiao wasn't too much more worthy than Jones's win over Trinidad, IMO. Honestly, even given the circumstances I think the Sasakul win would rate among the very best of Pacquiao's career.

Also, I guess it just depends on how you view the Marquez series. I definitely don't think Pacquiao got the better of it. On the contrary, actually.

 

Jones was almost as green as Hopkins, with fewer pro fights. Hopkins may not have hit his prime in terms of experience and ring craft, but physically he was never better. Comparing that fight to the upcoming one between the two is the very height of absurdity.

 

That's where we differ. Look at their styles. Jones came out of the olympica and had the sttyle to be brought on fast, to compete with very good fighters eary. And he alreaday had entered his prime by the time he fought Hopkins. Hopkins on the other hand became better the more often he fought. He had far inferior amateur experience. Hopkins was about as far removed from his prime as Jones is now. Hopkins was at his physical prime back then but he lacked everything else that made him an atg. Jones now has all the experience craftiness and skills he aquired throughout his career but lacks his awesome physical skills, what made him into an atg. I think it's very compararable. I don't rate Jones win over Hopkins very high, his wins over Ruiz, Hill and Tarver are better imo. And neither would I rank Hopkins win over Jones in their upcoming fight very high - if Jones wins this win would be better than his first win over Hopkins.

 

I don't know if I'd agree that Barrera was out of sorts and take that as a mitigating circumstance. It looked to me as if he went in there complacent, and got absolutely burned for speed. He was on the best run of his career at the time, I wouldn't criticize or call that particular win into question myself. One of the best wins of the decade IMO.

The second Morales fight is another I do place some value on. It was only a year after Morales's biggest and best win (against Pac), and El Terrible seemed to fight with a similar intensity and activity, but was simply met with an improved and grimly determined opponent. The third Morales fight I'd rate as comparable to Jones's early blowout of Griffin in retrospect, because Griffin went on to lose every single one of his subsequent fights vs good comp, he had been a very good, solid fighter before that loss and was a shadow thereafter. I suppose one could argue that Morales was a better fighter than Griffin, but perhaps at that stage in their careers there was not a great deal between them respectively. Morales went on to be edged out by the mediocre Diaz (admittedly at a bad weight for him) and retire, Griffin went on to make a career out of beating tomato cans but losing to anyone decent. Anyway, Morales III and Griffin II were effectively Pac and Jones dispelling any doubt as to who was the better fighter.

I'd disagree on that score Pea, Oscar had been active and hadn't been shown to be shot as yet, seeing that in his previous two outings he had took the p4p#1 to an SD and took a wide UD over Forbes to stay active. Don't get me wrong here, I don't think it was a great win for Pacquiao or anything, but to me Jones-Trinidad was like Duran-Joppy or one of the recent outings of Riddick Bowe! Tito had been inactive for years, hadn't won in even longer, fought miles above his best weight and a fair amount above the highest weight he'd ever fought at. A different level of worthlessness!!

It was a very good win, considering the circumstances. Not a great performance, but a very good win.

Fair enough. Though it is often forgotten that it was an error, a mere technicality, that Pacquiao did not win the 1st fight as one judge scored the 1st round wrongly. I find it hard to separate them over those 24 rounds, but I view Marquez as an excellent fighter in that time period 04-08 so that Pac had 2 razor-thin fights with him isn't overly detrimental to his standing in my eyes, he was the Sumbu Kalambay to Pac's Mike McCallum, if you will. I am of the opinion that Pacquiao has improved over the last 2 years as he has grown, I think if they had rematched at 135 or higher at any point since March '08 then Pac would've knocked him cold.

I don't really have a particularly strong conviction that Pacquiao should rank above Jones, there are decent arguments to be made either way I suppose. If Pac beats Clottey impressively, do you think that would be enough to close the gap for you, or would it take more?

 

I don't really disagree with much of this, outside of the bit about Jones being in his prime. He was in his physical prime, just like Hopkins was, and I'd agree a better stage of his career in comparison to his prime ability. However, the difference is not as you make it out to be. The proof is in the pudding. Simply watch Hopkins's fights from around this time, he looked excellent. It was the first title shot for both fighters, and Hopkins had already had a few more pro fights at the time. Jones admitted to being "very tight" for the fight when questioned about it by Merchant, and given his mostly safety-first style throughout a lot of it it's not difficult to question. Neither fighter was at their prime best for the fight (Hopkins a bit less so, but not to the extent you're making out), both were at their physical best, however. Jones schooled him.

Again, that's absurd. Jones is the definition of a shot fighter right now. Hopkins was on the best legs of his career and had already shown excellent promise as a technical boxer-puncher. He simply lacked the experience and craftiness he'd later gain at the expense of his physical tools. The same can be said of Jones, minus the deteriorating physical abilities.

I'll say it again, you have but to watch his fights from around this time to see what kind of fighter B-Hop was. He was already a fine fundamental boxer-puncher, with more pop and stopping power in his shots than he'd ever have. He may've lacked the experience, but he was clearly already an intelligent stylist. The fight plan he brought against Roy was as good as he could've, and he still got schooled for the most part.

The difference is, Roy's physical skills, which are what allowed him to develop his style and dominate with it, are completely gone. He's a shot, beaten old man who should've retired years ago. It's not remotely comparable to a guy like Hopkins who relies almost solely on technique and conditioning. C'mon man.

I agree it would be better, but only considering the stages of each fighter's career they're at. However, that isn't going to happen, because Jones is about as shot as Pablo Escobar. Bottom line, today's Jones and yesterday's Hopkins can't be compared in the way you're trying to rationalize.

 

It was not a schooling. I had it 8-4 you could have it 9-3. And every round was compeative. That's not a schooling.

Yep, Hopkins was good then. I never doubted it. But he was not he man he would later become. Hopkins relied on technique, tactic, craftiness and experience. hat's exaclty what made him great. He lacked that against Jones. That why I think this win isn't as good as it is made out to be.
Jones on the other hand had already what made him into an atg.

See that's my point. In heir first fight Jones had already what made him into an atg, Hopkins not. Now it's he other way around.

Yeah, Jones is more done than Hopkins was green back then. I agree. But Hopkins now is also more removed from his prime than Jones was back then, if he was at all.

 

Roy Jones Jr should defintely be given more credit for his win over Hopkins.
Hopkins might not have slogged away and gained the recognition he got later on yet, but he was essentially the same fighter. YES, he improved and became even wiser and capable, but he was a superb technical craftsman back then too.

It's like saying Larry Holmes wasn't a particularly formidable heavyweight yet in 1977 or 1978 because he wasn't quite as crafty and wily as he proved to be in the Norton fight and the championship years thereafter, and because no one really rated him. On the face of it, that's an absurd suggestion, Holmes was not just solid, he was a top-class act, even if it took a bit of hindsight for most of us to see it.

 

That really is a crazy comment to make mate, just crazy. Jones is more shot than Sonny Corleone in The Godfather, and has been for years. B-Hop had not yet developed the style, technique and experience that saw him become such a great mw from 97-04, but he was in his physical prime and was already a damn good fighter.

 

:rofl

 

Harry Greb
Henry Armstrong
Ray Robinson
Ezzard Charles
Sam Langford
Roberto Duran
Benny Leonard
Willie Pep
Archie Moore
Muhammad Ali
Barney Ross
Mickey Walker
Tony Canzoneri
Bob Fitzsimmons
Barbados Joe Walcott
Charley Burley
Jimmy McLarnin
Terry McGovern
Joe Louis
Gene Tunney
George Dixon
Joe Gans
Ray Leonard
Pernell Whitaker
Sandy Saddler
Luis Manuel Rodriguez
Carlos Ortiz
Ike Williams
Kid Gavilan
Alexis Arguello
Carlos Monzon
Jose Napoles
Eder Jofre
Marvin Hagler
Julio Cesar Chavez
Emile Griffith
Young Corbett III
Roy Jones Jr
Michael Spinks
Manny Pacquiao
Fighting Harada
Jack Britton
Ruben Olivares
Thomas Hearns
Larry Holmes
Jim Driscoll
Tommy Loughran
Jimmy Wilde
‘Panama’ Al Brown
Ted 'Kid' Lewis
Evander Holyfield
Dick Tiger

There's mine (as of today) still a bit of a mess to be honest, due to some very quick revision (I got a wee bit mixed up as to how I remembered Young Corbett II and III's resumes, though it was the 14 year old Italian I was after )

As Pea says, I'm more than open to discussion, debate and input, the only way I'll learn :good

 

I thought it was a rather easy victory, with Hopkins winning 3 rounds at most when Jones decided to coast during the latter stages. An easy victory, if not outright dominant in many rounds.

I don't think he lacked technique, again he was already a very fundamentally sound boxer-puncher at that stage. And he certainly didn't lack the right tactics in their fight. He did his best to cut off the ring and make it an in-fighting affair, which is as good a gameplan as Hopkins would ever be able to muster against Roy, IMO. He just got handled everywhere he took the fight because Roy was simply a better fighter.

Jones himself lacked the craftiness and experience that would turn him into one of the best ring generals of all time. Yes, he had the base for it with his physical ability, but he hadn't yet mastered his style, nor was he as comfortable in the big show as he'd later become.

I think they both had the right base for what made them all time greats, just that neither had perfected their styles due to a lack of experience. Nowadays, Hopkins is superbly conditioned for an athlete of his age, and his conditioning allows his boxing brain to carry out its orders. Perhaps he isn't the physical specimen he was 10 years ago, but he still clearly has the physical ability to work with. Roy on the other hand is shot in every way you care to name, both physically and mentally. There's no comparison.

Regardless, the difference between Jones and Hopkins now vs Jones and Hopkins then is incomparable. Both were world class fighters, Jones bordering on elite already. Nowadays, Jones doesn't even need to be fighting, whereas Hopkins is top 5 pound for pound. Not the same.

 

I'll get back to you as well Popkins, I just don't have much more time on this computer so I'd rather not get into much detail. I don't think our perceptions are too far off anyway, I just need to clear up a few things.

 

Look forward to it amigo :good

 

Even if Pacquaios does rate better you have to factor in dominance and Pacquaio isnt close, Jones barely lost a round pre-Tarver