Who Ranks Greb As The Greatest?

Personally I think its highly likely Joe Calzaghe is a better version of Greb

 

To me, the first Barrera fight is still Pac's best performance.

Morales looked pretty bad just the fight before though against Raheem. I know he was above his best weight, but that was definitely a sign for Morales that his time was up. I don't think Pac improved as much in the second fight as Morales declined actually (from the first fight).

I don't think there was any indication that Montell was damaged goods prior to the Jones rematch. In fact he had just put up his most convincing display the fight before in the DQ win against Jones. Morales on the other hand looked bad against an average fighter in Raheem and even when he lifted for the Pac rematch, he was still to me evidently a shopworn fighter and I expected a blowout in the third fight.

Concentrating on how DLH looked in the fight though, you'd have to agree he was pretty much done. A pinata if ever there was one in the ring.

Agreed.

Ironically, I thought Pac got the better of the Marquez fights (won the first, drew in the second) but I rate him MUCH lower than most do that actually had Pac losing the Marquez fights.

I guess it comes down to me not thinking all that much of Marquez (or the Morales, Hatton, DLH and even Cotto that Pac has beaten).

For Pac to have a good argument for being above Jones he would have to beat Floyd Mayweather for mine. 40 year old Mosleys and the Clottey's of the world aren't going to get it done for me.

 

Joe Calzaghe is the antithesis of Greb when it comes to resume.

 

Pacquiao gets a raw deal by comparison because he never lingered in any one division. If he stayed at lightweight for as long as Jones stayed at lightheavy, he could have been as dominant, but he never stayed in any division so he is not perceived to have been dominant.

Look at it this way - he lost only one fight between 1999 and now, and that defeat was to a great fighter, and was avenged twice by knockout. I agree Pac was not as dominant as Jones, but he did fight better fighters, so it's logical he would not have won as many fights as easily.

Don't get me wrong, I've already acknowledged that prime for prime Jones was the better fighter, but Pacquiao right now is a special fighter, the way he handled p4p ranked naturally bigger fighters like Hatton and Cotto was superb, and I don't view the gap in ability as so huge that it negates Pac's superior resume and weight-jumping accomplishments.

 

Worst Comment Of The Century!

 

I'd go with Cotto, with Barrera 1 second. Although Barrera was a better fighter and in better form than Cotto, I think Pac showed greater ability vs Cotto. Against Barrera, he showed explosive speed, power, resilience, output and will. Against Cotto, he showed all of that and more. The punch for the second knockdown was gorgeous. Chuck in that the fight was at welterweight what with Pac's weight history and considering no-one else has come close to so utterly dominating the Puerto Rican, and I think it's a genuinely excellent victory.

Fair points. I just think the weight and Raheem's style were what beat Morales, not an overnight decline. He fought Pac at a good weight for him a year after arguably the best win of his career, and he was right there for 10 violent rounds. I think Pac broke him rather than he became broke between the 1st and 2nd fights with Pac.

I'm not suggesting that Griffin was damaged goods before the Jones rematch, but in retrospect his career took a similar trajectory after that fight. You could argue he never won another meaningful fight after the 1st round KO. He seemed to be affected by that loss the same way Morales was by the first stoppage loss of his career. Morales looked very good in the 1st Pac fight, Griffin looked very good in the 1st Jones fight. Pac and Jones then reasserted their superiority, and their opponents never recovered. I'm not saying it is the exact same situation in every way, but there is a similarity IMO.

Yeah, he was a shadow of his former self without doubt. It was not a win of any significant value. I do think his condition is a bit overstated to be honest, he came out swinging but was completely burned for speed, it wasn't as though he was as far gone as Roy Jones was when he couldn't last a round against Danny Green or as far gone as Ali was when every passing round against Larry Holmes was a horrible mismatch, and Oscar's punch resistance didn't seem to have waned at all, but I do accept that he was a husk of a once-great fighter and it wasn't a big win by any means.

If you don't think much of Marquez, Morales, Hatton or Cotto, who do you think a lot of that's currently active? Those guys were all p4p rated, the best around at the time, and were all beaten, most of them emphatically. I think Pac's body of work is definitely stronger than Jones's.

 

Honestly?.....

 

When you factor in the circumstances for Barrera going into that fight, it's obvious what kind of mental and physical state he was in, and the fight reflected that, IMO. Not just for the way Pacquiao beat him down, but for the way Barrera responded. Not only did he have head surgery just prior to the fight, but his training was badly interrupted by the massive wildfire that burned his gym down mid-camp. I think it showed in the fight. Hell, even when well further removed from his prime in the rematch he fared better (though the fight itself was lackluster), simply due to the fact that he was better prepared and more focused.

I think it was pretty clear that Morales was already on the downslide by that point. The first Pacquiao fight was pretty much his last hurrah, as proven by his abysmal performance against Raheem in his fight prior to the rematch. The series with Barrera and a career of wear and tear had clearly taken their toll by then as well. Be that as it may, I don't totally discount the win for Pac. Still a good one, just not as good as it's made out to be by some.

Morales was battered and faded by the time of the third fight. He didn't have much left to offer. Griffin was still a world class fighter fresh off his first fight with Jones. However, without Eddie Futch in his corner he wasn't the same fighter. Futch's tutelage is what made Griffin in that first fight. The fights aren't really comparable, but you're splitting hairs when choosing which one to regard higher.

While it was more clear at the time that Tito was a shot fighter going in, I think he actually showed a good deal more resistance than De La Hoya was able to muster up in his severely drained state. When you factor in how far past his prime Jones was as well, and the fact that Pacquiao was at the height of his powers, I think it evens out the weight advantages and disadvantages, respectively. Neither fight was worth a whole lot, IMO. Not given the state of their opponents and the circumstances surrounding.

Even then, I scored the fight a draw myself, and had Marquez in the rematch by a point.

I don't doubt the highlighted bit. However, I think it has more to do with how much Marquez has deteriorated rather than a major improvement on Pac's part. For the most part, he's taking on similar or lesser skilled fighters at the higher weights. What is impressive is how he's been able to keep his physical tools intact the entire way through. I've said it before, Pac is a weight jumping phenom in how well he's able to carry his attributes up the ladder. However, I've never seen him as a guy that's been conclusively proven to be the best at any one weight class he's fought at. I think his style matches up a lot better with some than others, and I think he'd take a fair share of losses to any of the divisional greats, depending on style.

If he beats Mayweather I'll be more willing to except this supposed improvement, because that's a style I don't think Pac's suited to at all, and fully believe Floyd would take the W if that fight does come off in the near future.

I couldn't tell you until the fight plays out, really. His resume will be deeper, surely. However, there's a bit more to my rankings than that. The proven quality of the fighter at their peak plays a big part as well, at least when such comparisons are able to be made. I judge modern fighters more strictly in that sense because of the availability of fight footage to back up their resume.

 

I think he could well be the best. Here are the craziest things:

1. He was a 5'8 middleweight who fought ATG light-heavyweights and heavyweights, and only got KOd twice in 300 fights. That is ridiculous.
2. He was ducked by Dempsey!
3. Unlike many fighters of the time he didn't duck black fighters.
4. Didn't duck anyone - he practically fought every contender out there.
5. 15-0 whitewash of Gene Tunney in the first fight.
6. Beat 14 Hall of Famers!
7. 45-0 in one year! That's better than the *entire career* of most champions.

If you look at it in terms of dominance against all-comers, moving up in weight, his record against other great fighters, it is just ridiculous. Sugar Ray Robinson never had that level of dominance or opposition.

Also for the argument about not seeing him on film, that's true but as the article states, we have seen his opponents on film and they look good - yet he whipped them all.

 

True indeed, true indeed. If I could add one point to your list it's that many of his opponents spoke extremely highly of Mr. Greb, including Tunney.

"He was never in one spot for more than half a second, all my punches were aimed and timed properly but they always wound up hitting empty air. He'd jump in and out, slamming me with a left and whirling me around with his right or the other way around. My arms were plastered with leather and although I jabbed, hooked and crossed, it was like fighting an octopus."
-- Gene Tunney

"Greb gave me a terrible whipping. My jaw was swollen from the right temple down the cheek, along the chin and part way up the other side. The referee, the ring itself, was full of my blood. If boxing was afflicted with the commission doctors that we have now, the first fight probably would have been stopped and no one would have heard of me today."
-- Gene Tunney


"The fastest fighter I ever saw. Hell. Greb is faster than Benny Leonard."
-- Jack Dempsey
...just to name a few. Now, I know Dempsey wasn't an actual opponent, but that was only because Dempsey didn't fight him. Greb was calling Jack Dempsey out before he even won the Heavyweight title.

 

i was brought up thinking robinson was the best fighter who ever laced them up and i dont think any amount of debate could make me change my mind. i wouldnt argue with anyone who wanted to rank greb as number one though

 

Isn't it unfair to rank Marciano so low? He was 183 lbs, barely bigger than a light-heavy, yet he went 49-0 and had a great KO % and ducked no one. For a 183 lb man to simply get the heavyweight title is unusually impressive - to defend it and go unbeaten is unprecedented.

Ironically if Marciano had been 220lbs then he would probably be rated higher P4P by most people.

 

It sounds like he was one of those supernaturally fast fighters, like Ali, Whitaker, Roy Jones Jr etc. I.e. never stayed in one spot, always moving, hard to hit. Also it sounds like he had a very high punch output and great conditioning.

Imagine if you could cross Marciano's stamina and punch output with Ali or Roy Jones Jrs speed and elusiveness. That would be a pretty tricky fighter I think

 

Even with all the years left, will never be a worse judgement.

 

Indeed but Greb and Calzaghe from all accounts have very similar high output styles, using speed, pressure and moving in and out. From the footage Ive seen of Greb (which might not be truly representive), Calzaghe seems far faster, quicker feet, better movement, better athlete, better boxer