Who Ranks Greb As The Greatest?

McGrain there's a poster on the British thewinfella who you'd have a lot of fun with, he's like the worst poster ever

 

I don't think Pacquaio would be dominant if he stayed at lightweight though. A MArquez rubber could have been a loss (I thought JMM edged both of those), it would be close again. Guzmans defense, skill and speed would give him nightmares. Funekas height and ability would be tricky. Im not sure that cambell wouldnt cause him problems. He'd likely smash diaz and katsidis. Valero I dont know about, he might be good Im waiting to be convinved

I picked Pacquaio to dominate Cotto and Hatton, the styles suited him, but certain styles will give him problems. I wonder if hes purposely been kept away from boxer movers and slicksters with right hands because he hasnt fought many and Roach vocally said Guzman was a bad stylistic match up when both were at 130

 

We dont know how good the Tunney was that Greb fought, but low hands against the speed of Calzage could mean he'd get caught time and again. I'm sure Tunney would find a home for his right hand though

 

Guzman is all style over substance.A truly annoying clown of a fighter.

 

PowerPuncher, you really are outdoing yourself these days. This is the second ABSOLUTELY SHOCKINGLY SHITE post you have made within the last few pages.

Do you seriously, seriously think that an overrated little lightweight turd like Guzman, a thoroughly mediocre contender like Funeka, or (worst of all) a past-prime mouthy loser like Campbell would have a prayer against Pacquiao??? Seriously now???? I'm in shock. Even for you, I'm in shock.

:yikes

 

I hadn't read this post when I made my last one. I have nothing else to say. I'm done.

 

ezzard charles, archie moore, joe louis but no marciano? yet there is room for freddie steele, gene tunney and micheal spinks?

 

I disagree. Every round of this figh was competative. Jones got the better of him most of the time and won rightfully and clearly, no doubt but it was no domination. :bart

Well, we have to disagree then. Of course Hopkins had already good technique but he wasn't as refined as he would be later on. And I hink he would come up with a better gameplan nowadays. With all the expericence he would see much more possibilities to work with than he did then. No doubt.

What made Jones great in the firstt place was his freahish raw talent, athleticism and speed. Everything there back then. What made Hopkins great was his craftyness, experience and ability to read and negate his opponents strength. This was not there when he fought Jones.
Jones and Hopkins are two sides of a medal. Jones had the talent to be on the top from the start, Hopkins was a fighter who developed over the course of a career, who was only great due to him developing and gathering experience.

Right. Both had the right base but Jones didn't need much to the base to be a great while Hopkins needed to add very very much.
You actually prove my point. Jones was a fighter who was able to compete with the best early due what makes him great - athleticism, speed - while Hopkins is able to compete at a higher age due to what made him great - experience, craftyness.
And yeah this is comparable.

Well, I disagree. Of course it's not the same. It's a mirror image. In 1993 Jones had what made him an atg, Hopkins didn't. In 2010 Hopkins has what made him an atg, Jones doesn't. Same but different. I agree however hat both where nearer to their primes in the first figh than in their second.

 

Bill Butcher ,sorry that i'm 80 years old...That won't happen again,I promise...Ok? Your logic is so darn flawed ,I don't know where to start...Sorry also I saw Ray Robinson in his prime four times,and he cwas easily the best fighter I saw ringside...Sorry about that too...To say that YOU have never seen films of Harry Greb cannot qualify him as the greatest P4P fighter.Even though his record against the greatest array of Hall of Famers,most of whom weighed 15 to 30 pounds more than the 160 pound Greb,does'nt meet your high standards defies the great boxing experts,who saw Greb,and later Robinson,in their great primes...Evidently you know SOMETHING, that the top writers missed? One final point...I ,have never seen Abraham Lincoln on film or in person ,but I can deduce from his great works,the man's greatness...Thus so with the Pittsburgh Windmill...B.B.

 

well said sir:thumbsup

 

We have our disagreements there but it's all good Pop.

Pac's body of work is a little stronger, but Roy was quite a bit more dominant imo. That's what separates them for me. For Pac to push ahead of him, he'll have to really distinguish himself from Jones in a resume sense, and so he must nab a big scalp like Floyd Mayweather, who is probably the one fighter that I do rate at the moment, despite me having my reservations about him too.

There's not many fighters in the current era I'm not scathing about Pop. Very, very average on the whole I feel.

 

The ****-farting around Greb does on film is utterly meaningless in my eyes. Any reasonable observer could see that he's mucking about, allowing himself to get outboxed by an ancient Philly Jack. Means about as much as the footage of Jack Dempsey getting outboxed by a pot-bellied Jack McAuliffe and then rubbing his belly for good luck ala Buddha.