Charley Rose and Nat Fliesieisiiecher both ranked Ketchel above Greb at MW

I've seen his ratings, and I'm quite sure people here (not me) would call them crazy.

I think Ketchel above Greb was possibly the consensus though - or most likely they became interchangeable on the consensus, and both top 5. I'm not sure if that's even changed up to now (outside of this forum, where Greb grabs a lot more attention than Ketchel).

 

Yes, I think his lists are fine. Probably some "generational bias" and some favouritism, but that cannot be held too much against him - it effects most lists to some extent.
I don't those lists would go down well with those who hate Fleischer's lists though.

 

Hey, you even already did a thread on Rose's lists :

[url]http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=200910[/url]

 

Oh **** me.

Here go the Greb-nuthugging again.


Commentators of the time described greb's style as "amateurish".

That doesn't mean it wasn't effective, but it means he basically looked stupid. Swinging wildly and blindly like a ******ed, headless chicken.

Nat knows more about boxing than any ***** on this site and what he says has more validity than ay Greb-nuthugger on this forum. Much like Bert Sugar.


But, as you probably have figured out, I'm not the biggest fan of Greb.

Greb is great; top 5 of all time. BUT, certainly not #1 or 2 or 3 or even 4.

 

Nat also rated Jefries at 2, Fitz at 3 and Corbett at 5 at all time heavyweight ... how many of these guys did he see fight ? This was his list at the time of his deathh in 72 ...

 

I have a feeling he was Langford's manager for a while.

 

I agree with D.T and I said earlier in this thread - when you've seen so many GREAT and Great fighters and been involved with thousands of them over lifetimes, then of course you will make contadictions, get times and dates, locations and even fighters wrong...

this IS NOT a blight on their credibilty or expert opinion, these men have forgotten more about boxinhg than we will ever know!

I don't question the great writers, scribes and commentators, as thou they have committed a crime, don't be so anal and literate... these guys know, end of.

on these boxing forums (some less credible than others), there are countless younger fans and people that just can't get over "living colour" that they just will not except the greats of yesteryear because the film footage is primative and **** quality... but completely ignore 20 -25 year careers, hundreds of fights, stronger periods and giving weight, fighting ever 3 - 5 weeks, longevity at the top and on and on...

But this matters not to living colour, advances in nutrition and fitness, and multiple paper titles where you can't even see champions fight each other, little own great contenders meeting each other.

I'll take the word of the Fleischers, Roses and their contemporaries ALL the time, thank you.

 

T,your last sentence,summed it all up nicely.Today for example we hold Manny Pac,ever so highly, for a good reason. We see him in the flesh. What happens in 100 years from now {if the human race survives],year after year
will certainly dilute the true fighting abilities of Pac,to the boxing fans of
2111...It happens on this forum for sure....

 

guys like Greb, Sam Langford, showed a lot of there talent north of 160, while fighter like Monzon,Hagler and Ketchel for the most part had there victory's at 160lbs. Ketchel fought Johnson and that was quite an endeavor but for the most part was a 160lber and while Greb was one of the great middleweights I can understand him being a greater fighter in the in-between of 160 and 175 ...I happen to rate Greb higher at 160 than Ketchel but Stanley was a great one and I can understand Fleischer point as well

 

No Mc, just realistic ...

 

Greb was not the greatest AOT