Why aren't Henry Armstrong or Ezzard Charles the GOAT?

Every list I've ever seen on Classic has Greb, Langford or Robinson as the most popular choice for #1 with Armstrong and Charles usually rounding out the top #5, but why?

For those who have Greb, Langford or Robinson above Armstrong and Charles, what do you think prevents the latter two from having the GOAT credentials of the former 3?

For those that have Ezzard Charles or Henry Armstrong as the GOAT, why do you think they're more deserving of the more popular choices?

For those that don't have ANY, and have a different #1 entirely, why is that your choice?

 

I have Harry Greb as the GOAT, while Armstrong and Charles constantly flip between my #4 and #5.

Greb's numbers read like science fiction, especially when you realise the men he had to beat to pile up those numbers. If we wanna talk pure quality, he has wins over Gene Tunney, Mickey Walker, Tommy Gibbons, Mike Gibbons, Jack Dillon, and Tommy Loughran.

If you look at @McGrain's top 100 P4P list, those are 6 guys in the top 100. Only Charles equals him in that stat from that same list, with Moore, Louis, Marshall, Bivins, Burley and Yarosz. Imo you could very well make an argument for guys like Maxie Rosenbloom, Billy Miske and guys like that to belong in P4P top 100, who also lost to Greb, whereas with Charles it's kinda set that it's those 6. Who's the next best guy, someone like Joey Maxim and Anton Christoforidis ? Greb has like half a dozen other guys on his ledger that were on that level or greater.

Now purely stat wise, I'll just copy and paste stats I've dropped here before:

Greb's wins over top 10 rated fighters: Tommy Gibbons x2, Gene Tunney x1, Kid Norfolk x1, Maxie Rosenbloom x1, Mickey Walker x1, Johnny Wilson x3, Jeff Smith x6, Tommy Loughran x4, Charley Weinert x1, Art Weigand x1, Allentown Joe Gans x1, Ted Moore x2, Tony Marullo x2, Martin Burke x1, Mike McTigue x2, Jimmy Slattery x1, Quintin Rojas x1, Jack Renault x2, Tiger Flowers x1, Jimmy Delaney x3, Roland Todd x1, Frank Moody x1.

That's a total of 39 wins over top 10 ring rated fighters. Keep in mind ring rankings became a thing in 1924, whereas Greb's career spanned from 1913-1926. This is but a fraction of the world rated guys Greb beat, as a lot of the others didn't manage to stay ranked all the way till 24'. HoFers like Dillon, Houck, Levinsky and Miske are missing, as are champions like Chip, McCoy and Moha. If you treat them as ranked fighters and consider how many times Greb beat each one, then Greb's win total is at a minimum of 63 vs top 10 opposition. If you account for less storied but still very proven contenders (more on them later), it might actually be in the triple digits.

Greb's wins over Hall of Famers: Battling Levinsky x6, Jack Dillon x2, Mike Gibbons x1, Tommy Gibbons x2, Tommy Loughran x4, Kid Norfolk x1, Jeff Smith x6, Maxie, Rosenbloom x1, Mickey Walker x1, Leo Houck x3, Jimmy Slattery x1, Gene Tunney x1, Billy Miske x2, Tiger Flowers x1. That's 32 wins over Hall of Famers. Nuff said.

Greb's wins over champions: Al McCoy x2, George Chip x2, Bob Moha x6, Johnny Wilson x3, Gene Tunney x1, Mike Gibbons x1, Mickey Walker x1, Maxie Rosenbloom x1, Mike McTigue x2, Tiger Flowers x1, Jack Dillon x2, Battling Levinsky x6, Tommy Loughran x4, Jimmy Slattery x1, Kid Norfolk x1 (coloured champion). That's 34 wins over champions. 10 more than Floyd's total of 24 wins vs champions, in an era with ******* divisions and 4 belts.

So yeah, his numbers are insane. And Greb still has wins over other notable fighters. Bill Brennan at one point was one of the leading Heavyweight contenders and even faced Dempsey twice, Greb beat him 4 times. Soldier Bartfield was one of the best Welterweights of his era and even managed to get a few wins over guys like Britton and Lewis, as well as one over Greb himself. Greb beat him 3 times. Bryan Downey split a 4 fight series with Britton at an even 2-2, beat Lewis, beat several marquee Lightweights and Welterweights of the era like Mitchell, Duffy, Griffith and Bartfield, and even beat the Middleweight HoFer Mike O'Dowd, who's the only HoFer Greb never managed to beat. Greb thrashed Downey. And there are just several guys like that in Greb's resume if you look for them. Young Ahearn, Augie Ratner, Jack Blackburn, Chuck Wiggins etc.

Plus I made this thread the other day https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/harry-greb-vs-men-with-outstanding-records.749127/

It points to yet another layer of Greb's greatness. That of how clean the records of some of the men he beat were. In an era where you won 2/4th of your fights, lost 1/4th and drew 1/4th, those guys were like main characters of their own story with how dominant, ahead of the field, and relatively unblemished they were. And Greb just beat them anyway.

And you know. He went 45-0 in 1919. He went 24-1 in 1920. Then 18-0-3 in 1921. Then 12-0 in 1922. Like, Jesus. The more you look into Greb, the madder he gets.

Charles and Armstrong are both stupid great. But Greb just boggles the mind.

 

Armstrong is constantly ranked #2, perhaps because he lost to Robinson?

I have no problem with Charles as GOAT.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-incredible-resume-of-ezzard-charles.723378/

 

Have zero problem with Charles as the GOAT. But my opinion doesn’t really matter. Perfect boxer in every respect.

 

Exactly the kind of response I was looking for. Thank you kindly

 

Just depends on criteria.

I rate Archie Moore as the greatest. And that's just because I include criteria that often isn't counted like his ability to develop a unique style, longevity and being able to adapt himself as his youth left him, holding onto knockout ability when most older fighters lose that, having success as an old fighter while moving up in weight, and his success as a trainer among other things.

Then of course I don't hold his losses to Charles against him as strongly as some others do.

All that said, the names mentioned already all have their cases for being the best. There are also some others that I've heard good arguments for like Benny Leonard, Bob Fitzsimmons, and Joe Gans.

As well as some modern greats, if you can forgive them for the inability to do what old timers could due to the changing business model of boxing.

Btw, I think Teddy Atlas has Homicide Hank as the #1.

 

I have Charles #2.. Greb, Charles, SRR, Armstrong, Langford, Pep, Fitz , Walker , Duran, B Leonard.. Or Gans.. this article is a great breakdown of why Greb should be above Charles:

https://thegruelingtruth.com/boxing/ezzard-charles-harry-greb-light-heavyweight-perspective/

 

Hi Buddy.
The loss to Robinson was after Armstrong's prime, he had a long and hard career by then, if fact Ray didn't really want the fight, as he and Henry were buddies, historys has it that the Robinson held back during the fight, and eased up over the last stretch.
stay safe catchwboxing, chat soon.
Mike.

 

I think anyone of the fellas mentioned has a legit case as #1.. my main criteria is resume, but to each their own they're all exceptional.

 

Archie Moore.. again, a remarkable career. I don't think anyone will begrudge you. Even in his 40s he beat Maxim, Johnson, Valdez, Olson, King, Durell, Rademacher.. just that alone is probably HOF worthy.

 

Why d'you think Charles' case is less clear cut? D'you think his peak performance isn't on par with Armstrongs?

 

Armstrong's title reigns and defenses leave a lot to be desired. Upon closer scrutiny his claim to fame holding titles in three weight classes simultaneously is a bit overrated.

An argument can certainly be made for Charles though. In a H2H fight I'd pick Charles over Greb all day long. Langford I'm not so sure about, but I'd say he's up there in the rarified air as well. Pep and Robinson are always in the conversation as far as I'm concerned.

 

SRR, Greb, Langford and Armstrong have always been my top 4, in one order or another. I've had each as the GOAT at different points in time. These 4 have the most gobsmacking, incredible, "wow", demonstrations of p4p brilliance in boxing history.

SRR went 129-1-2 whilst winning the world title at WW and MW, amassing incredible resumes in both divisions, part of the latter whilst practically only being a WW himself, going 5-1 vs the only guy to beat him during this period, who was an ATG in the division above Ray when their series started.

Greb has the deepest resume in boxing history. I don't need to add anything to Ioakeim's post earlier in this thread.

At different points, Langford was likely the best LW, WW, MW, LHW and HW in the world. The one and only fighter in all of boxing history who can, or ever will, credibly make that claim.

Armstrong is the only fighter in history to simultaneously be lineal champion in 3 weight divisions. 3 weight divisions spread over 5 by modern standards. He won his WW title off a p4p ATG, whilst weighing under the LW limit and the racked up 20 defences, the first few of which he was also under the LW limit.

Armstrong is currently #4 on my list, because whilst his peak run was as brilliant as anyone's, it didn't last as long as my top 3. That said, he's a credible candidate for GOAT.

Charles is my #5 and has an absurdly good resume. He doesn't quite match the feats of the above 4, imo, though.