Consensus pound-for-pound greatest

Why does Greb's record face uncertainty issues and why is it difficult to dissect?

 

I generally consider Armstrong to be the GOAT. Jumping up the equivalent of four modern weight classes and completely dominating a long-reigning HOF champion has to be one of the absolute greatest feats in boxing history. Plus, going up the equivalent of two more weight classes after that and outfighting the top rated fighter in that division is also among the greatest (and most underrated) feats as well.

 

I dont think there is a consensus...as like My2Sense I had Armstrong no1 for a very long time..then I changed it to Robinson...now Im reconsidering that.

I think the consensus seems to be is that any one of these fighters has a decent argument depending on how you feel.

Henry Armstrong
Sam Langford
Harry Greb
Ray Robinson
Ezzard Charles?

 

That, for me, about sums it up. Those 5 are extremely difficult to top and would constitute my all-time top 5 with each man having a valid claim for the top spot. Ability-wise, Duran and Pep are on the same level - if not higher - but don't quite have the depth of record to match.

Childish though it may sound, I'm always somewhat tempted to not give Robinson the top slot based on the fact that I've had enough of hearing how good he was from every Tom, Dick and Harry who are otherwise dense enough to believe that sugar diabetes was a Welsh flyweight.

 

I consider Sam Langford the GOAT. He jumped from 140 to HW and fought the best fighters the sport had to offer back in that day. He fought everyone from Joe Gans to Jack Johnson.

 

Jimmy Wilde is almost certainly underrated when the greatest pound-for-pound fighters are under the microscope.

Consider that he was not strictly a flyweight in the first place and yet he was well acquainted with smashing Bantamweights. At that end of the weight spectrum it is extremely rare to do such a thing.

Armstrong was a rare dynamo - only probably Frazier fought somewhat like him; naturally without the same pace and assortment of movements. He may have lost a decision to Ambers, but he did not lose any 'fight'. There are very few great featherweights, lightweights and welterweights.

 

I think Bob Fitzsimmons should be in there is you consider this a judgement of the best fighters in their own time and place.

 

Robinson still holds the title. He's the best overall fighter of the bunch, which is what swings it his way, IMO. He's also the only one who's been able to conclusively prove himself a top 5 fighter (both head to head and on the basis of accomplishments) of all time in two original weight classes.

 

Much speculation. The idea of Robinson being #1 regardless is not only unfair, but somewhat unjust.

The day somebody can objectively prove that he is above men like Langford and Greb deserves Greb vs. Walker in colour.

 

Again though, Langford was fighting the same fighters over and over. He didn't really have a deep resume in terms of names, just in the quantity of fights he had with generally the same opponents.

 

While that view could be conceded (to an extent) Langford's range of fighting went from lightweight to heavyweight; or super-heavyweight if you like.

Is not the true meaning of pound-for-pound to pit yourself against naturally heavier men? Langford was around the same poundage of Robinson for a fair few years yet he was pummelling heavyweights.