Harry Greb #33 heavyweight of all time?

The **** did I just look at?

Why was Walcott rated so low? Because he was so old when he became champ his "peak" years counted for ****? Weeeeird system.

 

That's the worst list I have ever seen. Archie Moore 9 places in front of Joe Frazier? Jack Johnson at 28!!!!? Jack Dempsey at 50?????

It's a joke, right?

 

It is rationalized though, the rating is based on how many ranked contenders he beat, where they were ranked and how long he managed to stay unbeaten.
But the system is ****.

It's "good" if you just want to see how fighter a did in his era relatively to fighter b in his era based on a shitty system

But for everything different it's pure ****.

 

DON'T BE REDICULOUS!!!

this is WHY I argue that lists are IMPOSSIBLE in the first place,

plus fighters should ONLY be ranked at their longest competitive weight, anything Above only adds to their excellence at their overall ranking in their best real weight!

 

Frazier 16...jesus.

 

Ahhhh ok. **** sake what a trip....starting to feel a top 100 HW list McG?:yep

 

I guess Greb would not be #33, if he was only ducked by a guy who was #49!

 

:deal

 

Right on both counts!