Harry Greb has a better Heavyweight resume than Wilder (Not H2H)

What would the motive be?

 

*Chef's Kiss*

 

Are they just banning ANYBODY now? The hell's going on?

 

Depends if you count feats over guys who fought at HW or fights at HW.

If its the former then sure if its the latter Greb at HW never fought for a belt and had a padded win streak with a much lower SOS than the rest of his resume. Grebs best win specifically at HW is Bill Brennan who was sort of the Derek Chisora of the period. Weinart might have been at HW. Were these other fights there?

Also Grebs KO rate at HW specifically might have been single digits the exact opposite of Wilder.

 

Without re-reading my thread i'm pretty sure Wilder beat about as many top 10 heavyweights as Cleveland Williams did.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...wilder-ring-rated-contenders-defeated.706915/

 

Sounds bang on to me mate. So he's got three.

 

Fair call, resume wise.

 

I just responded to a man with a similar claim ... You do not get to place men in division based on your thoughts. That is revisionism. If you guys want to revise history, cool, I am down to do that too, but if you're talking to me about who is what, dude they had a career. They sold fights. This isn't hard.

Secondly, stating Miske is about as much a HW as Norfolk is not focusing on Miske vs Greb, it's focusing on Miske's career in relation to Norfolk's career. The weights when fighting Greb are anecdotal at best but don't detract or add to my point.





I know youse lot are using boxrec because you report their mistakes at me. If you want real weights check sources. Boxrec will give you a source for 170 then you read the source to find the actual report says between 150-165. Just did that with fitzs like a week ago. Boxrec is ****.

You're adding to Boxrec's shitty weight keeping this idea you get to place men in divisions based on reports of their actual weight like as if their billing didn't happen.


Daniel Mendoza was 150, and HW champion. He's a HW because he fought as a HW. His actual weight does not matter. Get me? Billy Miske being a ****ing LHW is not meant to be the point of contention. It's meant to be matter of fact. You guys took that as the insult when I was clearly saying Norfolk is a better win than Miske ever was. At HW included. If we are using men who did not exclusively fight at HW and are backing that with but they did well against HWs then Norfolk is above Miske and also why TF ain't Tunney here?

 

That's for youse to tell me I guess. If I even have a guess all that happens is I get reported and a bunch of people crying at me.


Why does this forum pick out random mid-tier HWs to pretend like they did much more than they actually accomplished? I have no idea. None at all and any allusion that I might have some idea is surely an accident. Likewise, I have no idea how a man gets a title fight after losing to another man who is never given the same opportunity to move forward in their career.

 

That's called ducking bro. You know what I said to you. You avoided addressing it at all and just restated your fallacy. Revisionism at your convivence ... cool, I'ma call this a spanking.


Yo, Boriken still love you homie, but you wrong and you damn well know it. Git yer ass of Boxrec, stop circlejerking writers who convince you of ideals that fly against the history logged, learn something. All the sources you ever needed are online and if you're unwilling to read newspaper from the turn of the century then stfu and let those who will speak to the subject.

 

Relative to the eras in which they competed, which is the basis for my rankings, Greb by a good distance.