Shall We Try And Actually Sort Some Top P4P Fighters?

I thought that we were focusing on people who would be unanimously agreed upon as top 10. Because there is apparently no footage of Greb fighting, and because the training film I found on-line doesn't flatter Greb, I suspect that many people will tell you that they cannot say for sure whether he is that great. I offered him as a contender because I think he's that great but I know others don't because they can't tell. I admire their cautious approach. I know a lot about Greb, jyuza, which is why I said he was a contender. I am going to imagine that because you have Tunney as your avatar that you are a committed Greb fan. That's cool.

I think Chavez is a more likely contender because people have seen video of him fight. A man who goes undefeated in something like 90 fights against the competition Chavez faced and looks as dominant as he does is a remarkable feat. He held titles in three weight divisions, drew in a shot at a fourth, and fought in more championship fights than just about any other fighter. He broke down great fighters like Rosario, Camacho, and Taylor. His record is full of names of outstanding boxers. Both would be in my top ten list but honestly I would rank Chavez higher.

 

Can people enlighten me about Sam Langford? Why is he appearing in so many of your lists? I have a working knowledge of him, but I would like to hear the arguments in his favor. Thanx!

 

"I'll tell you something about trainers. I mean... and that includes me. You're only as good as the fighter you work with. I don't care how much you know, if your fighter can't fight, you're another bum in the park."

"In some instances, I was responsible for their success. In many instances, I shared the glory with them. You didn't have to be a great trainer to work with a Barney Ross or a Benny Leonard. I mean, these guys were natural. So if you're able to develop that, you're all right. Sometimes you can. Sometimes a guy stops dead at a certain period. So you're only as good as the guy you work with."

--Ray Arcel in interview to Ronald K. Fried.

 

Seriously, what does it matter that we don't have Greb on film when he have many of the greats that he beat on film? That he beat them, I'll take it for granted that he was pretty darn special. It's not even an inference, its deductive.

And if you're going to talk competition, Greb puts Chavez to shame. Complete and utter shame.

 

If being a good trainer is irrelevant, then why were you the first to bring it to the table by mentioning Griffin working with his father? That was the only reason I brought it up, or have you forgotten already?

 

Sam Langford
Harry Greb
Sugar Ray Robinson
Benny Leonard
Henry Armstrong

 

Here is a nice top 10 list (bearing in mind Ive only selected boxers Ive actually seen enough footage of.)

In no order....

Ali
Robinson
Duran
Chavez
Louis
Pep
Leonard (Ray, of course)
Whitaker
Hagler
Arguello

:good

 

George " scrap Iron" Johnson
Steve Zouski
Memphis Al Jones
Jack Roper
Joe Grim
Everett " Big foot" Martin
Bob Stallings
Rick Keller
John " Big Red" Morton

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I don't know how many more times I will be misunderstood, but I do know how many times I will clarify my comment: just one more time. I said that many argue that they can't judge Greb because they haven't seen him on film. I don't argue this. I said that for me he is on my top 10 list. I listed the four fighters I thought would receive unanimous agreement: Robinson, Pep, Duran, and Armstrong. I haven't made a top 10 list. Do you understand me now?

I have seen film of Greb's opponents and they aren't as impressive as Chavez's opponents. I see nobody on Greb's record who was as good as Camacho, Taylor, or Whitaker. Tunney was Greb's best opponent and I honestly don't believe he was as good as these four (although he is a great fighter). I guess we will have to disagree on this point.

 

Thanx! I will check it out.

 

That was a good article. Well written and researched. Does anybody know where I can see film of Stanley Ketchel besides his fight with Johnson? Ketchel doesn't look very good in that fight I have to say. How much film is there of Joe Gans and Joe Walcott? I have seen a couple of clips of Gans and I am not that impressed. I have never seen a film of Walcott. I am skeptical of a lot of the boxers from yesteryear because their records don't match how the look on film when I finally see it. That's why I am asking. This is the one thing that keeps me from blowing more sugar up Greb's ass.

 

That's not quite what he said.

I brought it up as a joke, a play of words, to rip a part of statement and give it another meaning, that's still relevant to the subject being discussed. Montell Griffin was one of the exceptions to the rule of guys with natural abilities who didn't care to learn much from the book. He was taught all the basics and the complex things, first by his father, then by Eddie Futch, but he didn't use them all the time, same as RJJ, and that's one of the reasons he gave Roy most troubles. They were very alike in this sense, they neutralized each other's advantages they had against classic boxers. Although, Ray Arcel would disagree with that again...
"No two men are alike. Everybody has their own style. Never change a style. Improve it, but never change a style."
If somebody tried to change RJJ to a more classic boxer, they'd most probably ruin him or at least make him a lot less successful in the ring. "The trainer must not impose a style upon his fighter but must enable the fighters' natural skills and inclinations to emerge."
Although, this should have gone to another thread, not here, but while we were at it, why not here.

 

Yes I understand. You don't penalise Greb for lack of footage even though you "admire" the cautious approach of those who do penalise him in that respect. You also said Chavez was the more likely contender before. Were you speaking on behalf of yourself in thinking that (as I assumed) or just as a matter of general thinking? Given what you say below, I guess it's what you think personally.

We most certainly will. To my mind the only person who is on Tunney's (or even Walker's or Loughran's or Gibbons') level of the fighters you mentioned is Whitaker, and he slapped Chavez around.

 

I disagree with you guys about Tunney. Sorry. I think he is a great light heavyweight and a fine heavyweight boxer, but he is not as good as some of Chavez's opponents.

I would put both Chavez and Greb in my top 10 list, with Chavez ranked higher.

Greb and Benny Leonard are the only fighters from yesteryear that I would put in the top 10. I have seen film of Leonard and he looks fantastic. Based on what I have seen of Greb's opponents and the way his fight record reads, I have to include him without seeing him.

I just watched several clips of Langford on Youtube. It was interesting, but not compelling enough for me to put him in the top 10. I realize that he was fighting men who were bigger than him, but a lot of these men weren't very good boxers.

I am wondering whether when you think about the top 10 you are going by the way the boxers fought or by what they accomplished? I think that some of the yesteryear fighters have impressive looking records but when you see them on film they don't look so great. How much do you allow for the evolution of boxing over time? Are you judging fighters by the standards of their own time or by the standards of the sport as it has progessed?

Again, thanks for such an interesting discussion! I am learning a lot of stuff.