Obviously we don't have any footage of Greb, but if I am reading him correctly, this woudl not be a good call. He seems to have been a fighter who had three different styles, and could effortlessly switch between them.
Can we have a clear definition of skill first? Pending that, Battling Nelson springs to mind. He basically made a career out of beating more capable men, by getting his brain bounced around his skull for forty rounds.
I think you’d be better off defining ATG! BN doesn’t have a sniff for me. Have a think about top fifteen types for your weight classes. Who would you name least skilled, however you define skilled personally.
Seriously? I hope you have a low opinion of he men that he beat, and went life and death with then. That was basically the pinnacle of gloved boxing, in terms of what two human beings could sustain in the ring, and for how long. Perhaps more brutal from anything in the bareknuckle era, and involving some of the cleverest Queensbury fighters.
That is a very difficult question. A smart and intuitive swarmer, has a higher Ring IQ than a classic boxer who has every trick in the book, but is waiting for their opponent to hand them an opening.
Yeah, seriously. I think that Arturo Gatti would also have had a great chance against the Joe Gans that was "exhausted" at the end of the eight round and two years from death. This was enough to get him into my top fifty, but not my top forty. If I did think BN was great though - and there is little evidence of him belonging within spitting distance of the likes of Tony Canzoneri and Freddie Welsh - I would certainly concede that he had less skill than Jim Jeffries. Who else would you name? Let's start with middleweights. Who out of these do you think might qualify: Holman Williams Tommy Ryan Mike Gibbons Bernard Hopkins Sugar Ray Robinson Charley Burley Stanley Ketchel Marvin Hagler Harry Greb Carlos Monzon Jack Dillon Mickey Walker Teddy Yarosz Jack Dempsey Fred Apostolini Bob Fitzsimmons Jake LaMotta Freddie Steele I think maybe HW has the longest list of ATG claimants of any of the weight divisions.
That’s the way it works with the Old Timers category and the passage of time. Firpo is in there for instance.
Like you I think that being a great heavyweight champion, is a bit like being a better than average middleweight champion. If we are working with middleweights, then we could definitely throw Ketchell into the argument, but we might well be proven wrong if we say him from ringside. My point is, that you can essentially make Jeffries into whatever you want him to be, buy hand picking the right ringside reports. You can make him into a prehistoric George Chuvalo, or a phenomenon who had everything on paper. I find the argument for the defense more convincing on balance. I think that if we could see a prime Jeffries from ringside, then we woudl probably be shocked by how good he looked.
The problem I have here is that Ketchel was named a "master boxer" in his own time, and his shifting attack was regarded as being superior to that of Bob Fitzsimmons, at least by some. On film, I think Ketchel doesn't look great, though this was not viewed as one of his great performances at that time, either - but I don't think he looks worse than Jeffries, either. Meanwhile, local reading makes it clear that Ketchel was regarded as the more skilled of the two (though Jeffries perhaps the better). That's not really that relevant here though, I don't think. The question is: who is the least skilled fighter who is an all-time great fighter. If picking Jeffries is wrong, it should be easy to nominate fighters who are better picks. I would not be shocked; I rate him very highly.