The Top 100 Pound for Pound All-Time Greats

I really don't see how Harry Greb couldn't be rated as one of the best - ability wise - of all time.

I understand that it would be silly to offer any kind of technical analysis other than a rough 'Greb would swarm him', but really, his record tells a story.

The story being that in his prime, Greb was, in his own time, pretty much unbeatable from middleweight to light heavyweight.

Then it's up to you to decide whether his era was **** or not. My belief is that boxing, rule sets accounted for, was at its best between about 1920 and 1980. The 1910s were a bit less developed, but also very different (conversely, I think that although boxing-specific training and nutritional science is marginally more effective today, fighters have less to fight for, are more protected and lack the vast experience that was customary in a rougher age). And any less communication, globalisation, nutrition, training or talent pool is almost (almost) made up for by harsh conditions such as a more bloodthirsty set of parameters and much less sympathy towards boxers. Therefore, the difference in 'ability' is slight or negligible for me. I mean, Floyd Mayweather may **** up Packey McFarland, I don't know, but put Mayweather in that era and (apart from the fact he's black) he might not survive.

Greb was fighting month in, month out, at a stupid pace, with small gloves, often against bigger men. I think it's obvious he was a physical marvel who would excel in any era.

 

For the simple fact we have never seen him fight and it's therefore difficult to judge how his style would match up against Taylor (for example)

 

Okay then.

 

I haven't got a problem with what anybody chooses to listen too . Or voice in opinions as long as its voiced in a civil manner and not in a nasty hostile manner that is just childish , I personally love Dempsey but then he was the first old time boxer I read about and got excited about as a child.



By the way I am expecting the DVD I pm'd you about in the next ten days

 

:good
And you´ll enjoy the DVD, Mr. Butt. It´s pretty good.

 

I still think the fab 4 belong no more than a tier apart.

 

I think I would put Hopkins on the Tier VII and exclude Zarate......

 

I'd have all 4 in the 11-25 range. Maybe with Duran/Leonard 11-15 and Hagler/Hearns 20-25

 

I disagree with your comments regarding the triangle theory.

In fact, i think the triangle theory (if that is the best word) is the best we have available to predict results.

WE all know the exceptions and no one has any real statistics. But, if Three fighters of roughly equal (or so it is thought) fight, and Fighter A beats fighter B and fighter B beats fighter C, then more often than not Fighter A will beat fighter c. Eg Wlad beats Wach. Wach beats Tye Fields. It is a fair bet that Wlad beats Tye Fields (though not a cerainty). It is only rare occassions that the famouse Foreman, Frazier, Ali triangle pops up. When you add an extra fighter into the triangle (probably making more of a pyramid) it would seem to lessen the number of upsets.

In fact, this is probably (i dare say) more reliable of an indicator than actually a proven fight between the two. Or at least it can be. For example, Brewster beat Wlad. Do we expect a repeat of the performance in the rematch? Most trilogies or at least half of them seem to have a fighter dropping at least one return match. I dare say the triangle theory is a far better indicator as a results indicator. Particularly when their are two or three common results to compare.

Of course, the worst indicator by far is the commonly held video footage theory. You simply cannot look at a fighter (without knowing their records) and judge how they will perform or what class of fighter they are with any certainty. In fact i challenge anyone to predict the results of any 10 unknown professional fighters by watching clips of fights against other unknown professionals and come up with much better than a 50-50 result (in fact you wont go much better than someone who just looks at the fighters and takes a guess based on size and fitness). Certainly you wont get anywhere near somebody who is allowed to look at their boxrec record and use their common opponents as a guide.

People dont like to hear it, but the triangle theory as you call it is easily the most reliable out their in my opinion. Of course, nothing is infallible, but it is pretty good.

 

This really isn't too far from my top 50-60 anyway, I just have a few fighters in drastically different tiers but MOST are exactly the same brackets. Nice.

I don't have McAuliffe. Put Dick 'I Won the Title at Middle and Light Heavy and probably beat Benvenuti When I Had Cancer' Tiger in his place. ;-)

 

Me

Duran-6-10
Leonard 15-21
Hagler 35-40
Hearns 41-45

On most days.