Who Ranks Greb As The Greatest?

It obviously holds water, the only reasoning behind it seeming unconventional would be because of the earlier, lesser known eras in which fighters like Greb and Langford fought and the lack of footage in comparison. You could conceivably argue Robinson as low as #4, depending on how you think he and Armstrong stack up (or how you view the aforementioned in comparison to these two). I personally always rank him between #1 and #3, however.

 

I'm not holding my hand up... but I wouldn't even think of shitting on anyone who did.

Put it this way, if anybody has a strong, legit argument for being above SRR, it's Greb.

 

Personally I think you could switch Greb, Langford, Robinson and Armsrong around like you want. It's always right and wrong at the same time.

 

1, Duran
2. Greb
3. Langford
4. Dempsey
5. Fitz
6. Hopkins
7. Robinson

 

Bringing up Duran again I see.......it's you that always mentions him not anyone else.

Back to topic, I think Greb might have the strongest case out of anyone to take Robinsons number 1 spot, I've seen a good few discussions on here that have certainly made me re-think my order.

 

same here to be honest he's the only one who can make the argument above robinson. well maybe armstrong but i just can't bring myself to rank langford at the top. top 5 sure but not number 1

and i love the living **** out of duran and have ranked him as high as 3 but there is simply no argument for any higher

 

Yeah Pachilles is making a point about Duran being mentioned all the time and being so over rated on here so he thinks it's appropriate to bring him up in a discussion about Harry Greb.

Armstrong has another strong case yeah, I wouldn't argue with anyone having either Greb, Armstrong or Robinson at the top.

 

You're entitled to your opinion, I certainly have some questionable ones but...Hopkins at number 6 all time ahead of Robinson?

 

There's some good points in this thread:

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=203225

 

to be honest i'm inclined to have ali in the discussion for number 1 as much as any of them. i'll get nailed for sure but in his true prime, he was invincible and one of if not the greatest fighting machines ever. in his post prime, he found a way to dominate the single greatest era of heavyweights without his own speed and with minimal power. his resume stands as possibly the best ever at heavyweight, his skills virtually unparalled but his intangibles are what bring him up for me.

robinson-ali-greb-armstrong all have a case for number one. throwing duran, pep, charles and burley into the top 10 mix makes it incredibly difficult to land on a clear list.

 

It sounds to me like all of your questions could be answered with a tiny bit of research. I'll keep it short at the moment:

1) The case for Greb is based on his resume, which is pretty clearly the best of all time the way myself and most others see it. Listing out all of his wins would do no good because as you've said yourself, you aren't fully aware of the qualifications of the men that fought in his era. Beating 17 world champions while being consistently ranked among the best MW's, LHW's, and even HW's for multi-year periods while never weighing outside of the SMW limit should give you some insight, however.

2) I don't think consistency is anything you can point out as a negative on Greb, he was one of the most consistent fighters of all time, and against some of the very highest levels of opposition of all time. I don't see where you're coming from there.

3) If you've never seen an historian place him among the very best, it would appear you're simply not looking hard enough.

Here's a fine article on Greb, perhaps the best on the web (that is of course, until Stonehands finishes his own piece on him):

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/greb.html

 

good fine:goodi'll take a look