What is your p4p top 20 ever in order, take time

[Paci]

Anybody see a video of Harry Greb sparring?

His resume superficially seems impressive, but there’s no video footage of him competing in real bouts.

And his pugilistic fighting style, as per the limited sparring footage that is available, absolutely stinks! He definitely fails the eyeball test, because he looks deeply unimpressive.

I’m willing to consider Harry Greb as being an all-time-great, based purely on his historical contribution to the sport of boxing, but I find it categorically impossible to compare him to fighters we’re able to apply the proverbial eyeball test.

Greb made his pro debut 107 years ago. Even reputable boxing historians from the last half century have never seen Greb fight, but casual boxing observers passionately believe that Harry beats today’s elite level fighters, which just seems really strange to me!

Boxing has clearly progressed since the 1920’s.

Boxing has changed and going by a silly sparring clip, well there was more slappying around back then from what we see today.

I do agree. Saying Harry Greb would beat guys just going by his record and legend is pretty dumb.

But, he does look ripped in the clip that I looked at if you know what I mean

[oogiebe]

Anybody see a video of Harry Greb sparring?

His resume superficially seems impressive, but there’s no video footage of him competing in real bouts.

And his pugilistic fighting style, as per the limited sparring footage that is available, absolutely stinks! He definitely fails the eyeball test, because he looks deeply unimpressive.

I’m willing to consider Harry Greb as being an all-time-great, based purely on his historical contribution to the sport of boxing, but I find it categorically impossible to compare him to fighters we’re able to apply the proverbial eyeball test.

Greb made his pro debut 107 years ago. Even reputable boxing historians from the last half century have never seen Greb fight, but casual boxing observers passionately believe that Harry beats today’s elite level fighters, which just seems really strange to me!

Boxing has clearly progressed since the 1920’s.

Boxing has changed and going by a silly sparring clip, well there was more slappying around back then from what we see today.

I do agree. Saying Harry Greb would beat guys just going by his record and legend is pretty dumb.

But, he does look ripped in the clip that I looked at if you know what I mean

LOL! Yeah, EO likes that kind of thing.

[Wales]

I’m willing to consider Harry Greb as being an all-time-great, based purely on his historical contribution to the sport of boxing, but I find it categorically impossible to compare him to fighters we’re able to apply the proverbial eyeball test.

Greb made his pro debut 107 years ago. Even reputable boxing historians from the last half century have never seen Greb fight, but casual boxing observers passionately believe that Harry beats today’s elite level fighters, which just seems really strange to me!

Boxing has clearly progressed since the 1920’s.

Agreed.

Humans have improved in every measurable sport. We run faster, throw further, can cover longer distances and cover them quicker than ever before. So why do people question those same improvements don’t apply to boxing. Has the sport of boxing not evolved in 100 years... course it has

The fighter of yesteryear (generally) wouldn’t beat the fighter of today. But, the only way to look at p4p is to judge a fighter on his achievements in his era. Not whether he’d beat the guy from this era.

Look at Jack Johnson - he wouldn’t be in the top 50 HWs if we were to judge him on whether he’d win a fight against others - but his achievements put him right up there .

Of

[Onetimeonly]

Boxers have less competition and apply their craft less now. Does that apply to any of the other sports you're talking about?

Right or wrong, about that, you're absolutely right about rating careers on their own. Whom would win has nothing to do with resume. I still can't understand how training is better now and yet lightweights can't keep a pace that heavyweights did 30 years ago.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Boxers have less competition and apply their craft less now. Does that apply to any of the other sports you're talking about?

Right or wrong, about that, you're absolutely right about rating careers on their own. Whom would win has nothing to do with resume. I still can't understand how training is better now and yet lightweights can't keep a pace that heavyweights did 30 years ago.

Exactly. 15 round fights, and plying their trade multiple times a year... plus the weight classes pretty much even out things except at hw

[Duran1970]

Boxers have less competition and apply their craft less now. Does that apply to any of the other sports you're talking about?

Right or wrong, about that, you're absolutely right about rating careers on their own. Whom would win has nothing to do with resume. I still can't understand how training is better now and yet lightweights can't keep a pace that heavyweights did 30 years ago.

I agree...and one shouldn't compare boxing to other sports..just because Usain Bolt is the fastest human doesn't mean Spence would beat Ray Robinson.

[Counter-puncher]

Boxers have less competition and apply their craft less now. Does that apply to any of the other sports you're talking about?

Exactly. 15 round fights, and plying their trade multiple times a year... plus the weight classes pretty much even out things except at hw

[margaret thatcher]

Depends what time you are talking about. The technique was definitely a lot more primative in the early 1900s for example, but around mid 1900s there isn't a whole lot of difference to today in that respect. Fighters also used to be significantly smaller for their weight division.

On the whole though, boxers used to focus more on skills, boxed more, boxed higher level opponents consistently (top fighters facing each other like 3-4-5-6 times), and of course went more rounds,. That's a level of experience very few are touching anymore. Today these dudes fight way less and they records have a greater proportion of hype showcases vs knockover jobs, and it's a huge deal if even 1 fight with a top rival is made. And when they posting their highlights on social media and stuff, it's all about force and strength and BEAST MODE and weird rope exercises and weights and hitting tires with big hammers.

You see less actual boxing and focus on subtlties of boxing all the time. It's more about taking some peds and doing some exercises to be 'big and strong at the weight'. You can also a more restricted punch repertoire today.

[Counter-puncher]

Depends what time you are talking about. The technique was definitely a lot more primative in the early 1900s for example, but around mid 1900s there isn't a whole lot of difference to today in that respect. Fighters also used to be significantly smaller for their weight division.

On the whole though, boxers used to focus more on skills, boxed more, boxed higher level opponents consistently (top fighters facing each other like 3-4-5-6 times), and of course went more rounds,. That's a level of experience very few are touching anymore. Today these dudes fight way less and they records have a greater proportion of hype showcases vs knockover jobs, and it's a huge deal if even 1 fight with a top rival is made. And when they posting their highlights on social media and stuff, it's all about force and strength and BEAST MODE and weird rope exercises and weights and hitting tires with big hammers.

You see less actual boxing and focus on subtlties of boxing all the time. It's more about taking some peds and doing some exercises to be 'big and strong at the weight'. You can also a more restricted punch repertoire today.

Yeah more restricted punch repertoire and greatly reduced variety of combination punching above the lower weights IMO

Plus i think the main difference between say 50s fighters and modern guys is how relaxed they used to be in the ring, as you would be if you’ve just done it so much more often, this lead to better defence and combination punching (less tight) and also the ability to sustain punching for a greater period (as less nervous energy is wasted).

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that a lot of the guys who have managed freakishly long careers (I guess il thinking like Toney or Hopkins)/success as old men in comebacks like say Holmes or Foreman, all had that relaxation to them (or at least Foreman’s second incarnation did).

[Bandog]

Anybody see a video of Harry Greb sparring?

His resume superficially seems impressive, but there’s no video footage of him competing in real bouts.

And his pugilistic fighting style, as per the limited sparring footage that is available, absolutely stinks! He definitely fails the eyeball test, because he looks deeply unimpressive.

I’m willing to consider Harry Greb as being an all-time-great, based purely on his historical contribution to the sport of boxing, but I find it categorically impossible to compare him to fighters we’re able to apply the proverbial eyeball test.

Greb made his pro debut 107 years ago. Even reputable boxing historians from the last half century have never seen Greb fight, but casual boxing observers passionately believe that Harry beats today’s elite level fighters, which just seems really strange to me!

Boxing has clearly progressed since the 1920’s.

With your logic, every former athlete and competition where we can't see complete detailed video evidence should be discounted, because although impressive, the records and accomplishments are superficial. You are a poor attention starved devils advocate about everything. STFU Dude

[Enlightened-One]

Anybody see a video of Harry Greb sparring?

His resume superficially seems impressive, but there’s no video footage of him competing in real bouts.

And his pugilistic fighting style, as per the limited sparring footage that is available, absolutely stinks! He definitely fails the eyeball test, because he looks deeply unimpressive.

I’m willing to consider Harry Greb as being an all-time-great, based purely on his historical contribution to the sport of boxing, but I find it categorically impossible to compare him to fighters we’re able to apply the proverbial eyeball test.

Greb made his pro debut 107 years ago. Even reputable boxing historians from the last half century have never seen Greb fight, but casual boxing observers passionately believe that Harry beats today’s elite level fighters, which just seems really strange to me!

Boxing has clearly progressed since the 1920’s.

With your logic, every former athlete and competition where we can't see complete detailed video evidence should be discounted, because although impressive, the records and accomplishments are superficial.

Imagine if you’d never seen any of Brian Nielsen’s fights and there wasn’t any video footage either, so the only information you had available was reviewing his resume...

If we applied your logic, then we’d have to consider Brian Nielsen as being at least a Hall-of-Famer due to him having defeated many world champions, such as: James (Bonecrusher) Smith, Jeff Lampkin, Tony Tubbs, Carlos De Leon, Larry Holmes, Tim Witherspoon, Orlin Norris and Uriah Grant, as well as media reports confirming that he was moderately competitive against Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield?

Hopefully you’ll understand the point I’m trying to convey, because whilst the eyeball test isn’t the be-all and end-all, it’s the biggest piece of the jigsaw, and I feel it is impossible to determine what the big picture looks like without it.

[oogiebe]

With your logic, every former athlete and competition where we can't see complete detailed video evidence should be discounted, because although impressive, the records and accomplishments are superficial.

Imagine if you’d never seen any of Brian Nielsen’s fights and there wasn’t any video footage either, so the only information you had available was reviewing his resume...

If we applied your logic, then we’d have to consider Brian Nielsen as being at least a Hall-of-Famer due to him having defeated many world champions, such as: James (Bonecrusher) Smith, Jeff Lampkin, Tony Tubbs, Carlos De Leon, Larry Holmes, Tim Witherspoon, Orlin Norris and Uriah Grant, as well as media reports confirming that he was moderately competitive against Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield?

Hopefully you’ll understand the point I’m trying to convey, because whilst the eyeball test isn’t the be-all and end-all, it’s the biggest piece of the jigsaw, and I feel it is impossible to determine what the big picture looks like without it.

No one with half a brain looks at the names on a resume without also noting 'when' the wins came in the opponents career timeline. Stop your nonsense.

[Enlightened-One]

Imagine if you’d never seen any of Brian Nielsen’s fights and there wasn’t any video footage either, so the only information you had available was reviewing his resume...

If we applied your logic, then we’d have to consider Brian Nielsen as being at least a Hall-of-Famer due to him having defeated many world champions, such as: James (Bonecrusher) Smith, Jeff Lampkin, Tony Tubbs, Carlos De Leon, Larry Holmes, Tim Witherspoon, Orlin Norris and Uriah Grant, as well as media reports confirming that he was moderately competitive against Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield?

Hopefully you’ll understand the point I’m trying to convey, because whilst the eyeball test isn’t the be-all and end-all, it’s the biggest piece of the jigsaw, and I feel it is impossible to determine what the big picture looks like without it.

No one with half a brain looks at the names on a resume without also noting 'when' the wins came in the opponents career timeline. Stop your nonsense.

And yet you’re far more knowledgeable about Brian Nielsen’s opposition than Harry Greb’s.

You’ve never seen Harry Greb fight. And the limited amount of sparring footage that is available, appears to suggest that he was nowhere near as skilful as his legend.

I’m not saying Harry Greb wasn’t a great, but people are being pretentious and boasting expert knowledge about a fighter they’ve never seen fight, nor are the same individuals particularly familiar with his opposition either.

[oogiebe]

No one with half a brain looks at the names on a resume without also noting 'when' the wins came in the opponents career timeline. Stop your nonsense.

And yet you’re far more knowledgeable about Brian Nielsen’s opposition than Harry Greb’s.

You’ve never seen Harry Greb fight. And the limited amount of sparring footage that is available, appears to suggest that he was nowhere near as skilful as his legend.

I’m not saying Harry Greb wasn’t a great, but people are being pretentious and boasting expert knowledge about a fighter they’ve never seen fight, nor are the same individuals particularly familiar with his opposition either.

We've been through this before EO. I don't disagree with you to some extent, but there's reasons why he's considered one of the best. By your logic, maybe Napoleon was a lousy military leader. We have no film. We only have historic accounts.

[boxing_rocks]

To think that Greb can beat any of current top professional boxers or even be remotely competitive is as ridiculous as thinking that runners, swimmers, gymnasts, soccer players from 1920s can compete with top modern athletes.

[oogiebe]

To think that Greb can beat any of current top professional boxers or even be remotely competitive is as ridiculous as thinking that runners, swimmers, gymnasts, soccer players from 1920s can compete with top modern athletes.

I don't think it's ridiculous, but it's probably less likely he'd win against the greats of the last four decades.

[Duran1970]

To think that Greb can beat any of current top professional boxers or even be remotely competitive is as ridiculous as thinking that runners, swimmers, gymnasts, soccer players from 1920s can compete with top modern athletes.

Here we go again with the other sport comparisons..it's laughable
I'll take Greb over Canelo any day of the week

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

George foreman proves that skilled athletes of yesteryear can compete in modern times. And he wasnt even the best of his era.

[Enlightened-One]

By your logic, maybe Napoleon was a lousy military leader. We have no film. We only have historic accounts.

For the record, I’ve never said that Harry Greb was “lousy”.

He looked terrible in the limited amount of sparring footage that is available and no one can pretend otherwise, because he did... it’s just a fact of life.

I will say one thing though, there was a time when the history books celebrated Christopher Columbus’ achievements, but not any more. Things seemed to change relatively recently.

That’s the problem about believing everything written by historians that never saw the events they wrote about first hand!

[oogiebe]

By your logic, maybe Napoleon was a lousy military leader. We have no film. We only have historic accounts.

For the record, I’ve never said that Harry Greb was “lousy”.

He looked terrible in the limited amount of sparring footage that is available and no one can pretend otherwise, because he did... it’s just a fact of life.

I will say one thing though, there was a time when the history books celebrated Christopher Columbus’ achievements, but not any more. Things seemed to change relatively recently.

That’s the problem about believing everything written by historians that never saw the events they wrote about first hand!

So you're whole world is only reality from your own personal experiences. I see. Btw, your last sentance isn't relevent. Most on the forum ARE going by those that saw it first hand.

[Enlightened-One]

For the record, I’ve never said that Harry Greb was “lousy”.

He looked terrible in the limited amount of sparring footage that is available and no one can pretend otherwise, because he did... it’s just a fact of life.

I will say one thing though, there was a time when the history books celebrated Christopher Columbus’ achievements, but not any more. Things seemed to change relatively recently.

That’s the problem about believing everything written by historians that never saw the events they wrote about first hand!

So you're whole world is only reality from your own personal experiences. I see. Btw, your last sentance isn't relevent. Most on the forum ARE going by those that saw it first hand.

Who saw Harry Greb fight first hand? He made his debut 107 years ago.

What I wrote is relevant.

In terms of historical contribution to the sport of boxing, Harry Greb is an all-time-great.

But it would be monumentally moronic of me to claim that Greb could beat Canelo, if I’d never seen Harry fight.

[oogiebe]

So you're whole world is only reality from your own personal experiences. I see. Btw, your last sentance isn't relevent. Most on the forum ARE going by those that saw it first hand.

Who saw Harry Greb fight first hand? He made his debut 107 years ago.

What I wrote is relevant.

Those historians who saw it first hand and wrote about it. Then talked about it, then passed it on to the next generation. Isn't that how history works? Is the American Revolution a lie because there is no film on it?

[Enlightened-One]

Who saw Harry Greb fight first hand? He made his debut 107 years ago.

What I wrote is relevant.

Those historians who saw it first hand and wrote about it. Then talked about it, then passed it on to the next generation. Isn't that how history works? Is the American Revolution a lie because there is no film on it?

Quit with your nonsense, by making bûllshît claims that bear no relation to anything I wrote! Napoleon and the American Revolution! FFS!

Look, I’ve always maintained that it would be monumentally moronic for anyone to claim that Greb could beat someone like Canelo, if they’d never seen Harry fight.

Greb might be considered an all-time-great, in terms of historical contribution to the sport, but we can’t compare him to fighters we’ve actually seen fight.

There’s a reason why the IBHoF has a separate category for old timers, did you ever consider the reason why?

[oogiebe]

Those historians who saw it first hand and wrote about it. Then talked about it, then passed it on to the next generation. Isn't that how history works? Is the American Revolution a lie because there is no film on it?

Quit with your nonsense, by making bûllshît claims that bear no relation to anything I wrote! Napoleon and the American Revolution! FFS!

Look, I’ve always maintained that it would be monumentally moronic for anyone to claim that Greb could beat someone like Canelo, if they’d never seen Harry fight.

Greb might be considered an all-time-great, in terms of historical contribution to the sport, but we can’t compare him to fighters we’ve actually seen fight.

There’s a reason why the IBHoF has a separate category for old timers, did you ever consider the reason why?

Sorry, EO. You're not making any sense.

[oogiebe]

More lies!!! Call the cops. IT's all lies!