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

[H8Usernames]

Actually, correct.

Yeah I mean, I'd rank him ahead of Roy by quite a bit actually.

Hmmmm wins over Prime Bernard Hopkins, Prime James Toney, Prime Antonio Tarver, Johnny Ruiz, Julio Cesar Gonzales, made Viny Pazienza look like a piece of cake, same with Jorge Castro, knocked out Virgil Hill. But Mayweather beat UFC great Connor Mcgreggor and way past prime Manny Pacquio right as well as Shane Mosley who he had avoided for over a decade up until that point or maybe the great win over 1000% weight drained rookie Canelo Alvarez. Maybe you are right.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Shut out marquez
Beat Pacquiao, cotto, mosley, canelo, de la hoyathose are the HOF he beat

Beat hatton, corrales, castillo, judah, hernandez, maidana... tbose are the next tier fighters he beat

6 wins against hof
Many more quality wins

Not to mention his skill set allowed him to age where roys caused him an epic fall

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Also you forgot roys win over mike McCallum

[Onetimeonly]

Yeah I mean, I'd rank him ahead of Roy by quite a bit actually.

Hmmmm wins over Prime Bernard Hopkins, Prime James Toney, Prime Antonio Tarver, Johnny Ruiz, Julio Cesar Gonzales, made Viny Pazienza look like a piece of cake, same with Jorge Castro, knocked out Virgil Hill. But Mayweather beat UFC great Connor Mcgreggor and way past prime Manny Pacquio right as well as Shane Mosley who he had avoided for over a decade up until that point or maybe the great win over 1000% weight drained rookie Canelo Alvarez. Maybe you are right.

Prime Hopkins and way past his prime pacquiao. Go jip.

[oogiebe]

Hmmmm wins over Prime Bernard Hopkins, Prime James Toney, Prime Antonio Tarver, Johnny Ruiz, Julio Cesar Gonzales, made Viny Pazienza look like a piece of cake, same with Jorge Castro, knocked out Virgil Hill. But Mayweather beat UFC great Connor Mcgreggor and way past prime Manny Pacquio right as well as Shane Mosley who he had avoided for over a decade up until that point or maybe the great win over 1000% weight drained rookie Canelo Alvarez. Maybe you are right.

Prime Hopkins and way past his prime pacquiao. Go jip.

Oh no! yOU THINK?

[Onetimeonly]

Prime Hopkins and way past his prime pacquiao. Go jip.

Oh no! yOU THINK?

Roy Jones the goat and Floyd very bad. Language is a bit good.

[oogiebe]

Oh no! yOU THINK?

Roy Jones the goat and Floyd very bad. Language is a bit good.

[Onetimeonly]

You don't compile a record like that fighting the best of the best of your era unless you're a tough motherf*cker, and he fought the best of the best week in and week out. Guys these days, they take a tuneup fight in between tough fights right. Maybe 4 months after their last fight they'll fight a tuneup, and then another big fight 6 months later.

Greb would often have 2 big fights in a month, and 2 or 3 tuneups in the same month for f*cks sake.

Do you really need footage to know that such a man was obviously a tough as nails guy that would be a problem for anybody?

He was only ever stopped twice. Both in his early years as a fighter, and never stopped again for the final decade of his career, on the rare occasions when he lost it was usually a split decision or something of that nature. He was seldom ever decisively beaten.

It's our great loss as Boxing fans that there's footage of him, but the people he beat, and the rate and consistency with which he did it can't be questioned. He had to have been a great fighter to do what he did.

Hell you throw him into the modern era where he actually gets to rest, and take time off, and get a full 2 or 3 month training camp paid for one big multi million dollar fight, he'd possibly have been even better.

But who's to say.

I'd like to see a guy come along, and just kinda fight 2 or 3 times a month just for the hell of it, but it's probably not even possible to replicate the kinda things these guys did unfortunately.

He won 45 fights in a month.

[gilgamesh]

Yeah I mean, I'd rank him ahead of Roy by quite a bit actually.

Hmmmm wins over Prime Bernard Hopkins, Prime James Toney, Prime Antonio Tarver, Johnny Ruiz, Julio Cesar Gonzales, made Viny Pazienza look like a piece of cake, same with Jorge Castro, knocked out Virgil Hill. But Mayweather beat UFC great Connor Mcgreggor and way past prime Manny Pacquio right as well as Shane Mosley who he had avoided for over a decade up until that point or maybe the great win over 1000% weight drained rookie Canelo Alvarez. Maybe you are right.

Mayweather beat Pacquiao, Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosley, Miguel Cotto, Diego Corrales, Jose Luis Castillo (the 2nd fight anyway), Juan Manuel Marquez, Canelo Alvarez, Ricky Hatton, Arturo Gatti, and Maidana twice.

I don't think there's much question about it that he had the better career.

[gilgamesh]

You don't compile a record like that fighting the best of the best of your era unless you're a tough motherf*cker, and he fought the best of the best week in and week out. Guys these days, they take a tuneup fight in between tough fights right. Maybe 4 months after their last fight they'll fight a tuneup, and then another big fight 6 months later.

Greb would often have 2 big fights in a month, and 2 or 3 tuneups in the same month for f*cks sake.

Do you really need footage to know that such a man was obviously a tough as nails guy that would be a problem for anybody?

He was only ever stopped twice. Both in his early years as a fighter, and never stopped again for the final decade of his career, on the rare occasions when he lost it was usually a split decision or something of that nature. He was seldom ever decisively beaten.

It's our great loss as Boxing fans that there's footage of him, but the people he beat, and the rate and consistency with which he did it can't be questioned. He had to have been a great fighter to do what he did.

Hell you throw him into the modern era where he actually gets to rest, and take time off, and get a full 2 or 3 month training camp paid for one big multi million dollar fight, he'd possibly have been even better.

But who's to say.

I'd like to see a guy come along, and just kinda fight 2 or 3 times a month just for the hell of it, but it's probably not even possible to replicate the kinda things these guys did unfortunately.

He won 45 fights in a month.

What month of his career was that?

[Onetimeonly]

He won 45 fights in a month.

What month of his career was that?

I don't recall, he was 45-0-1. I'm sure there's a database somewhere you can verify it.

[Onetimeonly]

Hmmmm wins over Prime Bernard Hopkins, Prime James Toney, Prime Antonio Tarver, Johnny Ruiz, Julio Cesar Gonzales, made Viny Pazienza look like a piece of cake, same with Jorge Castro, knocked out Virgil Hill. But Mayweather beat UFC great Connor Mcgreggor and way past prime Manny Pacquio right as well as Shane Mosley who he had avoided for over a decade up until that point or maybe the great win over 1000% weight drained rookie Canelo Alvarez. Maybe you are right.

Mayweather beat Pacquiao, Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosley, Miguel Cotto, Diego Corrales, Jose Luis Castillo (the 2nd fight anyway), Juan Manuel Marquez, Canelo Alvarez, Ricky Hatton, Arturo Gatti, and Maidana twice.

I don't think there's much question about it that he had the better career.

Jip hates Floyd.

[Duran1970]

He won 45 fights in a month.

What month of his career was that?

The year was 1919.
44 fights without a loss

[The Great John L]

I'd like to see a guy come along, and just kinda fight 2 or 3 times a month just for the hell of it, but it's probably not even possible to replicate the kinda things these guys did unfortunately.

I'm afraid you're right. There aren't enough fighters, promoters or fight cards for a fighter to fight 2 or 3 times a month without traveling about 20,000 miles a month. There were so many cards held back then a fighter could fight several times a week without having to travel more than 30 or 40 miles.

[boxing_rocks]

Is it that hard to understand that everything is relative? A hooligan from a bad neighborhood may also win 45 fights in a month and be tough as nails, but he wouldn't be able to compete with professional boxers. I am sure there were ancient Greeks who were tough as nails and beating everybody left and right. Let's also include them in ATG lists.

[Enlightened-One]

Do you really need footage to know that such a man was obviously a tough as nails guy that would be a problem for anybody?

Yes, since we’re not discussing a religious matter.

It’s categorically impossible to conclude that fighter A would definitely beat fighter B, when you’ve never even seen fighter A compete.

Especially considering the facts surrounding fighter A are largely unknown or ambiguous in nature.

Your opinion is almost entirely based on faith alone.

It's our great loss as Boxing fans that there's footage of him…

I agree!

…but the people he beat, and the rate and consistency with which he did it can't be questioned

Whilst his resume is superficially impressive and deserves to be considered as being a "great" (due to his historical contribution to the sport), we are lacking context in his achievements, since we can’t validate (with our own eyes) whether he actually “earned” or even performed many of those feats.

He had to have been a great fighter to do what he did.

In all likelihood yes, but no one can be 100% certain about this, especially considering Greb is deeply unimpressive in the video footage that is available.

But who's to say.

Precisely, yet you seem to have concrete belief in Greb’s talent, based on reading stories alone written by those possessing merely third-hand knowledge/experience.

Much akin to those with evangelical faith in the bible, considering bizarre claims as facts, such as Jesus performing miracles (like transforming water into wine) or claims about the earth being only 9,000 years old.

Greb’s accomplishments isn’t directly observable, since all we have is anecdotal evidence, such as stories, rumour and reputation to work from, there’s no empirical evidence.

Sometimes you really do have to see it in order to believe it!

I'd like to see a guy come along, and just kinda fight 2 or 3 times a month just for the hell of it, but it's probably not even possible to replicate the kinda things these guys did unfortunately.

There’s absolutely no direct correlation between how often a fighter competes and greatness.

And for the record, I can provide the names of multiple journeymen who have competed in 300+ bouts, that have competed very often indeed.

[Enlightened-One]

Is it that hard to understand that everything is relative? A hooligan from a bad neighborhood may also win 45 fights in a month and be tough as nails, but he wouldn't be able to compete with professional boxers. I am sure there were ancient Greeks who were tough as nails and beating everybody left and right. Let's also include them in ATG lists.

I agree.

[gilgamesh]

I rarely ever consider Greb vs So so as part of his mythological standing as one of the best ever. I don't try to imagine a fight between him and say Hagler or Hopkins because I can't. I haven't seen him fight.

But few if any were better or beat more Hall of Fame level opposition in their own era than Greb. Which is ultimately all anybody's greatness can be measured by.

In his own time, he was obviously a force.

[The Great John L]

It’s categorically impossible to conclude that fighter A would definitely beat fighter B, when you’ve never even seen fighter A compete.

That’s not entirely true. If you’ve never seen Anthony Joshua fight, it’s not a stretch to say that he’d beat stacey frazier based on his record alone. In fact, if you look at it from a different perspective, many people can’t pick winners even when they’ve seen both fighters fight.

Especially considering the facts surrounding fighter A are largely unknown or ambiguous in nature.

I’m not sure how this comment is relevant to this particular discussion. The “facts surrounding” Harry Greb are hardly unknown or ambiguous. In fact, they are documented quite well, unless it was all simply a conspiracy in order to fabricate a boxing legend.

Whilst his resume is superficially impressive… and no one can deny that, we are lacking context in his achievements, since we can’t validate (with our own eyes) whether he actually “earned” or even performed many of those feats.

Yeah, and since there’s no film, I’ve always wondered about George Washington. Was he really a President, or even a general for that matter. His writings are certainly eloquent, but without seeing him actually write them how do we know he didn’t have a ghostwriter?

[chrisjs1985]

I measure relative to the fighters era (sometimes era's are so different not necessarily "better"), dominance, the fighters overall ability at least compared to their era and the one before and after, whether any wins or runs jump out and if odds were overcome, a scenario wasn't ideal for said fighter and a lot of other stuff that doesn't include mythical head to heads. There must be a lot of factors when we talk ALL-TIME on a sport which is so old. I do find a lot of folks arrogantly dismiss an era or a fighter they haven't seen or haven't even researched. I do think everyone contradicts their own rules too. I know I do. I think I would have Greb at #1 but I feel safer with Robinson at #1 though I find myself leaning towards Greb more as time goes on. You have to respect the people who've done thorough research and you do have to respect reports because that's what we have and you can't just dismiss something because you are too lazy to bother reading or too modernist to accept a differing view on something which is specifically ALL-TIME.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Sam Langford
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Roberto Duran
7. Benny Leonard
8. Willie Pep
9. Eder Jofre
10. Mickey Walker
11. Joe Gans
12. Packey McFarland
13. Muhammad Ali
14. Joe Louis
15. Archie Moore
16. Jimmy Wilde
17. Barney Ross
18. Tony Canzoneri
19. Jimmy McLarnin
20. Ray Leonard

Honorable mentions: Pernell Whitaker, Ike Williams, Charles Burley, Holman Williams, Bob Fitzsimmons, Marvin Hagler, Carlos Monzon, Jose Napoles, Emile Griffith, Terry McGovern

[Enlightened-One]

It’s categorically impossible to conclude that fighter A would definitely beat fighter B, when you’ve never even seen fighter A compete.

That’s not entirely true. If you’ve never seen Anthony Joshua fight, it’s not a stretch to say that he’d beat stacey frazier based on his record alone. In fact, if you look at it from a different perspective, many people can’t pick winners even when they’ve seen both fighters fight.

The operative word is "definitely"!

If you'd never seen Joe Frazier fight, you cannot say for certain (or to use its synonym - "definitely") lose to Anthony Joshua.

Especially considering the facts surrounding fighter A are largely unknown or ambiguous in nature.

I’m not sure how this comment is relevant to this particular discussion. The “facts surrounding” Harry Greb are hardly unknown or ambiguous. In fact, they are documented quite well, unless it was all simply a conspiracy in order to fabricate a boxing legend.

Somebody posted a video in this thread about Harry Greb's career, which I detailed many inconsistencies in the claims it made. The person who posted it couldn't defend its content either, since it contained many factual inaccuracies.

Please take a look at the video and my response to it, since it justifies the reason for my comment.

Different people make different claims about Harry Greb... and there's no point in pretending this isn't the case, since it's far too easy to provide examples.

Whilst his resume is superficially impressive… and no one can deny that, we are lacking context in his achievements, since we can’t validate (with our own eyes) whether he actually “earned” or even performed many of those feats.

Yeah, and since there’s no film, I’ve always wondered about George Washington. Was he really a President, or even a general for that matter. His writings are certainly eloquent, but without seeing him actually write them how do we know he didn’t have a ghostwriter?

Please refrain from employing dishonest debating tactics, such as red herrings or posing strawman arguments, and instead challenge my actual words head on (verbatim)!

Anyway, you're missing the point!

No one is questioning Greb's "greatness" in terms of his historical contribution to the sport or his accomplishments during his own era, the point I'm making relates to people in this thread being 100% certain that Harry "definitely "beats Canelo and many other modern era fighters.

They can't say this with such certainty if they'd never even seen him fight.

Anecdotes or opinions conveyed by individuals only possessing third-hand knowledge/experience shouldn’t be considered as being facts if they aren’t supported by some form of empirical evidence.

[jas80s]

How can anyone take someone seriously who takes two incredibly accomplished fighters who each dominated their era in the sport posting wins over numerous opponents who themselves possess fine ledgers and then proceeds to say..."Fighter A DEFINITELY beats fighter B..."

That's why it's so funny when someone argues for pages and pages about scientific method and in the end their only point is.."How can you DEFINITELY say one fighter would win?"

Ya, NO SHIT...this whole argument is so ridiculous. Is anybody even saying what EO is arguing against? That Greb would DEFINITELY beat other great (or even very good) fighters from subsequent eras? It seems the only thing being said is that Greb can be considered a great fighter based on his documented accomplishments in the ring even without ample footage of him competing in the ring, which I believe EO has acknowledged on more than one occasion.

[The Great John L]

The operative word is "definitely"!

If you'd never seen Joe Frazier fight, you cannot say for certain (or to use its synonym - "definitely") lose to Anthony Joshua.

Even if you had seen them both fight, no one can say that either one would definitively win. Many people had seen both Andy Ruiz and Anthony Joshua fight prior to their first fight, and I'm sure many thought that they were certain that AJ would trample Ruiz. Perhaps we both agree that anyone who is that certain is probably just being a little to worked up.

Anyway, you're missing the point!

No one is questioning Greb's "greatness" in terms of his historical contribution to the sport or his accomplishments during his own era, the point I'm making relates to people in this thread being 100% certain that Harry "definitely "beats Canelo and many other modern era fighters.

They can't say this with such certainty if they'd never even seen him fight.

Anecdotes or opinions conveyed by individuals only possessing third-hand knowledge/experience shouldn’t be considered as being facts if they aren’t supported by some form of empirical evidence.

I'm certainly not missing the point. I agree with you that no one can be certain of these mythical matchups, but you seem to pretty much cast aside anyone you haven't actually seen fight. It certainly helps to see them fight, but I'm sure you'll agree that even having seen two fighters fight doesn't mean that you, or anyone for that matter, knows definitively who would win. It helps to have seen them fight, but it's not always necessary. Many people gamble and make a lot of money on sports by researching results and statistics more than viewing specific games. And they do this by picking winners.

Having seen fighters in action is not empirical evidence, unless you're saying that it's evidence of who won the fight that you watched.

[oogiebe]

EO: I posted that vid to add commentary on Greb. I see no need to defend anything. You moved the goal posts again by interjecting "definitely' into the conversation. Like many others here, I think you're a jerkoff, DEFINITELY.

[oogiebe]

How can anyone take someone seriously who takes two incredibly accomplished fighters who each dominated their era in the sport posting wins over numerous opponents who themselves possess fine ledgers and then proceeds to say..."Fighter A DEFINITELY beats fighter B..."

That's why it's so funny when someone argues for pages and pages about scientific method and in the end their only point is.."How can you DEFINITELY say one fighter would win?"

Ya, NO poo...this whole argument is so ridiculous. Is anybody even saying what EO is arguing against? That Greb would DEFINITELY beat other great (or even very good) fighters from subsequent eras? It seems the only thing being said is that Greb can be considered a great fighter based on his documented accomplishments in the ring even without ample footage of him competing in the ring, which I believe EO has acknowledged on more than one occasion.

I personally rarely use definitely. Especially in sports. It's a silly notion. Can you imagine what EO is like in person?! Horrifying thought!