No, he didn't, not for most of his big wins. He was weighing as a welterweight early on in his career, but he didn't have the quality wins there.Nero3000 wrote:actually, Greb more often than not fought BELOW the middleweight limit, while his opponent was well above. He was nowhere near the 175 lb limit. He wasl almost always a middleweight and that is where he should be ranked.DoubleM wrote:There's probably not anyone, regardless of weight, who has a better record.Nero3000 wrote: One way is to look at his record. Greb beat more hall of fame fighters than probably any boxer in history. He beat hall of fame Middleweights and light-heavyweights. There is not a midleweight in history that has a more impressive record. I challenge anyone to debate me on this.
Though Greb fought more often above the middleweight limit than below it. For that reason, since he was technically more of a light heavyweight, I rate him one of the top light heavyweights, and probably the fourth or fifth best middleweight. He was unofficially the greatest super middleweight of all time.
Top 50 Middleweights of All-Time
Check out his prime, my friend. If you average out his weight in his prime years and against his best opposition you will see that his average weight was around the middleweight limit or close to.DoubleM wrote:No, he didn't, not for most of his big wins. He was weighing as a welterweight early on in his career, but he didn't have the quality wins there.Nero3000 wrote:actually, Greb more often than not fought BELOW the middleweight limit, while his opponent was well above. He was nowhere near the 175 lb limit. He wasl almost always a middleweight and that is where he should be ranked.DoubleM wrote: There's probably not anyone, regardless of weight, who has a better record.
Though Greb fought more often above the middleweight limit than below it. For that reason, since he was technically more of a light heavyweight, I rate him one of the top light heavyweights, and probably the fourth or fifth best middleweight. He was unofficially the greatest super middleweight of all time.
Exactly. Close to. Greb often weighed anywhere from 161-170lbs for a lot of his best wins. That's not a middleweight. If you want to start making allowances, then we'll make allowances for other fighters too. So Monzon really had nineteen defenses.Nero3000 wrote:Check out his prime, my friend. If you average out his weight in his prime years and against his best opposition you will see that his average weight was around the middleweight limit or close to.DoubleM wrote:No, he didn't, not for most of his big wins. He was weighing as a welterweight early on in his career, but he didn't have the quality wins there.Nero3000 wrote: actually, Greb more often than not fought BELOW the middleweight limit, while his opponent was well above. He was nowhere near the 175 lb limit. He wasl almost always a middleweight and that is where he should be ranked.
I'm looking at it...Decagon wrote:Um, you can't make a non-title bout a title bout out of thin air, even if it's fought at the limit. Look at Duran-DeJesus I.
...
......
What's up? Duran would have been a two-time lightweight champion, yeah. Those fights would have been for the title, but Duran was overweight.
Re: re
[quote="barry"]>>>still cant believe that greb v walker (1) wasnt filmed as the bout attracted a record attendance for the time. perhaps it was lost or destroyed.<<<
I think that is what happened. I seem to recall seeing advertisements for the showing of the bout later on in theaters, but may be thinking about someone else, though I am pretty sure that it was filmed. Maybe there's a copy in some old theater that has been shut down for years, just sitting, collecting more and more dust...maybe before we die someone will uncover an actual bout of Grebs.[/quote]
wouldnt that be something
I think that is what happened. I seem to recall seeing advertisements for the showing of the bout later on in theaters, but may be thinking about someone else, though I am pretty sure that it was filmed. Maybe there's a copy in some old theater that has been shut down for years, just sitting, collecting more and more dust...maybe before we die someone will uncover an actual bout of Grebs.[/quote]
wouldnt that be something
Re: re
[quote="Decagon"][quote="barry"]>>>still cant believe that greb v walker (1) wasnt filmed as the bout attracted a record attendance for the time. perhaps it was lost or destroyed.<<<
The bout was filmed. A copyright was taken out on it. It has simply been lost to time.[/quote]
things dont just become "lost to time".... or perhaps they do,
"Winner and still middleweight champion of the world, HARRY GREB!"
The bout was filmed. A copyright was taken out on it. It has simply been lost to time.[/quote]
things dont just become "lost to time".... or perhaps they do,
"Winner and still middleweight champion of the world, HARRY GREB!"
re
Decagon---Also, since you seemed to have ignored the two other threads that it was asked in maybe you will not run away this time and answer.
How can you talk about people not being able to know what a fighter was like when there was very little film of that fighter, yet you rank Harry Greb at number one all time at middleweight, even though you have never seen him...ever? Seems to me like your just full of it and truly have no idea as to what you are talking about, but try not to run from the question this time...how can you rank one fighter that you have never seen so highly, yet say that because there are no footage of another fighter then how can anyone rate him, or even better rate him lower becasue there are no footage...whats your reasoning for that kind of hypocrital behavior?
How can you talk about people not being able to know what a fighter was like when there was very little film of that fighter, yet you rank Harry Greb at number one all time at middleweight, even though you have never seen him...ever? Seems to me like your just full of it and truly have no idea as to what you are talking about, but try not to run from the question this time...how can you rank one fighter that you have never seen so highly, yet say that because there are no footage of another fighter then how can anyone rate him, or even better rate him lower becasue there are no footage...whats your reasoning for that kind of hypocrital behavior?
re
The only thing that frustrates me is idiots like yourself who think they know more than they really do. Some one who will assume something and make a comment on that assumption, even though he obviously has never read anything about it...thats what frustrates me, but even worse, when the person does not learn from his mistakes, but instead continues making the exact same kind of clueless comments based on nothing but assumption/guessing...that's what frustrates me.
But you still have not answered the question:
How can you talk about people not being able to know what a fighter was like when there was very little film of that fighter, yet you rank Harry Greb at number one all time at middleweight, even though you have never seen him...ever? Seems to me like your just full of it and truly have no idea as to what you are talking about, but try not to run from the question this time...how can you rank one fighter that you have never seen so highly, yet say that because there are no footage of another fighter then how can anyone rate him, or even better rate him lower becasue there are no footage...whats your reasoning for that kind of hypocrital behavior?
But you still have not answered the question:
How can you talk about people not being able to know what a fighter was like when there was very little film of that fighter, yet you rank Harry Greb at number one all time at middleweight, even though you have never seen him...ever? Seems to me like your just full of it and truly have no idea as to what you are talking about, but try not to run from the question this time...how can you rank one fighter that you have never seen so highly, yet say that because there are no footage of another fighter then how can anyone rate him, or even better rate him lower becasue there are no footage...whats your reasoning for that kind of hypocrital behavior?
re
>>>He could easily be #1, but there simply isn't enough footage of his opponents.<<<
Changing your tune yet again I see. Before I brought this up you had the view that a fighter could not be rated if there were no film for him, but now you change it to the films of his opponents...that's just stupid...the only fight that matters about Tunney, Walker and any one else concerning Greb is the bout that they had...the fighters other bouts has no bearing whatsoever on what kind of fighter Greb was, besides, there is very little footage of Greb opponents to watch as well...it just your typical attempt to worm your way out of one of your usual ignorant statements! But humor me, what all fights of Greb's opponents have you actually watched?
Changing your tune yet again I see. Before I brought this up you had the view that a fighter could not be rated if there were no film for him, but now you change it to the films of his opponents...that's just stupid...the only fight that matters about Tunney, Walker and any one else concerning Greb is the bout that they had...the fighters other bouts has no bearing whatsoever on what kind of fighter Greb was, besides, there is very little footage of Greb opponents to watch as well...it just your typical attempt to worm your way out of one of your usual ignorant statements! But humor me, what all fights of Greb's opponents have you actually watched?
re
I rank fighters based on how much "evidence" there is that they were great fighters. Video is the strongest evidence, followed by the fighter's record, followed by live reports. I generally ignore live reports except to verify whether a fighter won or lost a fight.
http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... ht=#356927
You summed it up yourself about reading print, or newspaper accounts in that paragraph!
http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... ht=#356927
You summed it up yourself about reading print, or newspaper accounts in that paragraph!
re
Your such a baby...why do you continue to reach with that lame-ass, made-up statement that you invented...do you think anyone actually believes that nonsense?
Oh yeah, I remember now why you continue with it, that's all you can do is make up shit because you lack intelligence for anything else, or actually it's probably not that you are so dumb, it's just that you cannot find any ridiculous statements, or comments from me about boxing, so you invent one and then you hold on to it like you actually have something, and lets also not forget about you reaching for those errors in grammar...thats what you have to throw at me, something you made up and somehting that doesn't matter on an internet message board...desperation can certainly bring out the dumbness in people!
Oh yeah, I remember now why you continue with it, that's all you can do is make up shit because you lack intelligence for anything else, or actually it's probably not that you are so dumb, it's just that you cannot find any ridiculous statements, or comments from me about boxing, so you invent one and then you hold on to it like you actually have something, and lets also not forget about you reaching for those errors in grammar...thats what you have to throw at me, something you made up and somehting that doesn't matter on an internet message board...desperation can certainly bring out the dumbness in people!
Sharkey, Fitz, JeffriesLet me see if I understand you here. You think that on average Greb weighed closer to LH than middleweight? I once had a list of most of Greb's weights for his career and if I recall, if you averaged out his weights he was definitely closer to 160 than 175. Has your research shown otherwise?DoubleM wrote:Exactly. Close to. Greb often weighed anywhere from 161-170lbs for a lot of his best wins. That's not a middleweight. If you want to start making allowances, then we'll make allowances for other fighters too. So Monzon really had nineteen defenses.Nero3000 wrote:Check out his prime, my friend. If you average out his weight in his prime years and against his best opposition you will see that his average weight was around the middleweight limit or close to.DoubleM wrote: No, he didn't, not for most of his big wins. He was weighing as a welterweight early on in his career, but he didn't have the quality wins there.
*sigh* I hate being open-minded.....
Based on quality of opposition- which outstrips any middleweight in history- shouldn't he be ranked number 1? I'd like to hear a justification for anyone being placed higher than Harry. Kinda hard to argue with that resume of his.Decagon wrote:Sure. Who's saying we shouldn't? Double M specifically said that he ranks Greb #4 at middleweight.
re
>>>Sure. Who's saying we shouldn't? Double M specifically said that he ranks Greb #4 at middleweight.<<<
And you rank him at #1, regardless that it goes against your beliefs toward rating other fighters of the era and before...you know fighters who you claim that no one can ever know how good they were because there is no footage of them...yet you don't apply that same bogus theory to Greb, and I would say several others as well...what gives? Basically that just tells me that you don't even know what you are saying yourself!
And you rank him at #1, regardless that it goes against your beliefs toward rating other fighters of the era and before...you know fighters who you claim that no one can ever know how good they were because there is no footage of them...yet you don't apply that same bogus theory to Greb, and I would say several others as well...what gives? Basically that just tells me that you don't even know what you are saying yourself!
re
>>>If you judge Greb solely based on what he did below 160, he arguably shouldn't be in the top three.<<<
Not true. Greb fought and beat just about every significant middleweight that fought during his time, which was a very, very good class of fighters!
Not true. Greb fought and beat just about every significant middleweight that fought during his time, which was a very, very good class of fighters!
No, I know he was closer to 160. The point is, he wasn't 160. Greb often wasn't technically a middleweight, but a light heavyweight. Today, he'd be a super middleweight. If you ain't weighing in under 160, you ain't a middleweight.Nero3000 wrote:Let me see if I understand you here. You think that on average Greb weighed closer to LH than middleweight? I once had a list of most of Greb's weights for his career and if I recall, if you averaged out his weights he was definitely closer to 160 than 175. Has your research shown otherwise?DoubleM wrote:Exactly. Close to. Greb often weighed anywhere from 161-170lbs for a lot of his best wins. That's not a middleweight. If you want to start making allowances, then we'll make allowances for other fighters too. So Monzon really had nineteen defenses.Nero3000 wrote: Check out his prime, my friend. If you average out his weight in his prime years and against his best opposition you will see that his average weight was around the middleweight limit or close to.
*sigh* I hate being open-minded.....
re
Greb was 160 for his title fights and other than fighting many, many bouts at middleweight he could get down to that weight with little difficulty. The only reason he was higher in many bouts was just to have the little bit of extra weight when he was facing the larger fighters. He was a middleweight through and through!