Ranking Harry Greb above Sugar Ray Robinson. Can it be justified?

[Joeyzagz]

Here is what Gene Tunney said about the hell he experienced with Greb

In the third round another cut over the right eye left me looking through a red film. For the better part of twelve rounds, I saw this red phantom-like form dancing before me. I had provided myself with a fifty-per-cent mixture of brandy and orange juice to take between rounds in the event I became weak from loss of blood. I had never taken anything during a fight up to that time. Nor did I ever again.

It is impossible to describe the bloodiness of this fight. My seconds were unable to stop either the bleeding from the cut over my left eye, which involved a severed artery, or the bleeding consequent to the nose fractures. Doc Bagley, who was my chief second, made futile attempts to congeal the nose-bleeding by pouring adrenalin into his hand and having me snuff it up my nose. This I did round after round. The adrenalin, instead of coming out through the nose again, ran down my throat with the blood and into my stomach.

At the end of the twelfth round, I believed it was a good time to take a swallow of the brandy and orange juice. It had hardly got to my stomach when the ring started whirling around. The bell rang for the thirteenth round; the seconds pushed me from my chair. I actually saw two red opponents.

An old fashioned massacre against an opponent 3 classes up from Lamotta. Im not saying Greb is the greater than SRR overall, but at middleweight I think he may have had the edge.

[Miburo]

At middleweight a number have an edge on SRR. His greatness there was mostly predicated upon uncanny success in rematches. At welterweight he was undefeated.

[Barn]

At Middleweight, yes definitely I already do. P4P again is completely justifiable as I have them #1 and #2 respectively.

[BigStereotype]

Considering you've never seen Greb, probably not.

[Barn]

Considering you've never seen Greb, probably not.

We have film of fighters like Loughran, Walker and Tunney though and they look great on film, Greb beat these fighters a lot of the time while weighing as much as a stone lighter, his achievments speak for themselves.

[BigStereotype]

We have film of fighters like Loughran, Walker and Tunney though and they look great on film, Greb beat these fighters a lot of the time while weighing as much as a stone lighter, his achievments speak for themselves.

Isn't that the definition of a boxrec warrior, though? I mean, honestly, how many times have we drummed people out of the section for not having seen the fights?

[Barn]

Isn't that the definition of a boxrec warrior, though? I mean, honestly, how many times have we drummed people out of the section for not having seen the fights?

Seeing the fights of the opponents he beat gives an insight into how great he was though, the fighters he fought we have on film all have varying styles and he won a lot of them and from this we can work ouy he must have been some fighter to conquer all the variations in style, not so much as if we did have film though.

[BigStereotype]

Seeing the fights of the opponents he beat gives an insight into how great he was though, the fighters he fought we have on film all have varying styles and he won a lot of them and from this we can work ouy he must have been some fighter to conquer all the variations in style, not so much as if we did have film though.

Watching the Hatton-Tszyu, Castillo-Corrales, Marquez-Pacquiao II and Mosley-Margarito might give you a totally incorrect assumption of Floyd. Or Barrera-Morales, Marquez-Katsidis, Cotto-Mosley could give you the wrong assumption of Pacquiao. It's just hard to actually rank a fighter by proxy, as it were.

[Barn]

Watching the Hatton-Tszyu, Castillo-Corrales, Marquez-Pacquiao II and Mosley-Margarito might give you a totally incorrect assumption of Floyd. Or Barrera-Morales, Marquez-Katsidis, Cotto-Mosley could give you the wrong assumption of Pacquiao. It's just hard to actually rank a fighter by proxy, as it were.

I know what you are saying but, I think it's hard to discredit a fighter simply because we have no film, yes it makes hypothetical match-ups very difficult but, speaking on achievments, resume and longelivity it can be done.

[BigStereotype]

I know what you are saying but, I think it's hard to discredit a fighter simply because we have no film, yes it makes hypothetical match-ups very difficult but, speaking on achievments, resume and longelivity it can be done.

I'm not discrediting, I'm just not ranking him. It's different. He sort of exists outside of my lists. Now, if I see some real film of him, I expect that that should change pretty quickly, at least if the stories are to be believed. But I just feel like you shouldn't have a different set of principals based on circumstance. If you can't fill out the list of criteria on a fighter, you can't really rank him. And if your criteria doesn't include at least a bit of an eyeball test, what's the point of watching the sport? Why not jsut read newspaper articles?