where do yank fighters that their isnt any/much film of?

[r.burgundy]

i always have a hard time ranking guys like **** tiger,harry greb,willie pep,jack johnson and so forth.they usually end up on the lower end of my rankings.ive seen very limited footage of these guys and i dont believe ive ever seen greb.from what ive seen,i couldnt imagine these guys competing with todays fighters,therefore i cant rank them ahead of todays fighters.ive searched the net and cant find anything of greb other than pics and a training vid,so for those who have never seen him fight,how can he be ranked so highly?

[Clyde Barrow]

Quite the odd thread title mate.

[r.burgundy]

Quite the odd thread title mate.

lmao.i just caught that

[Joey Giardello]

Well for a start there is a lot of **** Tiger footage. And second. We have footage of Tunney, Walker, and Loughran. And they all look brillant. And Harry Greb beat all 3, only a great fight could beat them.

There is quite a few Jack Johnson fight. vs burns, ketchel, jeffries, willard, and moran.

Of what i have read and who they have beat ketchel, flowers, langford, etc were all amazinf fighters, even if there is little to none footage of them.

And from the footage i have seen of Pep, which is a fair share. He is a incredible fighter.

So no it dosent affect my rating of them and it shound't

[Sugarr]

You have to also rank on their accomplishments.

[r.burgundy]

Well for a start there is a lot of **** Tiger footage. And second. We have footage of Tunney, Walker, and Loughran. And they all look brillant. And Harry Greb beat all 3, only a great fight could beat them.

There is quite a few Jack Johnson fight. vs burns, ketchel, jeffries, willard, and moran.

Of what i have read and who they have beat ketchel, flowers, langford, etc were all amazinf fighters, even if there is little to none footage of them.

And from the footage i have seen of Pep, which is a fair share. He is a incredible fighter.

So no it dosent affect my rating of them and it shound't

i dont know what you have seen or what you call a ton,but ive seen no more than 10 fights tops and not even in thier entirety from tiger,an pep.and even less from johnson,and armstrong,and i cant find anything from greb at all.

i think in boxing,moreso than other sports,seeing is believing.for instance,pep fought 229 fights.you cannot convince me that even 215 of these guys were credible opponent who had a chance at winning.so if you look at peps record an say he must have been superman,but the fights of his ive seen against sandler,i thought this was a joke.i was totally unimpressed.i think after hearing so much,then finally seein him,it was a huge letdown.i could not imagine him beating guys like naz,barrera,morrales,pacman by any strecth.but on the flipside i say,maybe i havent seen enough.

same thing with jack johnson.his fights look hillarious.almost like a circus act.

i think these past 20 years who have produced the best boxers ever.hopkins,duran,tyson,toney,jones,mayweather,le wis,bowe,holyfeild,hearns,sugar ray,de la hoya,whitaker,pacman etc.any of these fighters i can see dominating their best division at any time frame.even though some of those divisions havent always been around.it seems that boxing fans have the hardest time excepting that the sport evolves,and fighters get bigger an better over the years

[r.burgundy]

You have to also rank on their accomplishments.

its hard to rank based on accomplishment because fighters of 2day can accomplish much more.for instance,if we are going to use accomplishment then manny has a chance to be most accomplished in history if he gets a title at 154.he would 7 0r 8 div champion.thats unheard of and not really fair to guys who fought in the days of less titles an divisions

[Sugarr]

its hard to rank based on accomplishment because fighters of 2day can accomplish much more.for instance,if we are going to use accomplishment then manny has a chance to be most accomplished in history if he gets a title at 154.he would 7 0r 8 div champion.thats unheard of and not really fair to guys who fought in the days of less titles an divisions

How so?

There's a lot more weight classes and there's like 4-5 world champions in each division when there only used to be one. That's why some of the champions today aren't considered that highly.

In the old days, the champion was the man who beat the man. Today, it's different. They just give out titles like crazy.

In reality, Pacquiao isn't the real welterweight champion. Mayweather was but then he retired and came back. So it's vacant now. But whoever wins in their fight will be the real welterweight champion.

[cooper5]

There is alot of footage of all those mentioned except Greb. It is my understanding no fight footage of him exists. For me I started reading the ring record books in the seventies. Looking up fighters who they beat and so on. Later the record book was replaced by Fightfax. And then Boxrec. But in the day I used to spend all night reading the Ring Record Book looking at who a fighter beat, and then who the other fighter beat.

[GJC]

pep fought 229 fights.you cannot convince me that even 215 of these guys were credible opponent who had a chance at winning.so if you look at peps record an say he must have been superman,but the fights of his ive seen against sandler,i thought this was a joke.i was totally unimpressed.i think after hearing so much,then finally seein him,it was a huge letdown.i could not imagine him beating guys like naz,barrera,morrales,pacman by any strecth.but on the flipside i say,maybe i havent seen enough.

Re Pep think the best way to get a comparison would be to imagine naz,barrera,morrales,pacman crawling out of a plane crash with serious injuries such as a broken back etc then picture them fighting an ATG opponent after and stll managing to win one of the fights.
Fighters such as Greb and Pep fought 5 times the fights of modern fighters out of a pool of potential boxers that is ten times larger than it is today.
Sure they probably numerically fought more bums than todays fighters and numerically more tough opponents.
You have to remember that in Greb's day the purse was based on the attendance not PPV.
It was in the days when money was tight so do you think that people would have turned out 300 times and paid to see him fight tomato cans?