We can only compare boxers from different eras by looking at their record,and that means their won/loss and the people they fought and those fighters' won/loss record, which includes championships and rankings.

It is true that most fans only consider what they have seen so fighters who died before they were born are not usually ranked high in their opinions.

We are the sum total of our life's experience and as we age we evolve so people will change their opinions, which is something I have done too.

This is good, clean fun, but in the end it is just opinions since modern fighters can not actually fight old time fighters. What I can say is that in sports where performance can be accurately judged like track the times today are much better than the times of the champions from years ago, so I would suggest that athletic performance has improved in all sports, even those that can not be quantified.

i feel the same , i myself don't think that greb would be able to mix it with to days fighters ,styles have changed so much that it would be unrealistic to imagine that greb or sam langford could be champions today . i watched dempsey vs tunney not long ago and they looked terrible ,tunney seemed like an ok stand up amateur style boxer and dempsey like a guy from the pub ,now these fighters were just after greb and between dempsey and tunney you have a boxer and a brawler that was considered the best at the time .

i just don't think you can compare old fighters with new ,i have never heard anyone say that sir stanley matthews (old footballer) was better than messi or maradonna because we have film of him and he isn't as skilled, fit or strong as modern players .

all sport evolve over time and a fighter from 100 years ago would struggle now unless he changed his style.

You are correct.

In fact, all attempts to look back in time and declare with any degree of accuracy the relative levels of talent and skill of two or more boxers are almost entirely subjective.

If this were not so, then we, the public at large, could also reliably predict career paths and fight outcomes of upcoming boxers, without watching them train, spar, and fight live.

Since we clearly cannot do so, all such discussion must be considered with a mind towards entertainment, particularly towards past fighters.

This is not the case for those who have an intimate knowledge of the sport, and some first-hand experience with the boxer, past or present. For example, when Cus D'Amato said he knew Tyson would be champion five years before the event, I can believe that. When Foreman's early handlers said the same of him, that is also credible. When Walcott said that Ali was better than any heavyweights that preceded him, while it was an assumption, it was one from a master boxer who actually saw Ali in the ring. And when Ali said that Marciano was tougher than Frazier and might possibly beat him, I can also believe that, as Ali sparred with Marciano.

So, for all of us, there answer boards are as much entertainment as shared knowledge. We can only look back as "through a glass darkly", and assess what has been written, the fight and sparring records, and video footage. Then, we make conjectures and assumptions.

There actually is, in archives, about twenty minutes of footage of Greb sparring, training, and also in publicity newsreels. I have watched these.

He smiles and mugs for the camera, and you can see he has a sense of humour. But there is nothing convincing in these regarding boxing skill. Even the sparring is all clearly staged for camera.

But one thing impresses me.....and that is Greb's eyes. Behind the smiling affable face, his eyes show absolute confidence and a look of one not to be trifled with.

That, coupled with his fight frequency, wins, and damage done to top opponents in several weight classes, convince me that he was a formidable opponent. Jack Dempsey was a tough heavyweight, and he wanted nothing to do with Greb after his sparring experiences.

So, for entertainment's sake, and making an assumption.....

Greb would win.

I've wondered the same thing, myself.

I see what you're saying here. Personally, I can't bring myself to speak on how great Greb was, much less comment on his style of fighting or his tendencies as a fighter because I have never seen him fight. I can't form an objective opinion about anyone based on first person accounts and hearsay. I acknowledge the fact that he beat a slew of all time greats, and I acknowledge his accomplishments, but I won't sit here and make comments about his style of fighting, or how he'd fair against anyone else in a hypothetical match-up, because in order to do that I'd have to have seen him with my own eyes and gauge his tendencies and flaws, among other things. I can't break down a fight if I've never seen the guy fight before.. To me, that's just common sense.

I respect him for what he's done as a fighter, but I won't pretend I can break down his game just by hearing about it from someone else, someone lets say who was trying to sell newspapers as a young journalist following him around and writing superlative laced articles about him in trying to create an aura that caught the attention of readers. Captive readers=job security as a journalist/"analyst". You get the idea.

With that said, I'll say again that I do respect Greb based on his accomplishments, however I'll leave it to other people to do the talking about him, as I don't feel comfortable doing it myself for various reasons.

We haven't seen them fight but we have seen some of their opponents fight.

There are films of Gene Tunney out boxing Jack Dempsey but only 1 man ever whipped Tunneys *** and that's Harry Greb.



We have not seen their fight film but basing our opinion on just that is bias.

I recall Adrien Broner looking sensational when he fought bums but when he stepped up his competition we saw that he wasn't great. Andre Berto; same story.



We don't have film of Greb fighting but we know he stepped up his competition because we have film of some of those guys who were the best of their time.

He beat them

My question is a result of reading posters' views of various ATGs, most notably, Greb and Ketchel.

There is virtually no film record of these guys that I am aware of. I assume that if I have not seen any of these guys fight, chances are no one else has, so the ability to discuss these guys factually and objectively has continuously evaded me. The best I can do is to read what was written about these two, and others, during the time they were active.

So why are we doing it? Why present indefensible arguments and opinions in our attempt to bridge the present and past? It cannot be done in a rational manner.