Deepest Resumes?

[Russell]

Not who's got the most wins over top tier opposition, that is, but the most high end fights to their credit compared to the total amount of fights they've had.

Mayweather, De La Hoya, Leonard, and Trinidad all spring to mind.

[Woddy]

These guys are way before my time, and I haven't seen much film of them but Sam Langford, Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong, and Sugar Ray Robinson have pretty deep resumes in terms of who they faced over long careers.

[rekcutnevets]

Mayweather, De la Hoya, and Trinidad are not in the same company as Leonard.

De la Hoya could have been, had he been more dominant. Questionable wins over Whitaker, Quartey, and Sturm with no rematches. What if Leonard got the decison over Duran in Montreal and said no to a rematch? Lost to Mosley twice. The best thing on his resume is a bogus loss to Trinidad.

Trinidad has some good wins, but he too is no Leonard. Should have lost the biggest fight of his career. I know, some of you say Leonard should have lost the biggest of his to Hagler; but there is no comparison. You can make a case for Leonard in the rounds people feel he won. There is no making a case for Trinidad in at least 7(if not more) rounds of his fight with Oscar. Also helped prove Hopkins greatness in getting schooled. Also reminded everyone of how dangerous Winky Wright is to your record.

Mayweather has let to lose on paper. Some feel Castillo got him once, but he did avenge that performance. Has solid wins over some decent competion. Not his fault his competion is not what Leonard's was. Still, facts are facts. Will have to do more to get anywhere near Leonard in the competion department.

[Russell]

Top.

[Manassa]

Jimmy McLarnin if we're going for ratios.

[brownpimp88]

muhammad ali

[Sweet Pea]

Mayweather, De la Hoya, and Trinidad are not in the same company as Leonard.

De la Hoya could have been, had he been more dominant. Questionable wins over Whitaker, Quartey, and Sturm with no rematches. What if Leonard got the decison over Duran in Montreal and said no to a rematch? Lost to Mosley twice. The best thing on his resume is a bogus loss to Trinidad.

Trinidad has some good wins, but he too is no Leonard. Should have lost the biggest fight of his career. I know, some of you say Leonard should have lost the biggest of his to Hagler; but there is no comparison. You can make a case for Leonard in the rounds people feel he won. There is no making a case for Trinidad in at least 7(if not more) rounds of his fight with Oscar. Also helped prove Hopkins greatness in getting schooled. Also reminded everyone of how dangerous Winky Wright is to your record.

Mayweather has let to lose on paper. Some feel Castillo got him once, but he did avenge that performance. Has solid wins over some decent competion. Not his fault his competion is not what Leonard's was. Still, facts are facts. Will have to do more to get anywhere near Leonard in the competion department.De La Hoya outdoes leonard by a good margin if we're talking depth of resumes. But if we're talking top wins, Leonard clearly holds the edge.

In terms of what the TS originally said, which is resume in terms of ratio of top fights to overall number of fights, DLH ranks right up there(on opposition faced), along with a guy like Whitaker(on opposition beaten), and obviously Ali.

In terms of overall resume, in terms of deepest and highest quality of opposition beaten period, I'd say Harry Greb.

[brownpimp88]

De La Hoya outdoes leonard by a good margin if we're talking depth of resumes. But if we're talking top wins, Leonard clearly holds the edge.

In terms of what the TS originally said, which is resume in terms of ratio of top fights to overall number of fights, DLH ranks right up there(on oppsition faced), along with a guy like Whitaker(on opposition beaten), and obviously Ali.

In terms of overall resume, in terms of deepest and highest quality of opposition beaten period, I'd say Harry Greb.
i think you look at how many titlists a person beat. In leonard's days there was 1 or 2 champs. In de la hoyas days there were 4 champs. I honestly think ali and robinson have resumes slightly better than grebs. Not trying to sound racist, but 95% of greb's opponents were scrawny white guys in diapers. Would they have been champs if langford or other blacks were allowed to fight for the light heavyweight belt?

Ali has beaten foreman, liston, frazier, patterson, norton, foster, quarry and like 10-15 other top contenders. He has also fought larry holmes and archie moore. Most of greb's opponents are just known on paper, there isnt much footage on them.

If robinson doesnt have a deeper resume than greb, than why do most experts rank him higher?

[Sweet Pea]

]i think you look at how many titlists a person beat. In leonard's days there was 1 or 2 champs. In de la hoyas days there were 4 champs. I honestly think ali and robinson have resumes slightly better than grebs. Not trying to sound racist, but 95% of greb's opponents were scrawny white guys in diapers. Would they have been champs if langford or other blacks were allowed to fight for the light heavyweight belt?I think this is a pretty ignorant paragraph here.

Ali has beaten foreman, liston, frazier, patterson, norton, foster, quarry and like 10-15 other top contenders. He has also fought larry holmes and archie moore. Most of greb's opponents are just known on paper, there isnt much footage on them.There's footage of plenty of them, such as Tunney, Walker, Gibbons, Rosenbloom, Loughran, etc. Ali in comparison to his number of fights has a more stacked resume, but overall, Greb's is far deeper. I guess I will have to whip it out again. Have a look:

Delaney x3
Rosenbloom
Walker
Wilson x3
Tunney x2
Loughran x5
Slattery
Flowers
Moody
Downey
Bogash
Gibbons x3
Smith x7
Norfolk
Gunboat Smith x2
McTigue x2
Levinsky x6
M. Gibbons
Meehan x2
Houck x3
Miske x3
Bartfield x4
McGoorty
McCoy x2
Dillon x2
O’Dowd
Chip x2
Crouse
Brennan x3
Clark
Blackburn


If robinson doesnt have a deeper resume than greb, than why do most experts rank him higher?
Lack of footage, which leads to lack of actual knowledge.

[brownpimp88]

[quote=brownpimp88I think this is a pretty ignorant paragraph here.

There's footage of plenty of them, such as Tunney, Walker, Gibbons, Rosenbloom, Loughran, etc. Ali in comparison to his number of fights has a more stacked resume, but overall, Greb's is far deeper. I guess I will have to whip it out again. Have a look:

Delaney x3
Rosenbloom
Walker
Wilson x3
Tunney x2
Loughran x5
Slattery
Flowers
Moody
Downey
Bogash
Gibbons x3
Smith x7
Norfolk
Gunboat Smith x2
McTigue x2
Levinsky x6
M. Gibbons
Meehan x2
Houck x3
Miske x3
Bartfield x4
McGoorty
McCoy x2
Dillon x2
O’Dowd
Chip x2
Crouse
Brennan x3
Clark
Blackburn

Lack of footage, which leads to lack of actual knowledge.
again i ask, how many were black?:lol:

Also, i know most of those guys and alot were just contenders. Muhammad ali has over 30 wins over ranked contenders. Muhammad Ali also beat all of those guys i mentioned, they werent no decisions, draws or losses.

[Sweet Pea]

[quote=Sweet Pea]
again i ask, how many were black?:lol:

Also, i know most of those guys and alot were just contenders. Muhammad ali has over 30 wins over ranked contenders. Muhammad Ali also beat all of those guys i mentioned, they werent no decisions, draws or losses.What does the color of a fighter's skin have to do with anything? There were losses and obviously decision in Ali's bouts as well, what did you mean by that bit?

[brownpimp88]

[quote=brownpimp88]What does the color of a fighter's skin have to do with anything? There were losses and obviously decision in Ali's bouts as well, what did you mean by that bit?
well if color didnt matter, than why didnt black people get the title shots. I highly doubt most of those guys would be champion, if say a sam langford was given a title shot. Ali beat every guy that i mentioned, except larry holmes. Greb did not beat every man that you mentioned.

Ring Magazine rank both robinson and ali higher, they obviously feel hes the more accomplished fighter.

[Sweet Pea]

well if color didnt matter, than why didnt black people get the title shots. I highly doubt most of those guys would be champion, if say a sam langford was given a title shot. Ali beat every guy that i mentioned, except larry holmes. Greb did not beat every man that you mentioned.

Ring Magazine rank both robinson and ali higher, they obviously feel hes the more accomplished fighter.

1) Yes, Greb did beat every man I mentioned.

2) You mention Ring's rankings quite a bit, as if they are truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. According to them, Dempsey accomplished more than Hagler, Arguello, Chavez, Ross, Walker, Tunney, hell even Holyfield. Do you not see something wrong with that? I could care less about Ring's rankings, they don't mean shit to me.

[TBooze]

1) Yes, Greb did beat every man I mentioned.


No, he did not...

[Sweet Pea]

No, he did not...By my knowledge, yes, he actually did, regardless of the loss on paper to Flowers in the first fight. Most experts thought he won pretty handily. Also, most thought he won at least 2 of the Tunney fights, instead of one.

[TBooze]

By my knowledge, yes, he actually did, regardless of the loss on paper to Flowers in the first fight. Most experts thought he won pretty handily. Also, most thought he won at least 2 of the Tunney fights, instead of one.

You are confusing no decisions with newspaper decisions. Newspaper decisions were a way of sorting bets out, nothing more. Many of the fighters listed as being 'defeated' were well known for just going though the motions in no decision bouts.

If you were Maxie Rosenbloom, you were hardly going to stop Greb, so going the full 10 rounds was best you could do. On top of this maybe a small wager against yourself to boost your pay? Also Maxie had 13 bouts in the first eight months of 1925, so he was unlikely to give more than the minimum required...

[janitor]

[quote=Sweet Pea]
well if color didnt matter, than why didnt black people get the title shots. I highly doubt most of those guys would be champion, if say a sam langford was given a title shot.

To be fair to Greb we have to say where the colour bar didnt go.

Greb himself fought anybody.

Of his opponents:

Tommy Gibbons fought all the top black fighters of the era who were willing to face him. He beat Kid Norfolk who was the best black contender who would meet him.

Maxie Rosenbloom fought black light heavyweight champion John Henry Lewis many times. Sort of like the LaMotta Robinson series.

Mike McTigure won the title from a black champion (Bat Siki).

Dont dismiss all these guys.

[TBooze]

muhammad ali

Yes 38 fights (62%) of his 61 career pro fights were against Champions or top 10 fighters at Heavyweight. On top of this he also fought and beat Henry Cooper (twice), Cleveland Williams, Buster Mathis, George Chuvalo (fight two) and Bob Foster when they were not top 10 rated Ring Heavyweights...

[brownpimp88]

Yes 38 fights (62%) of his 61 career pro fights were against Champions or top 10 fighters at Heavyweight. On top of this he also fought and beat Henry Cooper (twice), Cleveland Williams, Buster Mathis, George Chuvalo (fight two) and Bob Foster when they were not top 10 rated Ring Heavyweights...
exactly most of the guys he mentioned were just contenders anways. Ali has the better resume and we have seen how great liston and patterson are on film. They look much better and far more skilled on film than a tommy loughran or gibbons does.

[Sweet Pea]

exactly most of the guys he mentioned were just contenders anways. Ali has the better resume and we have seen how great liston and patterson are on film. They look much better and far more skilled on film than a tommy loughran or gibbons does.Newsflash: The guy who isn't the champ is a contender, so most of the guys TBooze mentioned as wins for Ali were just contenders as well.

[brownpimp88]

Newsflash: The guy who isn't the champ is a contender, so most of the guys TBooze mentioned as wins for Ali were just contenders as well.
the only difference is that there isnt footage of most of greb's contenders. newspaper Decisions dont count asd wins, they are nothing but opinions. I could go and make a newspaper decision on a fight that was ruled a draw if i wanted to.:lol:

Greb would have been dq'd in so many of his fights, if it was in modern standards anyways.

[Sweet Pea]

the only difference is that there isnt footage of most of greb's contenders. newspaper Decisions dont count asd wins, they are nothing but opinions. I could go and make a newspaper decision on a fight that was ruled a draw if i wanted to.:lol:

Greb would have been dq'd in so many of his fights, if it was in modern standards anyways.Ali would have been roughed up if it were in Greb's time, what is your point? These names have to be considered on an era by era basis. If someone was a top contender in Greb's day, it should be taken as seriously as if someone was a top contender in Ali's day, providing they both fought fighters or similar standing in their time frames.

Whether or not you think fighters of Greb's time could beat fighters of Ali's time has no bearing on whether or not they are still considered top wins because they were the best of that time. Greb fought and beat(in reality) the best of his time, just like Ali did of his time. Only difference is, Greb fought more of them, and fought a hell of a lot more than Ali.

[Robbi]

Newsflash: The guy who isn't the champ is a contender, so most of the guys TBooze mentioned as wins for Ali were just contenders as well.


Greb in todays boxing scene would have been interesting. Not sure he's as refined as todays greats, but what he lacked in refinement, he almost certainly made up things when it came to power, heart, and sheer will to win. Poverty was worse back in those days than it has been recently. Todays greats would probably need a shotgun to floor Greb.

What about Sam Langford. He jumped off a train with his dog and explained to a guy who owned a gym that he hadn't eaten for two days and was sleeping rough at the time. Sam got a job as a janitor at the gym then went onto become a fighter himself.

[brownpimp88]

Ali would have been roughed up if it were in Greb's time, what is your point? These names have to be considered on an era by era basis. If someone was a top contender in Greb's day, it should be taken as seriously as if someone was a top contender in Ali's day, providing they both fought fighters or similar standing in their time frames.

Whether or not you think fighters of Greb's time could beat fighters of Ali's time has no bearing on whether or not they are still considered top wins because they were the best of that time. Greb fought and beat(in reality) the best of his time, just like Ali did of his time. Only difference is, Greb fought more of them, and fought a hell of a lot more than Ali.
To me its irrelevant if greb fought more. Ali beat 33 ranked fighters, thats 60% of his career.

[Nemesis]

exactly most of the guys he mentioned were just contenders anways. Ali has the better resume and we have seen how great liston and patterson are on film. They look much better and far more skilled on film than a tommy loughran or gibbons does.

have you seen loughran on film?

He was a brilliant boxer

[Sweet Pea]

To me its irrelevant if greb fought more. Ali beat 33 ranked fighters, thats 60% of his career.Which is why I said in my first post in this thread, that, by the threadstarter's criteria, Ali is definitely one of the, if not the best in terms of deepest resume. I also said that in terms of overall resume, Greb's is the best. Read it more carefully.

[brownpimp88]

have you seen loughran on film?

He was a brilliant boxer
compared to patterson on film, please? Floyd would have whooped him.:lol:

[brownpimp88]

Which is why I said in my first post in this thread, that, by the threadstarter's criteria, Ali is definitely one of the, if not the best in terms of deepest resume. I also said that in terms of overall resume, Greb's is the best. Read it more carefully.
well when it comes to overall resume, robinson fought ALOT of people. I could probably list like 30-40 guys for him too. Thas why hes the Greatest. Not armstrong, not ali, not greb. Robinson is the greatest!:good

[Sweet Pea]

well when it comes to overall resume, robinson fought ALOT of people. I could probably list like 30-40 guys for him too. Thas why hes the Greatest. Not armstrong, not ali, not greb. Robinson is the greatest!:goodThe depth of Greb's resume still outdoes his. As do Greb's top wins.

[brownpimp88]

The depth of Greb's resume still outdoes his. As do Greb's top wins.
robinson is 22-7-1 against hall of famers. This doesnt include wins over at least 15-20 contenders.

[Sweet Pea]

robinson is 22-7-1 against hall of famers. This doesnt include wins over at least 15-20 contenders.Lay Robinson's resume down for me as I have done Greb's. I will give you time if need be. And which of Robinson's wins outdo Greb's wins over Tunney?

[brownpimp88]

Lay Robinson's resume down for me as I have done Greb's. I will give you time if need be. And which of Robinson's wins outdo Greb's wins over Tunney?
well he went 5-1 against the bigger lamotta. Greb went 1-3-1 against the bigger tunney.

Kid Gavilan is greater than almost everybody greb beat. Yeah beating him is better than greb beating the smaller walker.

Hnery armstrong was past it, but still a bigger legend.

As t booze said before, newspaper decisions are not wins. I could go make one in the local newspapers.

[brownpimp88]

Its going to take me hours to sit down and critically analyze both of thier resumes, i will do it some other day.

[Sonny's jab]

According to them, Dempsey accomplished more than Hagler, Arguello, Chavez, Ross, Walker, Tunney, hell even Holyfield. Do you not see something wrong with that?.

I dont.
Dempsey was a great great fighter. The revisionism and lack of understanding on Dempsey is getting out-of-hand.

It's absolutely fine to rank those others you mention over him, but I dont see any outrage in him being ranked higher than all of them.

[brownpimp88]

I dont.
Dempsey was a great great fighter. The revisionism and lack of understanding on Dempsey is getting out-of-hand.

It's absolutely fine to rank those others you mention over him, but I dont see any outrage in him being ranked higher than all of them.
they have much better resumes than jack dempsey. I agree with him on that point.

Tyson's resume is better than dempseys, and if you want to argue that, i will have a fun time doing it.

[Sweet Pea]

well he went 5-1 against the bigger lamotta. Greb went 1-3-1 against the bigger tunney.

Kid Gavilan is greater than almost everybody greb beat. Yeah beating him is better than greb beating the smaller walker.

Hnery armstrong was past it, but still a bigger legend.

As t booze said before, newspaper decisions are not wins. I could go make one in the local newspapers.I consider them wins. Nowadays had those fights happened there would be no Newspaper decisions, there would be wins or losses. The way they did things back then in terms of the way they judged fights shouldn't be counted against the fighter.

Most think Greb won at least 2 over Tunney, and no way in hell Robinson's wins over the limted, heavier but shorter LaMotta are better than a Greb win over Tunney. Regardless of LaMotta being bigger than Robinson and Tunney being bigger than Greb, you have to take into account the quality of the fighter. No way was LaMotta in Tunney's league.

And I am not so sure beating Gavilan is better than beating Walker. Walker was a fine WW and MW, and fought up to HW. In fact, he was easily as good or better a win than Gavilan.

And yeah, Armstrong was pretty much shot. I could name a few wins on Greb's resume better than that given the circumstances. Loughran for instance.

[dmille]

Emile Griffith has a deep rez.

[brownpimp88]

tyson #72, dempsey#15, that has always puzzled me.

You would think beating an old holmes is a hella of lot better than beating an old ass willard. Michael spinks is probably greater head to head and p4p, than anyone dempsey ever beat like gibbons and carpentier.

Most of dempseys opponents were 190lbs and under. Tyson beat real heavyweights like bruno, thomas, berbick, ruddock, tucker, williams, tubbs, bonecrusher, botha, seldon and golota. Please, his resume is vastly superior and on film, tyson is miles ahead of jack overrated dempsey.

[sweet_scientist]

You are confusing no decisions with newspaper decisions. Newspaper decisions were a way of sorting bets out, nothing more. Many of the fighters listed as being 'defeated' were well known for just going though the motions in no decision bouts.

If you were Maxie Rosenbloom, you were hardly going to stop Greb, so going the full 10 rounds was best you could do. On top of this maybe a small wager against yourself to boost your pay? Also Maxie had 13 bouts in the first eight months of 1925, so he was unlikely to give more than the minimum required...

Works both ways though. Greb could have made some wagers against himself and gone through the motions getting slapped around by Maxie to increase his pay.

I think it's too convenient to dismss the vast array of Greb wins with such an answer. Sure, it might have happened to some degree, but it applies to everyone of that era and Greb still trumps them all.

[Sonny's jab]

they have much better resumes than jack dempsey. I agree with him on that point.

Tyson's resume is better than dempseys, and if you want to argue that, i will have a fun time doing it.

What's the point? I've heard it all before.
I'd rather spend my time reading real knowledge and researching the real history, finding out what Arcel, Igoe, Stillman etc. had to say about fighters of the era, than read the same predictable and poorly-researched perceptions of what those fighters were all about.

[Sonny's jab]

If we're talking ratio of great or very good fighters to total number of fights, then Jim Jeffries deserves a mention.

[rekcutnevets]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea
De La Hoya outdoes leonard by a good margin if we're talking depth of resumes. But if we're talking top wins, Leonard clearly holds the edge.

In terms of what the TS originally said, which is resume in terms of ratio of top fights to overall number of fights, DLH ranks right up there(on opposition faced), along with a guy like Whitaker(on opposition beaten), and obviously Ali.

In terms of overall resume, in terms of deepest and highest quality of opposition beaten period, I'd say Harry Greb.

I was drinking, as usual, and did not pay attention to all the words that were in front of me at the time. Now I have to get my calculator, and another beer.

[ListonsJab]

Archie Moor easily. Sugar Ray Robinson's doesnt compare to the ole mongoose because he never faced any members of the black murders row like moore did.

[Sweet Pea]

Archie Moor easily. Sugar Ray Robinson's doesnt compare to the ole mongoose because he never faced any members of the black murders row like moore did.Ezzard Charles's resume>Archie Moore's.

[TBooze]

Works both ways though. Greb could have made some wagers against himself and gone through the motions getting slapped around by Maxie to increase his pay.

I think it's too convenient to dismss the vast array of Greb wins with such an answer. Sure, it might have happened to some degree, but it applies to everyone of that era and Greb still trumps them all.

Sure; that is why every newspaper decision should be taken with a pinch of salt...

Particularly those with lots of them, like Rosenbloom and Greb. It is impossible to call them sound, because of the reasons we put down. Favours were done for betting syndicates; favours were done for fellow peers and fighters very often were fighting so often it was impossible to give your best all the time.