Bert Sugar ''Pep, B. Leonard, Greb, and Louis are Greater Than Ali''

[Miburo]

Leonard fought in the best era of lightweights at a time when boxing was much more popular, as well as populated, and Greb beat a who's who of great fighters. Out of the original weight classes I believe heavyweight sports the least talent historically. Ali's era was great and his opponents were top notch, but I just don't seeing them being as tough or as talented as the fighters Leonard and Greb beat.

I find Greb and Leonard's level of competition quite astonishing.

I've seen Gene Tunney, Tommy Loughran, Mickey Walker, Willie Ritchie, Freddie Welsh, Jimmy Delaney, Kid Norfolk, Tommy Gibbons, Mike Gibbons, Mike O'Dowd, Mike McTigue, Lew Tendler and Ted "Kid" Lewis on film, all were very impressive fighters.

Boxing was not the same sort of sport at the time, the skill sets were completely different. If we're comparing who were the best in their era, then they certainly rank up there. But it's no different than baseball - the best of the time were exponentially better than the average of the time, whereas in the past 100 years the gap has gotten smaller between world-class fighters. I give Leonard and Greb all the credit in the world (although there is virtually no footage of them in their primes), but I think one can hold the time they fought in against them just as much as one holds it against modern fighters that they don't have 200 bouts against absolutely everyone.

[TheGreatA]

Boxing was not the same sort of sport at the time, the skill sets were completely different. If we're comparing who were the best in their era, then they certainly rank up there. But it's no different than baseball - the best of the time were exponentially better than the average of the time, whereas in the past 100 years the gap has gotten smaller between world-class fighters. I give Leonard and Greb all the credit in the world (although there is virtually no footage of them in their primes), but I think one can hold the time they fought in against them just as much as one holds it against modern fighters that they don't have 200 bouts against absolutely everyone.

Personally I don't see how the skill sets of the fighters I mentioned were so different. The 1920's were much different to the late 1800's and very early 1900's. You could no longer get by with just being tough and the rules were more modern with shorter fights, less clinching.

I see it as a transitional period from old days to a more modern form of boxing, but the likes of Benny Leonard and Harry Greb were undoubtedly great fighters nonetheless.

These are no average fighters we're talking about either, they were all very good to great fighters. Obviously Leonard and Greb fought many average fighters as well, but that's not why they're viewed as great. Both fought numerous world champions. I don't rate Greb highly because of the amount of fights he had, it's because of the amount of fights he had against top opposition from middleweight up to heavyweight.

[Miburo]

Personally I don't see how the skill sets of the fighters I mentioned were so different. The 1920's were much different to the late 1800's and very early 1900's. You could no longer get by with just being tough and the rules were more modern with shorter fights, less clinching.

These are no average fighters we're talking about either, they were all very good to great fighters. Obviously Leonard and Greb fought many average fighters as well, but that's not why they're viewed as great. Both fought numerous world champions. I don't rate Greb highly because of the amount of fights he had, it's because of the amount of fights he had against top opposition from middleweight up to heavyweight.

I think the best fighters of the early 1900s were pretty comparable, fighters like Corbett and Johnson developed outfighting around that time (hands down, keep at distance, pick shots and don't engage). What I mean to say (and I echo Ali to an extent in this) is that the science was still pretty crudely developed. Only the best fighters really knew how to break down opponents, blocking defense was severely lacking, and even the best often didn't remain disciplined (Dempsey for example looks way better in sparring than in most of his actual fights).

[TheGreatA]

I think the best fighters of the early 1900s were pretty comparable, fighters like Corbett and Johnson developed outfighting around that time (hands down, keep at distance, pick shots and don't engage). What I mean to say (and I echo Ali to an extent in this) is that the science was still pretty crudely developed. Only the best fighters really knew how to break down opponents, blocking defense was severely lacking, and even the best often didn't remain disciplined (Dempsey for example looks way better in sparring than in most of his actual fights).

Corbett however had very out-dated punching technique and Johnson in most of his fights actually dominated his opponents in close, fighting out of the clinches. The likes of Tunney, Loughran were true outfighters. Watch Tunney spar with Corbett for example, Corbett is tricky and crafty but Tunney punches straighter and uses a lot of upperbody movement and the shoulders for defense while Corbett relied on head feints, pulling back and countering which he got away with in the old days, but likely not with a combination puncher like Tunney.

Blocking wasn't as effective with smaller gloves, most boxers would rather use their feet, the shoulders, head and upperbody movement to avoid punches. There were still fighters like Jack "Kid" Berg and Paul Berlenbach who held their hands higher and blocked punches, but often times it was the fleet-footed opponents who had the better of them, see Berlenbach-Delaney or Berg vs Canzoneri.

Dempsey relied on brute aggression a lot, but he had problems with calm and collected fighters like Tunney and Gibbons.