to be an all time legend?
i see fighters of yesteryear and i see the fighters they beat and some names don't look impressive to me.maybe it's because i live today and not yesteryear,but when we get into debates with other fight fans we start arguing about resumes and styles of fighting.in your opinion what makes a legendary all timer?

1. Guy has to be around for a while.
2. He has to be a top guy for the bulk of his career.
3. He has to have beaten top guys of his era
4. Good for him to have dominated top guys, just as good or better for him to have gotten hurt, rallied from behind, came of the canvas, etc. to win
5. He has to have taken on all comers without duckin anybody

Basicely he has to make a big impact on the sport. Can be done in many diffirent ways.

Basicely he has to make a big impact on the sport. Can be done in many diffirent ways.

Good point.

1. Guy has to be around for a while.
2. He has to be a top guy for the bulk of his career.
3. He has to have beaten top guys of his era
4. Good for him to have dominated top guys, just as good or better for him to have gotten hurt, rallied from behind, came of the canvas, etc. to win
5. He has to have taken on all comers without duckin anybody
this is they way they should 'BECOME' a legend.there aren't manyy i can think of.
Basicely he has to make a big impact on the sport. Can be done in many diffirent ways.

i agree with both,but when you look at a lot of legends they do more of what you said.

1. Guy has to be around for a while.
2. He has to be a top guy for the bulk of his career.
3. He has to have beaten top guys of his era
4. Good for him to have dominated top guys, just as good or better for him to have gotten hurt, rallied from behind, came of the canvas, etc. to win
5. He has to have taken on all comers without duckin anybody

Why just as good or better to have gotten hurt, rallied from behind or come off the canvas, etc????

Surely it is better if the fighter is that good that he doesnt need to?
I don't like or rate the bloke as much as most people on this site but PBF is not liked a lot because he has never HAD to do those things!? Surely once in a while it is more impressive to say someone is just a level above?! (obviously to say this you must assume they have never ducked anyone and not always taken the Otkke route:nono: ) IMO

Why just as good or better to have gotten hurt, rallied from behind or come off the canvas, etc????

Surely it is better if the fighter is that good that he doesnt need to?
I don't like or rate the bloke as much as most people on this site but PBF is not liked a lot because he has never HAD to do those things!? Surely once in a while it is more impressive to say someone is just a level above?! (obviously to say this you must assume they have never ducked anyone and not always taken the Otkke route:nono: ) IMO

That's what I was referring to. Some people hate on guys like Roy Jones, Hopkins, Tyson, and Floyd for bein so dominant during their big runs that it became boring. I don't have nothin against fighters who achieve their greatness by easily overmatching everybody they fight. Not a good thing to have all your big wins be by SD or sumthin, but it just adds a little to a man's aura to know that he's gone to war and been damaged but still come out on top IMO.

That's what I was referring to. Some people hate on guys like Roy Jones, Hopkins, Tyson, and Floyd for bein so dominant during their big runs that it became boring. I don't have nothin against fighters who achieve their greatness by easily overmatching everybody they fight. Not a good thing to have all your big wins be by SD or sumthin, but it just adds a little to a man's aura to know that he's gone to war and been damaged but still come out on top IMO.

My apologies, just a little confused! Agree with you in terms of reputation! for example even though not a atg, Gatti will be remembered for years