What best defines 'Greatness': great all career or an untouchable but short peak

Career achievements/resume is by far the most important thing. Skills/talent/ability at your best is nice and all, but not nearly as important as what you achieve. People can always say "well so and so was this good and would have beaten so and so in his prime", it's all speculation and why people fight, because people get predictions wrong. Crowd-pleasing style doesn't really matter. A lot of great fighters weren't all that exciting, and there's been many fighters who were really entertaining but hardly considered "great".

I think Crowd pleasing wins like Roy Jones has will make him an all time great.

levels of opposition, crowd pleasing win or lose, is better great all career than a short untouchable span So you don't think Mayweather has the potential to be great?

levels of opposition, crowd pleasing win or lose, is better great all career than a short untouchable span

Level of opposition, skills, power, performing when going gets tough. definitely the performing when the going gets tough, that separates the good from the great. How many prospects have you seen that have all the tools, but their fight fails them?? Quite a few

I'm thinking Jones's comparatively brief but invicible reign at SMW vs say Bernards length at MW, but other examples are welcome. Obviously retiring undefeated, even as a champion does not guarantee greatness see Sven Ottke for the perfect example of capable trying to be passed off as great. What factor is the most important for you guys when you assess 'Greatness'?? Level of opposition, skills, power, performing when going gets tough.