Which is a better testament of greatness?

Trust me I pretty much agree, I dont have a list and anyone who isnt old enough as a Bert Sugar or older guy cant really make one IMO simply because they dont really know the climate of boxing during all of those times and what was going on. But I pretty much agree if its based on resume, other things come into play in boxing than say speed, quickness and the like, heart, toughness, will and durability shouldnt be overlooked. ...Agreed.

Any clear thinking person would pick option 2 I'd imagine. I think many may put Roy there not because of his resume but because of the things they saw in the ring, so hypothetically the thinking is that even though he didnt fight such and such, he would have won anyway. The same way he may not have the resume as some of those guys, Roy fans might bring up that some ahead of him dont have the talent and gifts Roy had either. So they have the resume lack the talent, he has the talent and lacks the resume, therefore there decisions are justified in their thinking. Seeing a fighter dominate over lesser comp isn't a true indicator of how he may do against other great fighters with varying styles. It doesn't compare to showing your mettle against other top notch fighters. Talent and gifts are also misleading. If they weren't Zab Judah would be being discussed as an all time great. There have been many fighters in history who haven't had near Roys natural gifts, but they PROVED themselves against other great fighters. I'll say what I said in the other thread I was posting in....blame the era. Blame the lack of talented opponents. But in no way can a comparison be made when discussing Roy's, Calzaghe, Floyd or Manny's place against top 20 all time fighters. Their records just don't warrant them being ranked that high. Anything else is guesswork.

Not just Floyd. Calzaghe did the same. Fighting great fighters with mixed results is just that....you get mixed resutls. That's how you get guys like Hatton who is an excellent fighter by all normal standards...but just could quite break that plane of greatness. Also Vargas. Some excellent wins...but some brutal losses to some greats as well. But at least nobody questions his place among the greats because he dared to be great. Thank you.

I knew it. So Floyd fought weak opposition with a few exceptions in between? Not just Floyd. Calzaghe did the same. Fighting great fighters with mixed results is just that....you get mixed resutls. That's how you get guys like Hatton who is an excellent fighter by all normal standards...but just could quite break that plane of greatness. Also Vargas. Some excellent wins...but some brutal losses to some greats as well. But at least nobody questions his place among the greats because he dared to be great.

So far this poll is unanimus. So the obvious next question is, why are so many talented fighters of today suddenly being talked about as greater than more accomplished fighters who took on better comp? Why ask a question with an obvious answer? It was designed to lead to the question above. I hear so many people on here claim their favorite fighters are amonst the best fighters all time because of this or that. How can anybody justify that when you look things from this point of view?

So whats the comparison again, are you saying Roy, Pac and Floyd fall into what categories? Im saying those are the three I was thinking of when I came up with this thread. I was talking with another poster who said Roy Jones was a top 20 all time fighter, in another thread, and I just don't see it that way. How can any fighter be compared to other great fighters if their resume isn't on par with them? Im not belittling any of these guys, but Im not giving them a free pass to all time top 20 status either just because they fight today. So what in your opinion is a better testament of greatness? Option 1, or option 2?

JCC had like 10 good fights and 90% bums. I love JCC but he would be more towards #1, like Floyd or Calzaghe. Oscar is a #2, but you really cant say that JCC is lower than Oscar all time. He fought everybody there was to fight, some excellent fighters. Can't fault a man for that. Jones and DEFINITELY not Pac do not belong as option 1's. Manny might not, but Jones (one of my favorite fighters) does. Thru no fault of his own, most of his comp was very weak in comparison to other greats he gets compared with.

I knew it. So Floyd fought weak opposition with a few exceptions in between? Compared to most of the greats his name gets tossed around with on this forum? Absolutely. Same as Manny and Roy. Do you think his resume is even comparable to any top 20 all time fighter with multiple losses? What abouit Roy or Pac?

What about him? JCC had like 10 good fights and 90% bums. I love JCC but he would be more towards #1, like Floyd or Calzaghe. Oscar is a #2, but you really cant say that JCC is lower than Oscar all time. Jones and DEFINITELY not Pac do not belong as option 1's.

Fighting the great's without question. Just take a look at the top 10 ATG and see for yourself.

Fightin the gr8s. Every fighter lives off the names of his opponents. If the names are no names, the fighter gets no cred. There are exceptions to this, but for the most part takin a loss and comin back is part of a fighter's gr8ness.

You can almost tell the two people TS has in mind. Just something seems funny about it. Actually its 3 people. Jones, Floyd and Pac. Does that change the facts?

Question and poll seems kinda bias. Whats biased about it?

which one is he? many people consider him great because of all the fights he had and won. But in your opinion is he that great? He's fought some excellent fighters and a boatload of other top fighters, as well as his losses to some great guys. Rueban Castillo, Lockridge, LaPorte, Rosario, Limon, Ramirez, Taylor, Camacho, Oscar, Whitaker. Add to that his longevity and I think he clearly belongs amongst option B.

What about him? which one is he? many people consider him great because of all the fights he had and won. But in your opinion is he that great?

So far this poll is unanimus. So the obvious next question is, why are so many talented fighters of today suddenly being talked about as greater than more accomplished fighters who took on better comp?

What is a better testament of greatness...Dominating a reletively weak crop of fighters with a few exception in between? Or fighting many great fighters and holding your own with more wins than losses, but a checkered record just the same? Discuss. Fighting great fighters even with loses. For example, Edwin Valero has a good record but has not fought great fighters, therefore is not that famous.

so what about JCC?:confused: What about him?

so what about JCC?:confused:

holyfields resume is rediculous #2 by far