What factors do you consider when determining a fighter’s greatness?

[billeau2]

We can all agree that quality of opposition and overall skills are primary factors when considering fighters for all time greatness. But what other traits or intangibles do you consider?

Do you consider longevity and durability? Does it require a certain degree of “greatness” to come out with a winning record after 100, 200 or more fights? Do we factor that in when comparing a fighter with 200 fights to one with 40 or less fights? How do we compare and rank Leonard with 40 fights to Robinson with 200? Or Spinks with 32 fights to Moore with over 200?

How about how they come back from losses, or cope with adversity during a fight? Recover from KO losses, have successful comebacks, fight and win beyond a certain age? How hard did they challenge themselves, or did they play it safe?

What are the most important factors to you?

The one caveat is how we look at the quality of opposition in the Heavyweight division. There are statistically less people who are in the division and often "quality" can be discerned, not with fellow great fighters, so much as the general skill lesson of the opposition. Most ATG heavyweights did not necessarily face fellow ATG fighters. BUT you look at what opponents who are fighting Liston are doing in the ring, versus what opponents fighting Vlad are doing in the ring... there is a gigantic difference in what one sees in the ring: Against Vlad the typical storied amatuer, Eastern Euro opponent shuffles a few times, jabs, repeats... repeats repeats.... A typical Liston opponent moves defensively, counters, tries to go to the body, fights in all ranges, etc.

[GhostofDempsey]

The one caveat is how we look at the quality of opposition in the Heavyweight division. There are statistically less people who are in the division and often "quality" can be discerned, not with fellow great fighters, so much as the general skill lesson of the opposition. Most ATG heavyweights did not necessarily face fellow ATG fighters. BUT you look at what opponents who are fighting Liston are doing in the ring, versus what opponents fighting Vlad are doing in the ring... there is a gigantic difference in what one sees in the ring: Against Vlad the typical storied amatuer, Eastern Euro opponent shuffles a few times, jabs, repeats... repeats repeats.... A typical Liston opponent moves defensively, counters, tries to go to the body, fights in all ranges, etc.

That's where the eyeball test comes in. Floyd Patterson was an immensely talented fighter, but in way over his head against Liston. It wasn't just Liston's size advantage, it was his superior skill that allowed for those two quick KO wins. Cleveland Williams in his prime was another highly underrated contender, and according to Foreman one of the three hardest hitters he ever sparred or fought in the ring. I would actually pick a prime Williams to beat a prime Wlad. Call me crazy.

[billeau2]

That's where the eyeball test comes in. Floyd Patterson was an immensely talented fighter, but in way over his head against Liston. It wasn't just Liston's size advantage, it was his superior skill that allowed for those two quick KO wins. Cleveland Williams in his prime was another highly underrated contender, and according to Foreman one of the three hardest hitters he ever sparred or fought in the ring. I would actually pick a prime Williams to beat a prime Wlad. Call me crazy.

Nope... agree with you. And great point. Patterson was a fantastic fighter with fast hands. Williams was a lot more dangerous than Corey sanders...And I like Sanders.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

I think it would be cool to set up a points system. For one, you get so many points for how many years you were active. I think longevity should count. It is very difficult to keep coming back year after year. Or maybe just the sheer number of fights. An old-timer with over a hundred fights starts way ahead of a lot of guys but rightfully so. However, if the guy only fought garbage, the other sections will balance him out. I would say champions beaten should be a factor but considering how easy it is to beat champions now than it used to be there would have to be some distinction since it's not fair to the old-timers when so many champions are walking around today. Even when talking about titles or competing in different divisions, I'd stick to the original eight. It's fair and relates to all fighters since the original 8 have always been there. There are tons of factors here. I'll have to think about it.

[Willie Pep 229]

I think it would be cool to set up a points system. For one, you get so many points for how many years you were active. I think longevity should count. It is very difficult to keep coming back year after year. Or maybe just the sheer number of fights. An old-timer with over a hundred fights starts way ahead of a lot of guys but rightfully so. However, if the guy only fought garbage, the other sections will balance him out. I would say champions beaten should be a factor but considering how easy it is to beat champions now than it used to be there would have to be some distinction since it's not fair to the old-timers when so many champions are walking around today. Even when talking about titles or competing in different divisions, I'd stick to the original eight. It's fair and relates to all fighters since the original 8 have always been there. There are tons of factors here. I'll have to think about it.

I wonder if we used the original eight ( maybe nine) divisions how many champions over the past 40 years ( circa 1980) have actually won THE title in three divisions?

Off the top of my head I can't think of anybody?

[QueensburyRules]

I wonder if we used the original eight ( maybe nine) divisions how many champions over the past 40 years ( circa 1980) have actually won THE title in three divisions?

Off the top of my head I can't think of anybody?

- -Manny obviously, but the only original division is open as in an all comers division.

Boxing devolves from there with evermore too often stunted convolutions, hence the difficulty in rating moderns with ol'timers. They would no doubt own more belts today, but find it harder to unify when the powers that be still squelch every fight that doesn't jib with their longterm tiptoe through the tulips career planning.

[landotter]

First of all, the opinion of those who train to, or actually have, box would mean way more than an armchair fan like me. (But I do try to be a knowledgeable one.) But I believe in keeping things simple:

1) Level of opposition, losses count. For instance, Manny tackling Spence at this point of his career is a feather in his already filled cap even if he gets blown out. Pac does not need this fight, but took it. He should be rewarded win or lose. Obviously, a win is historic, but even a loss is respectable. The opposite of this is the Rid**** Bowe/Lennex Lewis non-fight. Two great boxers in the same era never fighting is a knock against both men in my opinion, even if one is more responsible.

2) How you perform in your biggest fights. When everything is on the line and the spotlight is glaring right on you, how did you respond?

3) How versatile you are in the ring. The more ways you can beat an opponent, the more respect I have for you. Special recognition for those who improve their game as they go.

4) How you respond to a loss. You want to win them all, but so few will. So for 99.9999999% of boxers they will be defeated. I want to see what you do with that. Legends use it as motivation, and great men are respectful to the man who beat you. Both those attributes mean something to me in a career.

[Zaroku]

Ability to slip punches, hit the hip of opponents and ask the ref to stop the combat—showing grace and mercy.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

I wonder if we used the original eight ( maybe nine) divisions how many champions over the past 40 years ( circa 1980) have actually won THE title in three divisions?

Off the top of my head I can't think of anybody?

Not one of them. That's what comes from watering everything down. Standards drop. And then plummet.

[QueensburyRules]

First of all, the opinion of those who train to, or actually have, box would mean way more than an armchair fan like me. (But I do try to be a knowledgeable one.) But I believe in keeping things simple:

1) Level of opposition, losses count. For instance, Manny tackling Spence at this point of his career is a feather in his already filled cap even if he gets blown out. Pac does not need this fight, but took it. He should be rewarded win or lose. Obviously, a win is historic, but even a loss is respectable. The opposite of this is the Rid**** Bowe/Lennex Lewis non-fight. Two great boxers in the same era never fighting is a knock against both men in my opinion, even if one is more responsible.

2) How you perform in your biggest fights. When everything is on the line and the spotlight is glaring right on you, how did you respond?

3) How versatile you are in the ring. The more ways you can beat an opponent, the more respect I have for you. Special recognition for those who improve their game as they go.

4) How you respond to a loss. You want to win them all, but so few will. So for 99.9999999% of boxers they will be defeated. I want to see what you do with that. Legends use it as motivation, and great men are respectful to the man who beat you. Both those attributes mean something to me in a career.

- -An honorable and worthwhile template for greatness, but there is the emotional greatness that may be the most predominate factor in rating fighters. Boxing fans overall are less scientific in their analysis than they are grade school emotional over their favs...just sayin'...