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

[Tony Trick-Pony]

I would say how many champions they faced is a good category. How many champions they beat would be another. Even in this belt-rich era, the best hold titles at some point except for the great Sam Langford and given his shot, he would have been a champion no doubt. Now there were other great fighters who were never champions too but maybe how many fighters did they face who at least challenged for titles could be figured in as well.

[billeau2]

I would say how many champions they faced is a good category. How many champions they beat would be another. Even in this belt-rich era, the best hold titles at some point except for the great Sam Langford and given his shot, he would have been a champion no doubt. Now there were other great fighters who were never champions too but maybe how many fighters did they face who at least challenged for titles could be figured in as well.

I think that belts and champions can be relative. This is one of the reasons why I love the lineal: It is absolute. Bronner won plenty of belts, and all of them were crap, meanwhile Burley never won a belt and was an incredible fighter.

[DeeMoney]

1) I prefer peak as opposed to career as a whole. I want to know how consistently good they were at their best, not writing that there isn't something to be said for longevity (see Manny), but its just not what I am looking at.

2) Who they best, who they lost to, and how'd they do it and when they did it. There are guys out there who got a lot of shady decisions or things of that nature, and those who caught the raw end of that so have to look at how the fight went down. Also take into account when they fought (measuring the quality of the opponent at the time); beating a guy in his prime is a lot better than beating him when he is near retirement. Though I don't take into account who they missed (alleged ducked). I am evaluating who they were in the ring, not things ancillary to that- its a lot of politics also that is not really what I am judging.

3) Eye Test- I'll readily admit it, and am ready to get mocked for it. But in lieu of measurable analytics gotta predicate on what I see. Take into account all aspects I can (speed, punches, skills, movement, smarts, etc, etc) then try to measure them as fairly as I can in regards to how they contribute to said fighters ability to win in the ring.

[cfang]

Quality of opp is huge! Greb is my all time no 1 because his qual of opp and so many wins is pretty much unparalleled

[Tony Trick-Pony]

I think that belts and champions can be relative. This is one of the reasons why I love the lineal: It is absolute. Bronner won plenty of belts, and all of them were crap, meanwhile Burley never won a belt and was an incredible fighter.

Yeah, I know. It can be tough. Maybe it shouldn't be a factor but what factors do we go by that are actual concrete facts?

[billeau2]

Yeah, I know. It can be tough. Maybe it shouldn't be a factor but what factors do we go by that are actual concrete facts?

I love tape. In Martial Arts we used to think you could look at how a guy moves on the regular, and tell a whole bunch about his movement skills, and hence his ability. In Boxing tape shows what a fighter actually could do. For example, if you watch the Jimmy Young Foreman fight... It is obvious that Young is a highly skilled fighter, who counter punched, moved around well, and showed angles, defense, etc.

That is a great question.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

I love tape. In Martial Arts we used to think you could look at how a guy moves on the regular, and tell a whole bunch about his movement skills, and hence his ability. In Boxing tape shows what a fighter actually could do. For example, if you watch the Jimmy Young Foreman fight... It is obvious that Young is a highly skilled fighter, who counter punched, moved around well, and showed angles, defense, etc.

That is a great question.

Frazier an arm puncher. Old War Room. Hahaha. Clueless.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Quality of opp is huge! Greb is my all time no 1 because his qual of opp and so many wins is pretty much unparalleled

Oh his resume is hard to argue against.

[15round]

If a fighter didn't duck anyone and fared well in most of the fights that makes them great if they were champions. If the fans wanted them to fight someone and they did you have to credit them more than fighters like Mayweather and Pac that choose fights based on their chances to win and make the most money. All those factors mentioned are important but if you can remember a fighter that always fought the fans choice that would be the most important. I can't say there are many active fighters today, if any at all that can be classified like that.

[QueensburyRules]

If a fighter didn't duck anyone and fared well in most of the fights that makes them great if they were champions. If the fans wanted them to fight someone and they did you have to credit them more than fighters like Mayweather and Pac that choose fights based on their chances to win and make the most money. All those factors mentioned are important but if you can remember a fighter that always fought the fans choice that would be the most important. I can't say there are many active fighters today, if any at all that can be classified like that.

- -Two easy, too obvious choices today are Manny and Canelo, but of course the off the wall prejudice against their physical characteristics makes them a magnet for lowbrow trolls to low blow as if that might somehow make them disappear...just sayin'...