It's a term that gets thrown around allot. But people are apt to apply their own criteria. For me, it's a kept-loose rating that combines several things, such as their sheer numbers, their quality of opponents and what they did against them. Their time spent at the top of the ratings. Their impact on the sport, their perception by the public in their own time, credit to any contributions to the science, and my very best estimates as to how they might have fared against others of their size from outside their time frame.
Many fans have built-in reservations regarding the latter point, believing that "it's not possible to make comparisons across different eras". Some in that camp beleive that boxing science has progressed continuously with each decade like the play level of team sports obviously has. Some prefer, therefore to "rate older time fighers all-time based only on what they did within their own time". Others, like myself see zero science progression in evidence over the past 100-plus years where Boxing is concerned and limit my segregation of head to head prognostications within the modern era to fighter size.
What do you see as your way of measuring a great fighter's greatness????
Many fans have built-in reservations regarding the latter point, believing that "it's not possible to make comparisons across different eras". Some in that camp beleive that boxing science has progressed continuously with each decade like the play level of team sports obviously has. Some prefer, therefore to "rate older time fighers all-time based only on what they did within their own time". Others, like myself see zero science progression in evidence over the past 100-plus years where Boxing is concerned and limit my segregation of head to head prognostications within the modern era to fighter size.
What do you see as your way of measuring a great fighter's greatness????
Comment