Dominance as a criteria for greatness? When considering ATG Status primarily?

[billeau2]

We often talk about how to consider a fighter for the rarified air, that is All Time Great status. We often consider Resume, talent, era... How does it help if we look at this category of greatness? I think it is helpful, maybe even extremely so.

Case Study Roy Jones: When we consider Jone's career lets look at it as a division: Section one pre Tarver Section two Post Tarver. If we consider his dominance, when he was winning, his great stats are obvious. Jones is a fighter who this works well with, but what stops one from applying the same criteria to any fighter? Archie Moore, an extreme example of the opposite of Jones. But like all fighters he had a period when he was at his best right?

This also helps when consider fighters who fought in two categories: someone like Tunney. We can now look at Tunney as a light heavy exclusively, for the mere purposes of this comparison.

A poster mentioned this regarding Spence in his fight coming up, I think it is a great tool to add to criteria when we look at a great fighter, namely: At their best, in their best weight class, how dominant were their wins? Especially considering the relationship of level of opposition vis a vis dominant performance. For example, Andre Ward. When we look at the level of Ward at middle/super middle, we can see how thoroughly dominant he actually was not only in who he beat, but how much better he was.

Thoughts?

[IronDanHamza]

I think dominant, clear cut victories plays a factor when ranking a fighter for sure.

[billeau2]

I think dominant, clear cut victories plays a factor when ranking a fighter for sure.

I also do. It reflects on a fighter's greatness for sure.

[_Rexy_]

Yes. It’s the reason I rank Inoue so highly, because he’s only lost 3 rounds in the last decade.

[billeau2]

Yes. It’s the reason I rank Inoue so highly, because he’s only lost 3 rounds in the last decade.

Great example!

[DeeMoney]

Dominance, specifically:

" At their best, in their best weight class, how dominant were their wins? Especially considering the relationship of level of opposition vis a vis dominant performance." As you wrote.

Is my number one criteria for measuring greatness.

I think this is a true measure for how great a boxer is/was. Moving up weights is interesting, but sometimes boxers win because of physical ability (which is okay, its a sport, athleticism should be a major factor), and frankly when they move up they don't carry that advantage with them. If you want to just measure boxing skill, moving up in weight is a better tool, but not really for greatness.

Longevity, and staying power is another measurement, and should rightfully be considered. But when comparing greats, and greatness, we tend to look at them at their best. I mean who is comparing Ali in the Holmes fight vs Louis in the Marciano fight. We compare them at their best, so prime dominance gives us that too.

Accumulated accomplishments is yet another measurement, but as we all know boxing as a business has a lot to do with who gets what shot at various belts. Some a-side guys have their careers managed well and get protected fights to grab belts, others get shafted. Domnance measures whats going on in the ring with less noise.

[Willie Pep 229]

More than the sum of its parts!

Certainly Foreman I and Foreman II creates an interesting evaluation when you apply your 'sectional' evaluation.

Taking it more to where I think Iron Dan was suggesting we go, let me offer a hypothetical:

What if a SMW goes 28-0-0 over 8 years, culminating into winning the title. We will identify him as dominating the SMW division.

But then we look and we see that the 28 wins are all UDs, coming with many, if not all, by scores of 116-112 and 115-113.

In evaluation of each of these fights we never actually see the fighter dominate. How then do we define dominance?

Example: Jones throughly outbox Toney, but did he ever dominate him? (NOTE: I included the word throughly.) Same with Hopkins I.

I didn't see domination in either fight. Just better athleticism. I don't believe merely out boxing an opponent is domination.

Yet when applying your sectional evaluation, then for me to say anything other than: "Jones dominated the SMW division" would sound wrong. He did in fact 'dominate.'

He was more than the sum of his parts. I guess.

[IronDanHamza]

More than the sum of its parts!

Certainly Foreman I and Foreman II creates an interesting evaluation when you apply your 'sectional' evaluation.

Taking it more to where I think Iron Dan was suggesting we go, let me offer a hypothetical:

What if a SMW goes 28-0-0 over 8 years, culminating into winning the title. We will identify him as dominating the SMW division.

But then we look and we see that the 28 wins are all UDs, coming with many, if not all, by scores of 116-112 and 115-113.

In evaluation of each of these fights we never actually see the fighter dominate. How then do we define dominance?

Example: Jones throughly outbox Toney, but did he ever dominate him? (NOTE: I included the word throughly.) Same with Hopkins I.

I didn't see domination in either fight. Just better athleticism. I don't believe merely out boxing an opponent is domination.

Yet when applying your sectional evaluation, then for me to say anything other than: "Jones dominated the SMW division" would sound wrong. He did in fact 'dominate.'

He was more than the sum of his parts. I guess.

You wouldn't consider Roy Jones vs James Toney a domination?

I can't think of many better examples than that.

[DeeMoney]

More than the sum of its parts!

Certainly Foreman I and Foreman II creates an interesting evaluation when you apply your 'sectional' evaluation.

Taking it more to where I think Iron Dan was suggesting we go, let me offer a hypothetical:

What if a SMW goes 28-0-0 over 8 years, culminating into winning the title. We will identify him as dominating the SMW division.

But then we look and we see that the 28 wins are all UDs, coming with many, if not all, by scores of 116-112 and 115-113.

In evaluation of each of these fights we never actually see the fighter dominate. How then do we define dominance?

Example: Jones throughly outbox Toney, but did he ever dominate him? (NOTE: I included the word throughly.) Same with Hopkins I.

I didn't see domination in either fight. Just better athleticism. I don't believe merely out boxing an opponent is domination.

Yet when applying your sectional evaluation, then for me to say anything other than: "Jones dominated the SMW division" would sound wrong. He did in fact 'dominate.'

He was more than the sum of his parts. I guess.

No to overly parse just one point, but I have a question about the bolded portion. What do you mean by "merely outboxing" in regards to something not being domination?

For example, in Crawford v Postol, Crawford basically stuck and move for the whole fight and outboxed his opponent. I would say he dominated him (and the wide scorecards back that up). But he didn't dominate him physically, he didn't pick him apart, he basically just outboxed him.

Would an example such as that fit into what you claim is NOT domination?

[joseph5620]

Yes. That's why I don't rate Canelo as high as some others do.