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

[Rockin']

Your belief is irrelevant.

They shared the ring for 12 rounds, we have the data. Toney is 10 levels below Jones, perhaps more.

On that night Jones was far superior to Toney, I never disputed that fact.

If James were 10 levels below Jones than why was Jones unable to stop him?

And your belief is irrelevant...................Rockin'

[IronDanHamza]

On that night Jones was far superior to Toney, I never disputed that fact.

If James were 10 levels below Jones than why was Jones unable to stop him?

And your belief is irrelevent...................Rockin'

Again with the excuses. He's vastly superior to him "that night", last night, and any night.

Jones didn't stop him because he didn't have to come out of second gear and Toney has one of the ATG chins.

He didn't need to stop him to show he was 10 levels above him as a fighter, which he is. He not only showed that in their respective careers but when they fought each other in the ring.

[Willie Pep 229]

I don't know if you are being sarcastic.....

No I'm not.

Fame has a big part in the HOF.

Using the current word in play 'dominate' can you actually find a period where Mancini was ever dominate in any weight-class? No!

Yet there he is.

Joe Calzaghe as well. Do you think he is 'famous'? Do you think he brought fame to the fight game?

Prize fighting is entertainment. If you don't entertain you hurt the game and drive the new generation to MMA.

Purist who love to brag about their suposed expertise in technique and then match fighters in fictitious bouts (often decades apart) are made up of the very few posting this forum. While they hate to believe it, their opinions actually mean nothing.

It's the cauals who drive the game, with their PPV buys. They are the ones who count and they want to be entertained.

Numbers (great win-lose records or great boxing technique) alone won't buy you fame, (doesn't sell tickets) ask Packey McFarlen or Charly Burley just how much winning gets you when you can't bring the house to its feet.

Fans and ringside celebrities actually walked out of a Mayweather fight because this 'master of technique' bored them to sleep.

[Rockin']

Again with the excuses. He's vastly superior to him "that night", last night, and any night.

Jones didn't stop him because he didn't have to come out of second gear and Toney has one of the ATG chins.

He didn't need to stop him to show he was 10 levels above him as a fighter, which he is. He not only showed that in their respective careers but when they fought each other in the ring.

What excuse was in my last post? .....................Rockin'

[Willie Pep 229]

Again with the excuses. He's vastly superior to him "that night", last night, and any night.

Jones didn't stop him because he didn't have to come out of second gear and Toney has one of the ATG chins.

He didn't need to stop him to show he was 10 levels above him as a fighter, which he is. He not only showed that in their respective careers but when they fought each other in the ring.

'Wouldn't' come out of second gear -- is the correct word, not 'didn't have to.

You just made my argument -- Jones chose to play it safe and wait for three fat men to tell him he's great. That not a dominate fighter.

Roy Jones pulled same stall act in Hopkins I. Once Hopkins realized he couldn't match Jones that night he went into a shell and fought just to survive. Jones then didn't step up his game, no he just said 'good enough' and was content once again to just wait out the scores.

If SRL or Hagler had Toney or Hopkins at bay would they have stepped up their game or would they play it safe like Jones?

[billeau2]

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.

Pep... The whole point here is that a close fight is not a dominant performance. I mean its another criteria... When duran beat leonard, the fact that it was a great fight takes nothing away from either guy, but is it the same as how Jones beat Toney? And I am not getting into a relative ATG/not ATG debate... One performance is more dominant than the other. It is another measure, and as some, Like Dee Money said, it can be a very important way/criteria for judging greatness. Especially when we have relatively great fights and fighters.

[billeau2]

Dominance is a slippery slope. A fighter like Floyd did just enough to win rounds and come away with a decison and he was content wih that. While other great fighters went in with the intent on knocking out their opponent and taking the fight to them. One method is low risk-high reward, the other is high risk-high reward. Most fans appreciate those who take high risks and try not to leave the fight in the hands of the judges.

I think it is more than the risk factor: Some great fighters fight to the level of their opposition, it is built into their DNA, so to speak. I tend to think Whitaker was like that, Floyd at times as well, even some greats like Maxie Rosenbloom it was said would fight that way. But we have to just accept that domination as a measure of greatness is valid. One of the best baseball teams ever was the Oakland A team of the late sixties, or so, that won back to back penants and at least one world series, yet on paper they were not a roster of super stars, and were not dominant the way some of the great yankee teams were lined with the likes of superstars in every position.

The difference is in a sport like baseball the wins and losses tend to speak for themselves. In boxing there is an angle where Sun Tzu's admonition, to "win with no struggle shows superior tactics" kind of goes out the window lol... If we use this criteria we can give Tyson props, not only for beating Spinks, but for how he beat Spinks.

[IronDanHamza]

'Wouldn't' come out of second gear -- is the correct word, not 'didn't have to.

You just made my argument -- Jones chose to play it safe and wait for three fat men to tell him he's great. That not a dominate fighter.

Roy Jones pulled same stall act in Hopkins I. Once Hopkins realized he couldn't match Jones that night he went into a shell and fought just to survive. Jones then didn't step up his game, no he just said 'good enough' and was content once again to just wait out the scores.

If SRL or Hagler had Toney or Hopkins at bay would they have stepped up their game or would they play it safe like Jones?

He totally dominated him, dropped him and outclassed him in first gear.

That is the literal epitome of domination.

Leonard "played it safe" in the Duran rematch if that's the argument. It doesn't have any sense.

[IronDanHamza]

What excuse was in my last post? .....................Rockin'

You said "that night" implying there's a sceanrio where on a different night there would be a different outcome.

When the reality is the Toney that fought Jones is no different to any other version of Toney.

That's the excuse.

[billeau2]

It's mostly the same method, unless you are a fighter like Deontay Wilder who is in there mostly just to look for a knockout. Most fighters will tell you they don't look for the knockout but try to take advantage if an opening comes.

The point was made by Iron Dan and I think Dee Money? that a KO is not necessarily more dominant than a decision... Certainly we can look at the Jones Toney fight as a prime example of that, another one I would consider (pardon the irony here) was the Whitaker Chavez fight... in which despite the judges, Whitaker IMO had a dominant performance.

Yet, I would certainly consider Wilder's KO's an example of a KO showing a dominant performance. As long as we consider the competition it shouldn't skew a fighters relative merits... Wilder's KO of a typical opponent while certainly impressive, is not as impressive as Foreman's treatment of Frazier... for example.