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

[billeau2]

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

I think Pep is using a cart to draw a horse here Maybe when we put fighters who are entertaining like Gatti and Rocky (yes he is in there) we have devalued the HOF.

[billeau2]

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'

Rockin,
what about "styles" and making fights? JOnes was so quick, so difficult to counter. It would seem to take a lot of Toney's shoulder movements and counters out of play. It would have been interesting to see if Toney could have done better. He adapted well in the ring, but I can't think of a more nightmare scenario than having to counter Jones!

[Willie Pep 229]

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.

SRL never had Duran hiding in a shell the way Jones scared Hopkins. Had the fight moved on SRL just might have stepped up his attack. There were still seven rounds left and Leonard didn't scare easy.

Jones always played it safe. Boring is not domination.

We watched Jones and Hopkins pose in front of each other for seven boring rounds.

No reason to reference the Duran fight. Not the same thing.

We just have a very different definition of domination.

We'll never find common ground. But that's OK we don't need to.

[billeau2]

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.

Its a point to consider: I actually have no problem with HOF being for the casuals. Heck you can even give some type of props to a fighter's entertainment level. Seldom do we really discuss "HOF level" fighters here because ATG is a greater designation in boxing. Not the same with baseball. You have to be an ATG to get into Cooperstown!

[IronDanHamza]

SRL never had Duran hiding in a shell the way Jones scared Hopkins. Had the fight moved on SRL just might have stepped up his attack. There were still seven rounds left and Leonard didn't scare easy.

Jones always played it safe. Boring is not domination.

We watched Jones and Hopkins pose in front of each other for seven boring rounds.

No reason to reference the Duran fight. Not the same thing.

We just have a very different definition of domination.

We'll never find common ground. But that's OK we don't need to.

I'm not talking about Hopkins, Jones had one hand for that fight so I'm not surprised he coasted.

I'm talking about Toney, where he dropped him and totally dominated him from start to finish.

[DeeMoney]

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.

I think we are talking about a few different things; lemme see if I got this right.

1) The Hall of Fame- I get what you are writing about inducting based on fame (or more accurately famousness), but thats a different discussion. This is measuring ATG status, not HOF worthiness. And though I'd rather not let famousness be a criteria in HOF inductions it is a different discussion all together from ATG rating.

2)Entertainment value- This is similar to the above point, but maybe more in line with the discussion. I think the primary material difference is that while sports are a form of entertainment, and boxing is a sport, unlike other forms of entertainment, sports have a defined end goal for accomplishment: winning the competition. For example, the Harlem Globetrotters are very entertaining, but would not win an actual basketball game vs any NBA team (regardless of how boring they are).

This conversation, I believe along with others of its ilk, are more about which fighter is more capable of winning- not entertaining. Now, if you are talking about which is most capable of entertaining as the mark for ATG, and I am talk about more capable of winning, then its apples to oranges. But I believe for most people, when measuring boxers greatness, or H2H matchups, or accomplishments, resumes, whatever, they are focusing on ability to win.

[billeau2]

I think we are talking about a few different things; lemme see if I got this right.

1) The Hall of Fame- I get what you are writing about inducting based on fame (or more accurately famousness), but thats a different discussion. This is measuring ATG status, not HOF worthiness. And though I'd rather not let famousness be a criteria in HOF inductions it is a different discussion all together from ATG rating.

2)Entertainment value- This is similar to the above point, but maybe more in line with the discussion. I think the primary material difference is that while sports are a form of entertainment, and boxing is a sport, unlike other forms of entertainment, sports have a defined end goal for accomplishment: winning the competition. For example, the Harlem Globetrotters are very entertaining, but would not win an actual basketball game vs any NBA team (regardless of how boring they are).

This conversation, I believe along with others of its ilk, are more about which fighter is more capable of winning- not entertaining. Now, if you are talking about which is most capable of entertaining as the mark for ATG, and I am talk about more capable of winning, then its apples to oranges. But I believe for most people, when measuring boxers greatness, or H2H matchups, or accomplishments, resumes, whatever, they are focusing on ability to win.

You know... One of the caveats of bringing in "dominance" as a criteria is that it opens the horse up to g a d f l i es like Pep (takes one to know one lol): His point seems to be "If we are qualifying HOW people win, the quality of the win as secondary criteria, why not include the entertainment value of the win?" Dominance, entertainment are both secondary attributes, somewhat related to fighting.

It is a fair point, I would counter it by discussing the relative intrinsic quality of both attributes to winning, boxing. Dominance is directly related to the quality of one's goal to win the fight. Entertainment is not directly related to the quality of winning the fight, as the goal is to please the audience. There are exceptions to this where we can make entertainment a secondary, but vital part of winning: What about ATG trash talkers and clowners like Ali? and my favorite Mayorga? If entertaining the crowd is part of psychologically gaining an advantage it is interesting to consider, even if it is not a primary quality related to winning a fight.

[Willie Pep 229]

I think we are talking about a few different things; lemme see if I got this right.

1) The Hall of Fame- I get what you are writing about inducting based on fame (or more accurately famousness), but thats a different discussion. This is measuring ATG status, not HOF worthiness. And though I'd rather not let famousness be a criteria in HOF inductions it is a different discussion all together from ATG rating.

2)Entertainment value- This is similar to the above point, but maybe more in line with the discussion. I think the primary material difference is that while sports are a form of entertainment, and boxing is a sport, unlike other forms of entertainment, sports have a defined end goal for accomplishment: winning the competition. For example, the Harlem Globetrotters are very entertaining, but would not win an actual basketball game vs any NBA team (regardless of how boring they are).

This conversation, I believe along with others of its ilk, are more about which fighter is more capable of winning- not entertaining. Now, if you are talking about which is most capable of entertaining as the mark for ATG, and I am talk about more capable of winning, then its apples to oranges. But I believe for most people, when measuring boxers greatness, or H2H matchups, or accomplishments, resumes, whatever, they are focusing on ability to win.

Yes that is very much the mantra of this forum.

What I thought we were discussing was whether the term 'dominate' needs to be part of the defintion of ATG.

So with my argument, if you are dominating you are entertaining.

If you're playing it safe and deliberately winning by points, you're not entertaining (except to the knowledged few).

That's why I challenged the opinion that entertainment in not important. IMO Dominance and entertainment go hand in hand.

So does a fighter like Calzaghe deserved to be called an ATG? Certainly never viewed as a dominate fighter.

BTW He is in the HOF.

[DeeMoney]

Yes that is very much the mantra of this forum.

What I thought we were discussing was whether the term 'dominate' needs to be part of the defintion of ATG.

So with my argument, if you are dominating you are entertaining.

If you're playing it safe and deliberately winning by points, you're not entertaining (except to the knowledged few).

That's why I challenged the opinion that entertainment in not important. IMO Dominance and entertainment go hand in hand.

So does a fighter like Calzaghe deserved to be called an ATG? Certainly never viewed as a dominate fighter.

BTW He is in the HOF.

I would argue that "no" entertainment is should not be a criteria in evaluating ATG. As being more entertaining does not necessarily lead one to being closer to the goal of winning the match (or at least it shouldn't).

While we may not be able to precisely measure dominance, or have a cohesive definition for what defines it in regards to boxing, we know that in general dominance refers to the relative level of which one was able to achieve the goal of winning the match. The measured variable is in ring success in regards to winning matches; entertainment is an offshoot of such, but ancillary to the goal. Of this we may disagree, but at least we understand the disagreement and can accept either's opinion.

The Calzaghe question is borderline Red Herring to the main question in that there are other variables in play.
1) where do we draw the demarcation line for being an ATG relative tot he next step down (This was a thread here recently)?
2) Where do we accept Calzaghe's place in that ranking?
3) Can there be other variables in the ATG equation? I wrote yes, longevity and accomplishments do play a part, but dominance at prime is my number one criteria.
4) What was Calzaghe's level for all of those criteria for greatness and how do they balance out?
5) What is his entertainment quotient, if it does play a part in measuring his greatness, and do we only view him as great with entertainment measured or do other factors come into play?

[Slugfester]

Dominance will always play an ineluctable role in sports evaluations. So it is not as if it can be thrown out of the discussion anyway. If it were one's sole criterion, would there often be very misleading evaluations as a net whole? With longevity as our sole criterion, we will run into big contradictions before long, too. How about punch resistance? Same thing: Lamotta and Chuvalo must be the greatest fighters that ever lived.

All criteria together form a gestalt we can all believe to be best suited for the attempt. The only question that remains is how heavily to weight each category. I can only give you my own list.

In broad terms:

1 Success
2 Opposition
3 Consistency
4 Improvement
5 Dominance

And even broader:

1 Charisma
2 Management
3 Boxing