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

[billeau2]

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

I find that as I actually learn something about boxing now and then, through time, it forces me to reevaluate my criteria and the weight of categories. That is why I enjoy looking at independent variables... to juxtapose with each other. My concern for this category came when I noticed we have great fighters and some of them have two, even three careers, others are incredible then fade, sooner than others. I asked myself "how could we compare fighters consistently in this regard? I mean perfect example, one great way to look at Gene Tunney is as a dominant light heavy... then we can compare him to Jones for example in at least one meaningful way among others. it seems to work with any fighter, as long as we do not over emphasize its value.

[QueensburyRules]

- - SuperJoe moved up to LH for his coming to America movement and emasculated his two American rivals without regard to his 0.