How has greatness changed over time?

[The Defecator]

I think the title asks the question just fine and I don't really know how to elaborate farther other than to give some examples.

At this point in history and for most of the history we cover the word "Champion" is meant to reflect a singular superior individual and so we use it in reference to greatness often. For example, Holyfield is the only x4 HW champion. Regardless of if you agree and acknowledge all of Holy's belt grabs or not as a modern fan you take the word champion in that statement to mean top guy.

Some thousand years ago the word champion is more commonly used more reflective of representation than superiority. As in I challenge you to a duel, You accept but want to allowed to send another in your stead. This other is your champion. He's there to represent you, not as a symbol of the greatest duelist of his era. So in those days champion wasn't used as often in reference to greatness as it is today.

Which is of course a semantical change to greatness, but not an arguable change to greatness. As in, it is not my opinion greatness was changed by the changing meaning of the word champion, it simply is the state of thing.


How about this? When I was young boxing fans, sports announcers, etc. used to say "You're not really the champion until you defend the title". Now, I don't really ever heard that anymore and when people talk about greatness it's really more resume comparison where defenses matter but absolutely no one is willing to take a step and say Lennox Lewis was never the undisputed champion. Did greatness changed from the 70s to the 00s? Lennox Lewis is usually considered the greatest of his era but if you're not really the champ until you a defense is true then Holyfield's probably the greatest, Mike made the most defenses of undisputed so you could say him too, but Lennox ain't even a champion.


I'd like as many examples of changing to what is greatness as youse can drum up.


I'll throw out an easy one just to get it out of the way. Once white fighters did not have to fight black fighters to be greater, now they do.

Ask 100 different people to define greatness and you'll get 100 different answers; and it's really always been that way. There's never really been a consensus definition.

[billeau2]

Ask 100 different people to define greatness and you'll get a 100 different answers; and it's really always been that way. There's never really been a consensus definition.

"and you will get 100 different answers" you do not need the a. You like a taste of your own medicine?

[The Defecator]

"and you will get 100 different answers" you do not need the a. You like a taste of your own medicine?

Huh? I edited the “a” out, but I’m at a loss as to what else you’re referring to.

[The Defecator]

"and you will get 100 different answers" you do not need the a. You like a taste of your own medicine?

Oh, I see what you’re referring to. That comment I made in the other thread wasn’t a shot at your grammar. I was just using your post as a springboard to say that I don’t think any of them were HOF material.

[Marchegiano]

I think Pep did the thread a service deconstructing a notion of greatness put fourth. I am assuming we can argue in the negative here, as in, The fact that a fighter Didn't do_________________, is a reflection on his greatness, as much as what he did do. For example, Lewis did not do as Holyfield did. Evaluating the color line is a very important consideration... I agree with Pep that taking fights as individual circumstances is a better measure than declaring that the color line had an equal effect on all fighters regarding the notion of greatness. A great example of the logic to Pep's contention would be the concept of Real Estate depreciation. When we try to measure depreciation of a structure in a set of equal units, vis a vis, as if we were to measure the affect of the color line and its effect as such, it is less accurate than measuring the actual depreciation, as in, one year my home was remodeled, vis a vis, corresponding to the difference the color line made in a heavyweight championship for Jeffries, versus a South African ban involving fighters prior to Weaver fighting Coetze... Please excuse using Apartheid here, but it makes the point that one fighter was much more subject to the affects of race politics, than another.

I hope this analogy makes sense lol.

500 points to bill

500 points to Pep

It was "you" rhetorical not "you" individual.

Willie Pep What you wrote makes perfect sense, this confusion is 100% my fault. When you wrote "you have beef" I took it as me specifically and thought well no I don't though That's my ****** mistake bud.

[Slugfester]

.surmise to venture I ,fought al et Dempsey and Johnson ,Jefferies when acronym the coin to yet enough old not was boxing gloved Queensbury

Though the ATG concept was already in play in early form from Fleischer and probably a host of others, there was not enough history yet to lift the balloon, or was there?

A superlative champion (usually an exciting one as well) comes along and we/they, (BP), Boxing Public, get that old itch to compare a varied group pairwise and put in our 2¢. The question was updated and became more urgent again once Louis arrived. Could this one beat all that came before, under best circumstances for both fighters? The question that is always asked either overtly or internally.

Not sure when the ATG acronym came, but the internet was a perfect breeding ground for acronyms outside corporate marketing departments and political parties, if this one was not already being used. For all I know, the usage might have originated on this very forum or in 1920.

I grew up in an age of G-r-r-e-a-t!!, from Tony the Tiger and Frosted Flakes to Ed Sullivan's "We have a really great shoe for you tonight." America's greatest, I mean favorite, superlative. Boxing (and perhaps other sports too) has taken it a step further to Greatest across all history of the sport in each division. The Romans probably compared their contemporary gladiators to legendary combatants they had both seen and never seen. Inevitable. Natural. With combat fans like an instinct.

GOAT must have arrived even more recently, which also seems an inevitable summation of ATG reasoning. I guess the next step would be GAOAT. You can guess what that might be.

[Ivich]

.surmise to venture I ,fought al et Dempsey and Johnson ,Jefferies when acronym the coin to yet enough old not was boxing gloved Queensbury

Though the ATG concept was already in play in early form from Fleischer and probably a host of others, there was not enough history yet to lift the balloon, or was there?

A superlative champion (usually an exciting one as well) comes along and we/they, (BP), Boxing Public, get that old itch to compare a varied group pairwise and put in our 2¢. The question was updated and became more urgent again once Louis arrived. Could this one beat all that came before, under best circumstances for both fighters? The question that is always asked either overtly or internally.

Not sure when the ATG acronym came, but the internet was a perfect breeding ground for acronyms outside corporate marketing departments and political parties, if this one was not already being used. For all I know, the usage might have originated on this very forum or in 1920.

I grew up in an age of G-r-r-e-a-t!!, from Tony the Tiger and Frosted Flakes to Ed Sullivan's "We have a really great shoe for you tonight." America's greatest, I mean favorite, superlative. Boxing (and perhaps other sports too) has taken it a step further to Greatest across all history of the sport in each division. The Romans probably compared their contemporary gladiators to legendary combatants they had both seen and never seen. Inevitable. Natural. With combat fans like an instinct.

GOAT must have arrived even more recently, which also seems an inevitable summation of ATG reasoning. I guess the next step would be GAOAT. You can guess what that might be.

Great is imo, a very overused word.

[GhostofDempsey]

I think the media has less influence over who is regarded as great today. Newspapers, radio, television played an integral role in proposing a fighter’s greatness. If they were behind you, as they were with Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ali, it was an easy sell so long as those fighters continued to win and more importantly make money for them. The media builds legends.

Today, as Willy pointed out, a fighter’s greatness is measured by the zero in the loss column, regardless if he tested himself or not. It’s easy to promote fighters through social media and develop a one-sided marketing campaign. Ryan Garcia gets a huge PPV because of his looks, social media influence and smart marketing, not because of his talent or skill as a fighter.

Floyd calls himself TBE and his fanbase eats it up because he not only retired undefeated but he marketed himself in such a way his persona appealed to those who worship his lifestyle. Posing with bricks of $100 bills, flashy ***elry, a fleet of luxury cars, mansions, hot strippers, etc. The imagery and lifestyle boosted his popularity way more than his fighting style. Never mind he never fought an elite level fighter at their best, he had a smart promotion and PR team that angled big name fighters on their way up or down while convincing casuals he fought and beat the best.

Tank is following the same blue print for success. Casuals call it greatness, but history won’t be as kind. Look at Crawford, the #1 P4P fighter today, still doesn’t get the accolades and repeat he deserves. He isn’t flashy, arrogant, and doesn’t appeal to casuals who want to see him posing with a lambo and a harem of ****ing strippers on his side.

[Ivich]

I think the media has less influence over who is regarded as great today. Newspapers, radio, television played an integral role in proposing a fighter’s greatness. If they were behind you, as they were with Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ali, it was an easy sell so long as those fighters continued to win and more importantly make money for them. The media builds legends.

Today, as Willy pointed out, a fighter’s greatness is measured by the zero in the loss column, regardless if he tested himself or not. It’s easy to promote fighters through social media and develop a one-sided marketing campaign. Ryan Garcia gets a huge PPV because of his looks, social media influence and smart marketing, not because of his talent or skill as a fighter.

Floyd calls himself TBE and his fanbase eats it up because he not only retired undefeated but he marketed himself in such a way his persona appealed to those who worship his lifestyle. Posing with bricks of $100 bills, flashy ***elry, a fleet of luxury cars, mansions, hot strippers, etc. The imagery and lifestyle boosted his popularity way more than his fighting style. Never mind he never fought an elite level fighter at their best, he had a smart promotion and PR team that angled big name fighters on their way up or down while convincing casuals he fought and beat the best.

Tank is following the same blue print for success. Casuals call it greatness, but history won’t be as kind. Look at Crawford, the #1 P4P fighter today, still doesn’t get the accolades and repeat he deserves. He isn’t flashy, arrogant, and doesn’t appeal to casuals who want to see him posing with a lambo and a harem of ****ing strippers on his side.

Good post!

[billeau2]

I think the media has less influence over who is regarded as great today. Newspapers, radio, television played an integral role in proposing a fighter’s greatness. If they were behind you, as they were with Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ali, it was an easy sell so long as those fighters continued to win and more importantly make money for them. The media builds legends.

Today, as Willy pointed out, a fighter’s greatness is measured by the zero in the loss column, regardless if he tested himself or not. It’s easy to promote fighters through social media and develop a one-sided marketing campaign. Ryan Garcia gets a huge PPV because of his looks, social media influence and smart marketing, not because of his talent or skill as a fighter.

Floyd calls himself TBE and his fanbase eats it up because he not only retired undefeated but he marketed himself in such a way his persona appealed to those who worship his lifestyle. Posing with bricks of $100 bills, flashy ***elry, a fleet of luxury cars, mansions, hot strippers, etc. The imagery and lifestyle boosted his popularity way more than his fighting style. Never mind he never fought an elite level fighter at their best, he had a smart promotion and PR team that angled big name fighters on their way up or down while convincing casuals he fought and beat the best.

Tank is following the same blue print for success. Casuals call it greatness, but history won’t be as kind. Look at Crawford, the #1 P4P fighter today, still doesn’t get the accolades and repeat he deserves. He isn’t flashy, arrogant, and doesn’t appeal to casuals who want to see him posing with a lambo and a harem of ****ing strippers on his side.

Excellent post.