How has greatness changed over time?

[Ivich]

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.

Greatness,is like beauty,in the eye of the beholder.

[Dr. Z]

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.


Once white fighters did not have to fight black fighters to be greater, now they do.

Once the fighters in boxing didn't have any Eastern European fighters to fight, they do now and have redefined boxing at Heavyweight, Cruiserweight, Light heavyweight and Middle weight. In the last 20 years eastern europeans have produced excellent champions in Klitschko, Usyk, Beterbiev, and Golovkin.

How has greatness changed over time? The fighters fight a lot less than they used to and generally avoid top the opponents. I use the ring magazine ranking standards. How many top ten opponents ranked by ring magazine did a fighter meet when they were actively ranked? Two, or Ten? IMO this helps define " greatness " When they fought them matters to. Was the opponent in his prime m or past it? I wish more people in boxing would submit to this. Writer crold1 does.

A fighters record here is a major factor in defining greatness.

[Eff Pandas]

I'd say winning multiple belts no longer equals greatness. I think a lot of guys up til the last 20ish years who won multiple weight division belts were considered some level of great. I think belts mean less than they ever have so you tend to need to be #1 in multiple divisions now over just winning belts there to hit true greatness with boxing fans.

In lieu of that, as everyone won't be able to move up, I think resumes are more important than ever. The reason ppl consider most guys after their first L's bums is cuz resumes are far too often a 20-0 guy who's beaten 20 bs guys so than when that 20-0 guy loses to the first guy with a pulse that he fights it usually confirms he isn't sh^t or at least he hasn't proved he's a legit guy yet.

[kara]

I thought of this thread as Haney called himself an "all-time great"

[QueensburyRules]

I thought of this thread as Haney called himself an "all-time great"

- - Whilst I finally have to give credit to Heinie after his taming of Regis Saturday, he just aping the Big Mouth Ali Syndrome as many modern misdirected fighters do. So far like young Clay he has never proven to be a big draw.

Louis and Dempsey never needed to proclaim such nonsense, though by the end of his career Joe could take pride in that most considered him the best save maybe the crusty cobwebbed Nats of the world.

[kara]

- - Whilst I finally have to give credit to Heinie after his taming of Regis Saturday, he just aping the Big Mouth Ali Syndrome as many modern misdirected fighters do. So far like young Clay he has never proven to be a big draw.

Louis and Dempsey never needed to proclaim such nonsense, though by the end of his career Joe could take pride in that most considered him the best save maybe the crusty cobwebbed Nats of the world.

Since the days of Ali those boasts have continued. I don't remember Mike Tyson doing them.