How has greatness changed over time?

[Marchegiano]

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.

[QueensburyRules]

- - White fighters have always fought black fighters, just not all of them, ie the records of JJohnson, Sam Langford, Joe Jeannette, Sam McVey ect, et al are chockful of white fighters.

[Ivich]

- - White fighters have always fought black fighters, just not all of them, ie the records of JJohnson, Sam Langford, Joe Jeannette, Sam McVey ect, et al are chockful of white fighters.

Sullivan
Tunney
Loughran
Did not.

[Marchegiano]

- - White fighters have always fought black fighters, just not all of them, ie the records of JJohnson, Sam Langford, Joe Jeannette, Sam McVey ect, et al are chockful of white fighters.

I'm so high on cold medicines I'm surprised you got the point.

I'll edit the OP so it makes more sense, but thanks for looking past that to what I was trying to do. I really appreciate it.


That said, I didn't mean to say they did or did not just that they did not have to, to be considered great.

[Gaston]

Fans seem more tolerant of this current generation of heavyweights despite the lack of skills that we saw in the 70s and 90s

[YGriffith]

Everyone who wins the belt from another boxer is a champion in my book.

[Willie Pep 229]

If a black fighter from 1915 fought only black fighters would you today say he ducked white fighters? Would you say he was less great?

I suspect, if I try I could find such fighters.

Judge a man by his own time; by what he did accomplish, not what you think he was suspose to do.

You think someone's resume comes up short, fine, don't think him great.

But please give me a break from this imposed "color bar" standard that you automatically apply to, and demean every White fighter with (before 1930). It's played out.

You got a beef, good, argue in the particluiar. Not this 'he didn t fight enough black fighters' crap.

Example: With Dempsey-Wills the color line is at issue and needs to be addressed and questioned. With Dempsey-Langford, it is nonsense.

Make a particluiar point, spare us the reverse prejudice.

[Marchegiano]

If a black fighter from 1915 fought only black fighters would you today say he ducked white fighters? Would you say he was less great?

I suspect, if I try I could find such fighters.

Judge a man by his own time; by what he did accomplish, not what you think he was suspose to do.

You think someone's resume comes up short, fine, don't think him great.

But please give me a break from this imposed "color bar" standard that you automatically apply to, and demean every White fighter with (before 1930). It's played out.

You got a beef, good, argue in the particluiar. Not this 'he didn t fight enough black fighters' crap.

Example: With Dempsey-Wills the color line is at issue and needs to be addressed and questioned. With Dempsey-Langford, it is nonsense.

Make a particluiar point, spare us the reverse prejudice.

I'm not sure what you got out of what's been said here, but yeah, the bit I made bold there, that's more what I am asking for. The rest of this seems like an invitation to an argument we've had before and is besides the point of this thread/discussion.

I'm asking for examples of that changing. I gave you a few examples. Others have given examples. It doesn't have to be about race at all buddy, that was one example.

[billeau2]

I'm not sure what you got out of what's been said here, but yeah, the bit I made bold there, that's more what I am asking for. The rest of this seems like an invitation to an argument we've had before and is besides the point of this thread/discussion.

I'm asking for examples of that changing. I gave you a few examples. Others have given examples. It doesn't have to be about race at all buddy, that was one example.

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.

[billeau2]

Well bub, I am one of your biggest fans when it comes to how you have enunciated the idea of the "heroic individual" possibly a Hellanistic concept in Greek social dynamics, as it contributed to our own pedigree of fist fighting, called boxing. Its only fitting that you would start such a thread.

I think the idea of greatness has simply become fragmented. Epistemology has come to a point where one questions any sense of objective reality, quantum dynamics even demonstrate that our perception determines fundamental change. This has affected champions by spreading them out as if one were to take a basic archetype lets call it "championess" and build a bunch of people out of it, all capable, none perfect in the role, some even lacking considerably. In days bygone a champion was considered perfect. he was an embodiment of qualities that everyone else was to aspire to. He was considered sacred in a sense, because of the role. When James Braddock was to fight Max Bauer the dock wallopers felt that braddock was a representation of them, not simply a boxer. There was so much concern that people prayed he would not be decimated. When Sullivan plied his trade, every Irishman who was denied work, and had to struggle, thought oneself part of legacy involving Irish pluck and toughness, and that Sullivan was the expression of that determination and way.

With the fragmentation of the champion I do not think people are invested the same way. Neither are the fighters...