How much does longevity mean to alltime status?

[SCtrojansbaby]

Its my opinion you rank a fighter by who he fought and how he performed. Roy Jones fought Brilliantly at 175, but most of his opponents were scrubs. Ezzard Charles fought brilliantly at 175 and his competition was aces. Does it not stand to reason Charles should be ranked higher all time?

You can't compare the 2, boxing was not the same as it is now. If you are fighting 5-12x a year obviously you'll have faced better competition then someone who only fights 2 or 3 times a year. You can't compare.

[NChristo]

I was talking about longevity in a division. But either way, you look at a fighters prime not what he did past his prime or before, now obviously guys with more longevity tend to have better resumes but that is beside the point.

So you only rank a fighter for what he did in his prime ?, really ?.

So you don't rank anything that Foreman did in his comeback, won't count Hopkins' achievements for what has done, won't count Duran's etc etc and you also won't count what they did before they hit prime ?.

That is odd.

When ranking you look at a fighters entire career, not just their prime.

[JAB5239]

You can't compare the 2, boxing was not the same as it is now. If you are fighting 5-12x a year obviously you'll have faced better competition then someone who only fights 2 or 3 times a year. You can't compare.

Of course you can. If you fought and beat better comp you should be ranked higher. Why should we penalize fighters of the past because fighters today choose to fight less or defend alphabet titles instead of taking on the best fighters? Both Hopkins and Pacquiao rank highly because they continually challenge themselves, while an undefeated fighter like Berto hides behind a belt instead of trying to force the best fights. Same thing historically, and it is absolutely comparable.

[SCtrojansbaby]

Of course you can. If you fought and beat better comp you should be ranked higher. Why should we penalize fighters of the past because fighters today choose to fight less or defend alphabet titles instead of taking on the best fighters? Both Hopkins and Pacquiao rank highly because they continually challenge themselves, while an undefeated fighter like Berto hides behind a belt instead of trying to force the best fights. Same thing historically, and it is absolutely comparable.

You don't penalize you compare the guys of that era to other guys from that era.

If Ezzard Charles or someone could hide behind a belt and make almost a millions dollars for one fight against a bum he would do it too. It is a different era it Berto was fighting 10x a year in the 40s he would be facing better competition.

So you only rank a fighter for what he did in his prime ?, really ?.

So you don't rank anything that Foreman did in his comeback, won't count Hopkins' achievements for what has done, won't count Duran's etc etc and you also won't count what they did before they hit prime ?.

That is odd.

When ranking you look at a fighters entire career, not just their prime.

Not every fighters prime is the same Hopkins and Foreman for example still had a lot left but its obvious Roy Jones wasn't the same after the Ruiz fight or Ali wasn't the same when he fought Spinks you don't judge them based on those fights.

[NChristo]

Not every fighters prime is the same Hopkins and Foreman for example still had a lot left but its obvious Roy Jones wasn't the same after the Ruiz fight or Ali wasn't the same when he fought Spinks you don't judge them based on those fights.

I wasn't saying that everyones prime was the same.

But because your favourite boxer wasn't the same past prime (nobody is) we are just supposed to forget about everything ever other boxer has done past theirs and just rank them for what they did in it ?.



Ali lost to Spinks yes, but, then he came back and beat Spinks in the rematch, you don't give him credit for beating the champion despite being ridiculously past prime ?.

[SCtrojansbaby]

I wasn't saying that everyones prime was the same.

But because your favourite boxer wasn't the same past prime (nobody is) we are just supposed to forget about everything ever other boxer has done past theirs and just rank them for what they did in it ?.



Ali lost to Spinks yes, but, then he came back and beat Spinks in the rematch, you don't give him credit for beating the champion despite being ridiculously past prime ?.

I didn't say you said that, all I am saying is that its a case by case thing

It is not about giving "credit", you just don't hold Ali losing to a guy in his 8th proffesional fight against him, the same way you don't hold Sugar Ray Leonard getting smacked around by Hector Camacho against him or bernard Hopkins losing his first fight against him.

[JAB5239]

You don't penalize you compare the guys of that era to other guys from that era.

If Ezzard Charles or someone could hide behind a belt and make almost a millions dollars for one fight against a bum he would do it too. It is a different era it Berto was fighting 10x a year in the 40s he would be facing better competition.

How can ANY fighter have comparative greatness if he fails to make the best fights? Saying Charles would hide if he could to is an unsubstantiated claim and has no bearing in the facts. If a fighter today chooses money over fighting the best he simply cannot be as great as a fighter who fought and beat the better comp. Now if you want to get in a discussion about talent, that is a whole other story. As it stands a fighter can only be as good as his competition.

[SCtrojansbaby]

How can ANY fighter have comparative greatness if he fails to make the best fights? Saying Charles would hide if he could to is an unsubstantiated claim and has no bearing in the facts. If a fighter today chooses money over fighting the best he simply cannot be as great as a fighter who fought and beat the better comp. Now if you want to get in a discussion about talent, that is a whole other story. As it stands a fighter can only be as good as his competition.

Why is that an unsubstantiated claim? Charles is a product of his era no one fights 10x a year now at the championship level, just like back then no one was making a million$(or the equivalent of that time) to fight a bum.

[JAB5239]

Why is that an unsubstantiated claim? Charles is a product of his era no one fights 10x a year now at the championship level, just like back then no one was making a million$(or the equivalent of that time) to fight a bum.

Because they CHOOSE not to, not because it can't be done. They CHOOSE to hide behind paper titles so as to keep the moniker "world champion" instead of fighting the best. These are choices that effect all time standings. If you look at the best fighters of recent times SRL, Duran, Pea, Hop, Holy, Pac etc.etc.etc., they all took on all comers, all sought out the best. When you combine that with longevity and performance you have greatness and not the assumption of greatness. Big difference my man.

[RubenSonny]

Like I said getting there is hard staying there is harder. Not Langford's fault but he was not tested on staying there. Langford is a top 5 fighter p4p for me but I do weigh that in when splitting him and say Greb

How so? for the most part fighters in those times fought lesser competition when they were champion than before hand.