How much does longevity mean to alltime status?

[SCtrojansbaby]

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.

That is the environment of this era no one does it because it doesn't make any sense. Do you really think Ezzard Charles would be the only world champion to fight 10x a year?

SRL Duran Pea etc all "ducked" a bunch of fighters its not possible to fight everyone when you only fight 2 or 3x a year.

[JAB5239]

That is the environment of this era no one does it because it doesn't make any sense. Do you really think Ezzard Charles would be the only world champion to fight 10x a year?

So you're willing to give a pass to modern fighters and overlook the achievements of more accomplished fighters in history, is that it?

SRL Duran Pea etc all "ducked" a bunch of fighters its not possible to fight everyone when you only fight 2 or 3x a year.

Who are these bunch of fighters the supposedly ducked? I'd like to compare them to who they actually fought.

[BennyST]

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.

But IMO rankings resumes doesn't tell you who the better fighter is not even close. Resume is based for the most part on who had more opportunities.

I don't understand what you mean by this....Are you saying we shouldn't rank fighters based on their resume but on their perceived skill from the guys they did fight during their career?

That is the single worst way of judging fighters, if that is what you mean. It's impossible to tell what happens until they step up against other greats. Zab Judah could have cruised through his career flogging the ****e out of good champs and fighters like Terron Millett, Junior Witter, Micky Ward, Rafael Pineda and never fought the great fighters he did.

If that was the case, would you be ranking him based on his perceived skill against those he fought thinking those same skills he showed agianst those guys would translate into the same fights against great fighters? As we saw, it doesn't work that way. Against a great fighter like Tszyu who took his best and came back the next round stronger and harder and started landing shots he obviously had a bit of a freak out, got caught and knocked out.

You cannot rank someone based on their perceived skill. It just doesn't work. What you think they are is not what they are. The only way to tell how good they really are is by who they fought and what they did do. Resume is everything when ranking fighters. It is first and foremost, then comes all the other stuff. Longevity, skill, blah blah.

[GJC]

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

Not really for the most part, only really the HW champion got the money to not take the best fight out there. You don't seem to be getting my point so we'll leave it there

[S.G.]

All longevity is, is a vehicle that allows a boxer to achieve more. Considered as an achievement in itself without context it's really just a cherry on top rather than a part of the actual cake.

[SCtrojansbaby]

I don't understand what you mean by this....Are you saying we shouldn't rank fighters based on their resume but on their perceived skill from the guys they did fight during their career? .

I didn't say we should rank fighters I said that is how I like to to rank fighters. I would rather rank based on perceived skill then circumstances

[JAB5239]

I didn't say we should rank fighters I said that is how I like to to rank fighters. I would rather rank based on perceived skill then circumstances

The problem with that is "perceived skill" can be twisted to suit a biased agenda, it isn't fact. Resume and longevity are fact which can not be argued against.

[JAB5239]

All longevity is, is a vehicle that allows a boxer to achieve more. Considered as an achievement in itself without context it's really just a cherry on top rather than a part of the actual cake.

In some cases, sure. Take Evander for example. He's still going but his longevity is not adding to his accomplishments. Hopkins on the other hand IS still adding and so did other great fighters such as Greb, Langford, Pep, Moore etc., etc., etc. You can't just say he fought long past his best and claim longevity, effectiveness has to be part of the equation.