Which is a better testament of greatness?

[JAB5239]

So far this poll is unanimus. So the obvious next question is, why are so many talented fighters of today suddenly being talked about as greater than more accomplished fighters who took on better comp?

Why ask a question with an obvious answer?

It was designed to lead to the question above. I hear so many people on here claim their favorite fighters are amonst the best fighters all time because of this or that. How can anybody justify that when you look things from this point of view?

[shadeyfizzle]

I knew it. So Floyd fought weak opposition with a few exceptions in between?

Not just Floyd. Calzaghe did the same.

Fighting great fighters with mixed results is just that....you get mixed resutls.

That's how you get guys like Hatton who is an excellent fighter by all normal standards...but just could quite break that plane of greatness. Also Vargas. Some excellent wins...but some brutal losses to some greats as well. But at least nobody questions his place among the greats because he dared to be great.

[JAB5239]

Not just Floyd. Calzaghe did the same.

Fighting great fighters with mixed results is just that....you get mixed resutls.

That's how you get guys like Hatton who is an excellent fighter by all normal standards...but just could quite break that plane of greatness. Also Vargas. Some excellent wins...but some brutal losses to some greats as well. But at least nobody questions his place among the greats because he dared to be great.

Thank you.

[Bhopreign]

Im saying those are the three I was thinking of when I came up with this thread. I was talking with another poster who said Roy Jones was a top 20 all time fighter, in another thread, and I just don't see it that way. How can any fighter be compared to other great fighters if their resume isn't on par with them? Im not belittling any of these guys, but Im not giving them a free pass to all time top 20 status either just because they fight today. So what in your opinion is a better testament of greatness? Option 1, or option 2?

Any clear thinking person would pick option 2 I'd imagine. I think many may put Roy there not because of his resume but because of the things they saw in the ring, so hypothetically the thinking is that even though he didnt fight such and such, he would have won anyway.

The same way he may not have the resume as some of those guys, Roy fans might bring up that some ahead of him dont have the talent and gifts Roy had either. So they have the resume lack the talent, he has the talent and lacks the resume, therefore there decisions are justified in their thinking.

[JAB5239]

Any clear thinking person would pick option 2 I'd imagine. I think many may put Roy there not because of his resume but because of the things they saw in the ring, so hypothetically the thinking is that even though he didnt fight such and such, he would have won anyway.

The same way he may not have the resume as some of those guys, Roy fans might bring up that some ahead of him dont have the talent and gifts Roy had either. So they have the resume lack the talent, he has the talent and lacks the resume, therefore there decisions are justified in their thinking.

Seeing a fighter dominate over lesser comp isn't a true indicator of how he may do against other great fighters with varying styles. It doesn't compare to showing your mettle against other top notch fighters. Talent and gifts are also misleading. If they weren't Zab Judah would be being discussed as an all time great. There have been many fighters in history who haven't had near Roys natural gifts, but they PROVED themselves against other great fighters. I'll say what I said in the other thread I was posting in....blame the era. Blame the lack of talented opponents. But in no way can a comparison be made when discussing Roy's, Calzaghe, Floyd or Manny's place against top 20 all time fighters. Their records just don't warrant them being ranked that high. Anything else is guesswork.

[Bhopreign]

Seeing a fighter dominate over lesser comp isn't a true indicator of how he may do against other great fighters with varying styles. It doesn't compare to showing your mettle against other top notch fighters. Talent and gifts are also misleading. If they weren't Zab Judah would be being discussed as an all time great. There have been many fighters in history who haven't had near Roys natural gifts, but they PROVED themselves against other great fighters. I'll say what I said in the other thread I was posting in....blame the era. Blame the lack of talented opponents. But in no way can a comparison be made when discussing Roy's, Calzaghe, Floyd or Manny's place against top 20 all time fighters. Their records just don't warrant them being ranked that high. Anything else is guesswork.

Trust me I pretty much agree, I dont have a list and anyone who isnt old enough as a Bert Sugar or older guy cant really make one IMO simply because they dont really know the climate of boxing during all of those times and what was going on. But I pretty much agree if its based on resume, other things come into play in boxing than say speed, quickness and the like, heart, toughness, will and durability shouldnt be overlooked.

[JAB5239]

Trust me I pretty much agree, I dont have a list and anyone who isnt old enough as a Bert Sugar or older guy cant really make one IMO simply because they dont really know the climate of boxing during all of those times and what was going on. But I pretty much agree if its based on resume, other things come into play in boxing than say speed, quickness and the like, heart, toughness, will and durability shouldnt be overlooked.

...Agreed.