Greg Haugen

[Fox McCloud]

I think an important distinction to make is that he was a champion and other fighters were not, though there are many better champions than him too. He was better than some champions, not as good as others, but maybe better than most fighters who weren't champions.

Sweet analysis. He was better than some champions, and worse than some champions. It's also true that he is better than some guys who never won a championship, and probably not as good as other fighters who didn't win a championship. If I had to rate Haugen, I do think that he would be somewhere in the middle of the rankings. By the middle, I mean, not the best or the worst.

[Thread Stealer]

He made it really, really far for a guy who started out in Toughman competitions.

[mgkirkpatrick]

He made it really, really far for a guy who started out in Toughman competitions.

He did do really well. Better than some professional boxers, but not as well as some others. I think it's fair to say he was not the best, but nor was he the worst.

Good thread.

[kayjay]

I think an important distinction to make is that he was a champion and other fighters were not, though there are many better champions than him too. He was better than some champions, not as good as others, but maybe better than most fighters who weren't champions.

The tough question is how many fighters who were not champions were better than some fighters who were champions. But certainly many champions were better than most fighters who were not champions. Some fighters who were champions might even have been better than all fighters who were not champions, though this too is a risky proposition.

[Del Coqui]

It's weird because I'd never think he could lose/ win that close of decisions to Hector Camacho. I haven't watched those 2 fights but if you asked me who'd win between those 2, I'd quickly say Hector. I'm gonna try and download that tomorrow.

Camacho beat him clearly both times imo but decided not to touch gloves in the 12th, which cost him a point, BS, second fight whoever scored it for Haugen is on crack.

[Fox McCloud]

The tough question is how many fighters who were not champions were better than some fighters who were champions. But certainly many champions were better than most fighters who were not champions. Some fighters who were champions might even have been better than all fighters who were not champions, though this too is a risky proposition.

Risky proposition indeed, but one that needs to be questioned. If a fighter can win his fights, but not win a title, and another fighter can only win some of his fights, but win a title, it's a real puzzle as to which fighter is the better fight.

Journeymen are underrated and champions are overrated in most instances. It's hard to imagine a world where true parity exists, and rankings can be clearly established.

[BennyST]

The tough question is how many fighters who were not champions were better than some fighters who were champions. But certainly many champions were better than most fighters who were not champions. Some fighters who were champions might even have been better than all fighters who were not champions, though this too is a risky proposition.

That is a very tough question indeed and one which I shall have to give some thought to.

One thing I am certain of though is that all fighters who become champions are good fighters and all fighters who don't become champions, but are good, can also be as good as those who do become champions. Saying that, it does not mean that all those who don't become champions are good because many of them are not. The distinction to make is between those who are good and those who are not.

Those who are good sometimes become champions and that proves that they are good, whereas those who don't become champions, but are also good, are not necessarily proven to be bad. In many instances they can be better than the champions but not always.

Thus, once again, the distinction to make is between those who are good and those who are not, not just those who are champions and good and those who are not champions but also good.

[squealpiggy]

It's entirely possible for somebody who would be a champion in another era to not be a champion in his own era. That's because the champion in his era are better than the champions in some other eras. That's probably best put down to bad luck.