Who will be remembered as the greater fighter..

[BennyST]

Who you beat and when you beat them should matter more than anything else. I cannot believe people are arguing otherwise. Who beat the better fighters matters more than anything else.

This is the only great truth in boxing. In comparison to this, nothing else matters. Not how many weights you go up, not how much more someone weighed, not how many KOs you get, not how many titles you win in how many divisions or how perfect your record.

When it comes to the crunch of true greatness, the only thing that matters at all, is who you beat most importantly, and when.

[D-MiZe]

What exactly are you arguing? That I should be more impressed with looking unbeatable against lesser fighters than looking beatable but winning against greater fighters?

What about someone like Roy, who looked unbeatable against better fighters than Mayweather, Pacquiao, Mosley, Hopkins, or Marquez fought? What exactly is the argument for any of those fighters being greater than Roy Jones?

I'm arguing that a resume says who's win, by how they won and when they won. It doesn't say how good their performance was, the scorecards can be manipulated etc. It is but a part of what determines how great a fighter is tbh.

[IronDanHamza]

It's cool.

So what are we discussing here? I'm talking about Pac's position on an ATG list which incorporates many criteria. If we're talking about the greater fighter in the sense of who's the greater student of the game, more complete fighter... definitely Holyfield.

I agree with you on DLH-Pac and what followed thereafter, how he's viewed in today's world. If he ever cracked top 20 that would most definitely be based on popularity rather than resume/achievements etc.

What differs with Pac and Hopkins/DLH is that they weren't champions in half of the total divisions in boxing.

We're discussing Pacquaio's position on the ATG list, yes. And how it's not set in stone in regards to him being higher than Holyfield. And, that's on the basis his resume is better IMO or at the very least comparable.

Hopkins might not have been Champion in 4 weight classes but he is the only fighter in history to have a World Title at 47 years old. Something no one else has done and an incredibley impressive feat. It still doesn't set in stone he's above Holyfield.

I'm basically saying just because you achieve something no one else has, it doesn't set in stone you're higher than someone.

Most of the greatest fighters of all time, haven't done unprecedented things. All they've done is racked up the greatest resumes of all time by beating the best fighters.

[D-MiZe]

Who you beat and when you beat them should matter more than anything else. I cannot believe people are arguing otherwise. Who beat the better fighters matters more than anything else.

Which is why, despite his multi-weight achievements, Pac's resume isn't strong at all.

[SplitSecond]

Which is why, despite his multi-weight achievements, Pac's resume isn't strong at all.

how?
look at 4corners post
he has prime marquez and prime barrera

[bojangles1987]

I'm arguing that a resume says who's win, by how they won and when they won. It doesn't say how good their performance was, the scorecards can be manipulated etc. It is but a part of what determines how great a fighter is tbh.

Alright, well I should clear up that I'm not talking strictly going on BoxRec and looking. That doesn't tell you when they fought somebody, how the fight actually went, stuff like that. So you have a point there.

That's where it's a fan's responsibility to make sure they know about a fight before they bring it up, and another's job to inform them otherwise if they do not know about the fight.

Ultimately though, the fighters that someone beat, assuming they actually beat them, should determine greatness above all else. To kind of butt in your discussion with IronDan, that's why Pacquiao is an ATG, more than the division climbing. The division climbing helps make his wins look even better, but even independent of the weight he has good wins over good and great fighters. That's also why some of the bigger names, like Morales or Oscar, should not be considered as great as they probably are considered.

[4Corners]

how?
look at 4corners post
he has prime marquez and prime barrera

I don't consider Marquez at his peak/prime in 2008 though....he was still amazing though. Kind of like Manny and Floyd in 2010.

[gmc_rfc_06]

Roy Jones or Mayweather.

I put a lot of thought into picking B-Hop or Evanader, and wouldn't argue with anyone who picked him. Resume, abilities, skill....it's hard to rope everything together and make a final decision.

[Bermuda]

Er, Pac is a good fighter but a lot of what he's done has been at catchweights against shall we say... a bit less then the best possible opponents.

I'll take guys like Hearns weight climbing exploits over Pacquiaos any day of the week

only 3 of his fights have been at catchweights though...cotto, margarito and marquez 3....not really "a lot".

[IronDanHamza]

Which is why, despite his multi-weight achievements, Pac's resume isn't strong at all.

He certainly does have a strong resume.

It's not as great as a lot think but it certainly is ATG worthy.