I see people throw around the term “all-time great” a lot on this site.
I thought I knew what “all-time great” meant. I thought it was a synonym for a hall of famer. If someone was in the hall of fame, they’re an all-time great. I thought the hall of fame was created to help people keep track of the greatest boxers throughout history.
But it seems like when people throw around “all-time great” on this forum, it’s usually done to create a separate class of fighters in the hall of fame. I don’t know what the criteria is, but it seems some in the hall of fame are “all-time greats” and others aren’t.
I personally think the term is used so people can attack accomplished boxers they don’t like.
So I would like to know the criteria for being an all-time great. If you think the term is mostly used to say something negative about a hall of fame boxer, then speak up too please.
I thought I knew what “all-time great” meant. I thought it was a synonym for a hall of famer. If someone was in the hall of fame, they’re an all-time great. I thought the hall of fame was created to help people keep track of the greatest boxers throughout history.
But it seems like when people throw around “all-time great” on this forum, it’s usually done to create a separate class of fighters in the hall of fame. I don’t know what the criteria is, but it seems some in the hall of fame are “all-time greats” and others aren’t.
I personally think the term is used so people can attack accomplished boxers they don’t like.
So I would like to know the criteria for being an all-time great. If you think the term is mostly used to say something negative about a hall of fame boxer, then speak up too please.
Comment