To be remembered as a "boxing great", do you have to share the ring with big names?

[Redd Foxx]

So, no one in a Golovkin type situation (dominates everyone, all of whom are forgettable) has gone down as a memorable fighter?

[Dip_Slide]

So, no one in a Golovkin type situation (dominates everyone, all of whom are forgettable) has gone down as a memorable fighter?

I think he's a couple of wins away, think about prime Mike Tyson for a while, who did he beat that made him the icon he became? Michael Spinks? old inactive Larry Holmes? till he went to prison in 91 all his opponent weren't much better than GGG's opponents to be honest, good contenders or journeymen, nothing extraordinary, Spinks and Holmes were names however unlike GGG's opponents. GGG needs these names on his resume and unfortunatley it doesn't look like he's willing to make sacrifices to get the big fights.

[Citizen Koba]

So, no one in a Golovkin type situation (dominates everyone, all of whom are forgettable) has gone down as a memorable fighter?

Can't think of anyone - though I don't claim to be a student of the old timers - which I guess proves your point. I guess Golovkins best route to the history books is likely to be through being the first guy to unify all the major belts in 10 years or through his number of successful defenses or the length of his championship KO streak. But yeah, there's a decent chance he'll go down as a 'might have been' when all is said and done. As I'm very fond of saying though, questions of this nature are best left to the boxing pundits and historians of the future to figure out.

[goblin213]

So, no one in a Golovkin type situation (dominates everyone, all of whom are forgettable) has gone down as a memorable fighter?

Ricardo Lopez

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Yes, you pretty much do. Marciano and Tyson will be remembered for their dominance but not much else. Don't get me wrong. I loved watching them fight and they'd compete in any era. They may not have had the best competition but they blew through them. GGG is on this same path unless he changes it by getting the names or moving up.

However, Duran had Leonard. Leonard had Hearns. Hearns had Hagler. Pep had Saddler. Robinson had LaMotta. Ali had Frazier. Pac had Marquez. And most of these are vice versa. Every fighter's stock goes up when they face a great fighter in their prime win lose or draw. I think the Kessler situation stated above is a good example. He may have lost but he held his own and looked good against all of the prime guys he fought. Stepping up to even fight them is the test these days. In the old days, it was pretty common.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

So, no one in a Golovkin type situation (dominates everyone, all of whom are forgettable) has gone down as a memorable fighter?

Yes, Tyson and Marciano and Ricardo Lopez of course. How are they not memorable? Tyson didn't get famous from his acting. Geez.

[Redd Foxx]

Yes, Tyson and Marciano and Ricardo Lopez of course. How are they not memorable? Tyson didn't get famous from his acting. Geez.

Tyson and Marciano I can't include alongside Golovkin because they were in there with some names, even if the names were either faded, or beat them (Tyson).

Again, what I'm pondering is not how good these guys are, but how much significance names play in a fighter's place in history. For instance, Canelo was built up into something huge by feasting on guys with recognizable names, even though they were all shot (Mosley, Cintron, Gomez, etc). Names got him the attention early on, not necessarily the quality of his fights. When we look back 30 years later, do the guys who didn't share the ring with recognizable names disappear from our memories?

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Tyson and Marciano I can't include alongside Golovkin because they were in there with some names, even if the names were either faded, or beat them (Tyson).

Again, what I'm pondering is not how good these guys are, but how much significance names play in a fighter's place in history. For instance, Canelo was built up into something huge by feasting on guys with recognizable names, even though they were all shot (Mosley, Cintron, Gomez, etc). Names got him the attention early on, not necessarily the quality of his fights. When we look back 30 years later, do the guys who didn't share the ring with recognizable names disappear from our memories?

Yes, I'd say they do, man. Does anybody today care about Orlando Canizales? Not so much. He did have the record 16 defenses at bantamweight though and is in the HOF. Do they remember say Johnny Tapia? I'd say yes. But he fought Barrera and Ayala and other names, too. I think it's hurt Canizales for sure even though I could see him beating Tapia.

[LoadedWraps]

This isn't an ulterior motive thread, and it's not about criticizing any fighters. I'm not much of a historian so you need to help me. Please name some fighters that are remembered as "boxing greats", who never shared the ring with another "boxing great".

When I think of boxing legends whose resumes are criticized (Calzaghe, Tyson, Marciano, etc) they were all at least in the ring with memorable fighters. It seems as if that's a prerequisite, even if those fighters were faded or you lost to them.

The reason I didn't stick this in the history section is that modern fighters are what sparks the topic. Golovkin is highly talented, but will history forget him if he doesn't get a chance to fight another memorable fighter? Has Canelo already earned a place in history having shared the ring with Floyd, Mosley, and Cotto?

What's your take?

I say no, but it helps. You may not have ATG's available in your era and that's not your fault. You might get avoided by ATG's and that's also not your fault. Accomplishments matter regardless of if you land the money fights, the biggest fights, because that could be out of your control.

[Weltschmerz]

It certainly helps your legacy, obviously.

I do believe this thread could be in the history section