Originally Posted by Stonehands89
I'm now reconsidering the Dominance question.... your statement about it being an accurate reflection of RG may be persuasive. I have to mull that over.
Sorry to complicate it even further, but as you asking...
...i think ring dominance translates into ring ability
in a crucial way. You are correct to say Burley's MW wins are more impressive than Jones's, although he was more dominant, but there is another side to the coin. A fighter who can remain in condition with maintained concentration in the "Calzaghe fashion" (not a compliment for Joe that!) will tend to be a fighter who continual maintains focus and concentration in the ring, for any given fight, regardless of the opponent. Tyson for example, was never going to maintain at the top - he just couldn't maintain a lifestyle condusive to boxing or an attitude condusive to winning, long term. In
the ring, we saw him frustrated and boxing badly versus Smith when frustrated, and biting of Evander's ear when out-manned. Domination at the top is worth more than just raw stats. Historically, dominant fighters tend to be the most unflappable and focused in the ring (see Joe Louis for the definitive example, but Monzon may be an even better one). Dominating opposition over an extended period tends to herald a fighter as perfect as that fighter could be.
I'd argue that your category for EXP takes up the slack here.