How can a fighter become a great?

I agree. Aside from that, Holmes never lost to Sanders level opposition.

 

Let's start giving some examples.

Buddy McGirt, closest thing to being great without being one. Anyone less than Buddy cannot be great.

 

(double post)

 

You have to judge on how a fighter does in their own time. If not, then the best fighters pre Louis weren't great because the guys they beat wouldn't be able to compete in modern times and so can't be considered great themselves. Even some of Louis best wins were against guys that wouldn't be up to much these days. Plodding guys like the Baers would get clowned now by the likes of Adamek, Chambers and Haye. They were the best available when Louis was fighting though so you have to judge him on his own time

^ Well, that's mostly how I do it anyway. If you judge purely on head to head ability guys like Vitali, Tyson and maybe even Bowe surge up the ranks

 

lewis tko6

 

Clueless.

 

Well so far i'm up to 1960 in the ww division so I couldn't say.

However haye, byrd, gomez, harding, mcclelland, cotto are all guys I call great.

At anyone point there's a man who's the best in their division. That man is a great imo.

 

Thing is with these type of things everyone has there own criteria. This era doesn't have many notable standouts. I suppose a great fighter can also be a fighter who could more then hold own against other greats of other era's.

 

Thanks :good

Certainly a difference in my definitions there: an atg is someone who could be great (top of a division) in any era.

Of those there's only a handful, especially in a p4p sense.

 

Well I don't think a man who's average could be the best in the world. I think being the best in the world is exactly what makes someone a great.

 

Wlads opposition pales in comparison to Holmes'.

 

This is part of the 80s Flyweight lineage. Loads of average fighters beat each other from Avelar to Chitalada. Some were genuine journeymen (Cerdenl)

None were great. I'd say you're being too generous.

 

I'll make a comment when i've researched the flyweight division in more detail.

No, none met your definition of greatness; greatness itself is just a label which doesn't say a lot without context nor meaning.

For you, what makes a fighter great?

 

Didn't a lot of publications have Rocky Martinez as divisional No.1 when Ricky Burns fought him?

Regardless, your criteria really does open the floodgates to greatness.

 

No, none. Apart from Dunky's own mythical list.