It seems to me that many debates on here centre on the merits of the 'greats' and their various merits..Louis,Marciano,Liston,Ali,Frazier,Foreman,Holmes,Tyson,Lewis,Bowe,Holyfield,Klitschko etc.. What occurs to me is that in very few era's were there more than one 'great' fighter at a time,so you frequently get the question 'who did they beat'...Louis with his bum of the month..Marciano gets slated for his opponents,Ali fought ex Liston victims in his first reign and so on. It also occurred to me that when you get an era where there are several top fighters who look possible or definite ATG'S they dont fight one another at their peak as their management doesnt want a loser (early nineties..Bowe Lewis Tyson Holyfield..not many matchups were made at peak...only the Frazier,Ali,Foreman era saw matchups at peak. So few eras saw greats matched against similar at peak. It all makes more sense when you see it this way.
That's a fallout of multiple belts. If you have 4 belts to select from, you could say the top fighter a champ fights is really the #5 guy. Because they don't regognize the other belts and that champ takes himself out of any ranking. And the newer realization of television contracts with say a Sky or HBO. Or it used to be Casino's had rights to guy's. And of course, the promoters. Very few cross promotional fights.
Point well made and I think why so much respect is afforded to the 70s as a great era. Because great fighters regularly fought great fighters.
The man who sits at the top often only gets beat once he declines. Talk to any fighter and they say "on my best day I would not have lost that fight!" And they need to believe that. When any fighter loses there are a whole bunch of acceptable excuses. Nobody wants to accept a defeat. But eventually all fighters lose and if they don't they will at least have fights that others think went the wrong way. It is just how it is. Until all fighters can only fight opponents who share the same birthday and train without injury or illnesses we will never completely know who is best. Sometimes I feel there is only so much room for fighters who are allowed to have the best careers. There is only so many men who can afford to bankroll the perfect career ever. the boxer always has the best advice, best preparation, best training camp, best notice, best matchmaking, best career timing etc etc etc. The fighters who do always look "best" because they have it all going on and everything is tailored to fall in place. And it needs to be in place fir a whole career. They are the only ones who reach their fullest potential. But there is only so much room for fighters who have the right set of circumstances to enable them to fulfil their entire potential. It's the top 1%. The most talented fighter has to have a lot more going for him than talent.
in eras gone by many fighters stated they learnt much more from a loss than they did a win. These days losing is an absolute taboo when you can tiptoe around anyone who might trouble you toward one of the abundance of world titles.
