A few posts I've seen recently have given me the idea for this one . Please give me your definition of "great. " How does one become great? What are the points of separation between that and very good, and what then in turn makes one "ATG?" Just trying to develop a criteria. I mean, was Donald Curry great? Why or why not? Camacho? This isn't a thread about those two fighters, let's not make it about them, I just use them as examples.
Not sure i agree. Larry Holmes had his struggles against lesser guys but he was undeniably great - he invariably got the job done. Guys like Mike Tyson beat world class fighters with ridiculous ease for some time but he was one of the best equipped fighters ever when it came to dealing with guys a level or two below themselves. A certain amount of longevity has to be there tho one needs less if he burns extremely bright. A huge thing too is having other top flight fighters to fight. Guys like SRL and Ali had good paddocks to feed in. Even losing to a fellow ATG can leave you in good stead or even raise the stocks of both. For days i've actually been planning a thread where i list names and question their level. Will try to do it on the weekend.
I guess everyone has different criteria. Personally, if I rate a fighter as being in the all time top 15 or so of his weight class, I'd call him an 'All Time Great' (very broadly, a top 100 P4P guy). If he is in the top 30 or so, I'd call him 'Great.' As for the two examples you gave, I rate both Curry and Camacho between 29 and 31 in their respective divisions, so I think you've identified two excellent examples of borderline cases.
To me, "very good" is someone like Miguel Cotto. Actually, that's pretty generous for Cotto... I'd probably class him as lower than that. Curry and Camacho in their primes were a cut above Cotto, so it's not ridiculous to say that they were great in very brief primes.
I think it's a consensus that is built out of an unconscious set of shared criteria. As JT illustrates, there's not a single pathway to greatness but a group of them. Between those pathways it's possible for boxing fans to build a consensus over who is undeniably great and who isn't quite great. It must be shared because I find people agreeing about this more often than can be attributable to blind luck.
A guy like Curry had great skills and he did look great for a couple fights but he obviously wasnt. Camacho to me was blessed with great physical ability but his skills were not great. I hope you get what I mean here. Roy Jones falls under the Comacho side of things for me. If this is the criteria your looking for I can think of more I just want to make sure I understand the question correctly.
Good post. Part of the frustration and fun is that while there is a basic group of "untouchables" that most right-minded fans can agree upon, there's going to be terms like this thrown around so loosely that they cease to have any real meaning. I always scratch my head too at the posts that say something like "This guy wasn't great, only very good." I then think of what internal chart that person must be using to make so exact a claim on something that simply can't be broken down that way.
I get the feeling that most people don’t really have hard and fast rules or criteria. Instead, they mostly just apply standards selectively, to reach the outcomes that feel right to them. Seems to me that the factors that carry the most weight are (in order): -Historical recognition as a great fighter -wins over other very highly-regarded fighters -perceived intangibles like will to win, grit, etc. -long term dominance
an ATG covers a lot of bases. They need to have an outstanding CV, essentially....and they all do. Its being elite, and a bag of chips. Very good in my book means the brokering the edge of elite, which is itself a step above world class.
camacho may have been elite for a bit but i never thought of him as the next level up from that, nor did he ever do anything to warrant that.
