How much do controversial wins count against a great fighter?

In my view, a fighter's accomplishments are achieved in the ring; how good or great a fighter was doesn't depend on what three judges say. That's just an interpretation. It's just like a great piece of art; its greatness is not damaged even if I find three people who don't appreciate it. Or, take a sports analogy: suppose the IAAF (with no reason at all) declares that all titles and medals held by Jamaicans are now invalid. Would that mean that Usain Bolt is no longer a great? Not at all.

So there'd be wide room for a variety of opinions, some will consider Xing the greatest of the lot, but "most people" who scored the fights against him will not.

 

Yes, there's definitely a grey area ... which is why there's room for a wide range of interpretation. However, as (hopefully) knowledgeable viewers we should have our own opinions ...

I just think it's absurd that many think the greatness of a fighter depends so strongly on what three judges thought on the day. For me a boxer's greatness is about what he did in the ring, and if circumstances conspire against him (unfavourable judging) we need to consider this.

Take a tennis analogy. Going into the French Open 1993, Monica Seles was only 19 years old but was the dominant force in women's tennis, owning an astonishing total of 8 majors and having beaten greats such as Steffi Graf and Martina Navratilova with increasing consistency. She seemed destined to rule women's tennis for many years and smash all records into oblivion, and many of her rivals admit that that's exactly what would have happened ...

However, at that tournament, she was attacked and stabbed by an obsessed Graf fan, missing over two years, and although she tried to comeback and managed to win one more major tournament, she was never the same again.

Now obviously her legacy was irreparably damaged by this attack because we did not have the chance to witness further on-court achievements. But still, most knowledgeable tennis fans and pundits consider this fact, and consequently rate her one of the very greatest, despite winning less than all of her rivals for that position.

It's the same with boxing. When a fighter is lucky (unlucky) with the judges consistently, we should consider this when evaluating their legacy.

 

That's an excellent analogy to make Kiwiman but I have to disagree with your conclusion that most tennis experts consider Seles as one of the greatest. Most only seem to really acknowledge Graf, Court, Evert, Williams and Navratilova as the greatest. Seles very seldom features in the types of conversations when considering the greatest of all time. She often tends to be ranked with players like, say, Hingis: who won a similar amount of tournaments as Seles.

 

plus boxing is intentionally kept that way. Boxing and it's media feed off controversy. There are ways to make the judging more objective, there also should a form of revision to prove a decision. But those crooks rather concentrate on rematches to fool the victims into thinking, the next outcome will be more fair. It just never happens

 

I agree that Graf, Court, Evert, Williams and Navratilova rank ahead, and I admit I overstated it. But Seles usually gets in right after them and ahead of Hingis from what I've seen, e.g. from Wikipedia:

Seles is widely regarded as one of the greatest tennis players of all time.[25][26][27] In 2012, Tennis Channel created a list of the 100 greatest tennis players. Seles was listed at #19.

Obviously no serious commentator would have her at #1. But I still say she's ranked ahead of her actual accomplishments.

 

It’s a generational thing, but history will remember the winners, regardless of how they got it.

As I’m very much part of this generations boxing scene, I see GGG as undefeated, and the best middleweight around. The next generation won’t care so much, and just see the L.

So, if you flip that, history won’t care about Canelo’s controversial win, but boxing fans of today will/do.

 

There is already a guy like that and his name is Sven Otke

 

Yeah I think so, guess it depends on the rest of his achievements and resume but he's at least shown he can hang at elite level and be competitive. I scored all Floyd, Lara, Trout and GGG x2 against Canelo, one a legit loss and one out and out robbery but I think he showed enough to be considered great. Canelo still.has a way to go before he's in that bracket tbf but ultimately he should do.

 

To some extent but how much does the past get brought up still when assessing this.

A Hagler v Leonard thread still causes more debate than many current fights, in that example either way the fighter is great so it's not wholistically relevant to this thread but plenty of fights get brought up as robberies still decades after when talking about the fighters.

 

One or even two controversial decisions could be excused ... but when your favourable calls are pushing 5 you have a problem, it's not just fortuitous judging, its, dare I say it, a pattern of corruption.

 

Not really, people still know about the draw of Lewis vs Holyfield fight etc..
If a house fighter wins on paper after loosing the actual fight people still know who really won.