I will use Tyson Fury as an example for this thread as he is current. Some people say he has one maybe two great “wins” on his record. An older Wlad and Wilder. His detractors point to this and say “He has to fight and beat AJ, or he has to have a few more elites on his resume. They say Wilder is a trash can with a right and nothing else. The other end of the spectrum is the how. Fury did produce a masterclass on both Wlad and Wilder (second time around). His fans will say he’s big, athletic, talented gifted etc etc. Words used to describe the how. They talk about how he could best anyone anytime and forget Otto Wallin. At the end of the day what matters more for a boxer? How he wins or how many elites they beat?
How many elite fighters you beat 1 or 2 good wins don't make you a legend or an ATG, being #1 for a moment and time and actually being GREAT are 2 different things nowadays greatness is given to easy by fans
Roy Jones Jr. Two good wins over a young Hopkins and James Toney. Is he not an atg in your eyes? Not trying to start trouble just genuinely curious.
Neither matters more. Every path has been taken to greatness, and usually the detractors can be caught switching up criteria. We have heard them all. For years, with Wlad, it was... "He doesn't have the great win/ultimate opponent." And yet Larry Holmes is universally regarded as a great, though his best opponents were an underwhelming Ken Norton and Tim Witherspoon, both of whom some people felt won their respective fight. Now we have the Fury version... "He doesn't have a long string of defenses" though neither did Sonny Liston, who pretty much as a religious cult these days. Then there is Dempsey, who get on there purely on how he won. Fury has beaten: Wlad Klitschko (generally now regarded as a great) Deontay Wilder (undefeated titlist) ChisoraX2 (well-liked perennial contender) Cunningham (Cruiserweight champ and heavyweight contender) Kingpin Johnson (title challenger/still a legit contender when Fury beat him) Hammer (well-liked fringe contender) Rogan (former contender) Pianeta (former title challenger) Wallin (the guy could go places) It bests Vitali Klitschko's wins, and compares favorably to Floyd Patterson, both of whom are regarded as great. I say he clusters with Bowe, Walcott, Patterson, Vitali, Schmeling and Norton. If he beats Joshua, he jumps past Wlad, Holmes and Liston as a guy who actually did dominate his era in a way that they did not.
If you fight ‘elite’ opponents you aren’t always going to win in style, a single punch KO, or by a dozen unanswered punches. Taking on top performers, in a fairly even match-up is what we should expect and will pay for.
Roy Jones is the first fighter to win titles from 160-heavyweight in like 100 years, that's ATG stuff, comparing that to Ttson fury is ridiculous
I wouldn't call the Wlad victory a masterclass. He did what he had to win, but it wasn't spectacular. Fury being the underdog help the overall performance. If he beat Wilder the way he beat Wlad he would have been heavily criticized.
Only 2? Virgil Hill isn't a good win? (HOF) Mccallum isn't a good win? (HOF) Reggie Johnson isn't a good win? (multiple division champion) Montell isn't a good win? (undefeated w/2 wins over James Toney) Thomas Tate isn't a good win? (Top 5 guy) John Ruiz isn't a good win? (HW titlist and top 5) Roy get's discounted a lot on here but I digress: The answer to the thread starter's question, I'd say how you win and how much you win. If you string together enough dominant wins (Wlad for example because he has no HOF level fighters on his resume), pundits will have no choice but to respect the reign to at least include you in the discussion.
It has to be a combination of the 2. Would you consider Wilder great? He knocked out all but 2 if his opponents. Has one of the highest KO percentages of all time. He definitely is demonstrating the how someone wins question. If Wilder were to go on and get revenge on Fury, beat AJ and stop the rest of the guys in the top 10 of the division, he may be looked at as an ATG.
Jesus wept! Some on here feel that I'm somewhat of a Roid hater, which FTR is patently untrue, but it's just flat out disrespectful to Roid to compare his resume to Bootleg D's. Prime Roid's resume might be a barren wasteland when it comes to legit bangers and prime healthy greats but it stll shits all over Bootleg D's by a country mile even though his two signature wins over legit greats (B-Hop and Toney) are smoke and mirrors. Sure B-Hop wasn't a fraction of the fighter he would go onto to become when he fought the prime ie. walking PED factory Roid and Toney was a weight-drained cadaver/zombie but I'll take those two wins over a lead-footed geriatric Cuban hype job whose head is literally a magnet for right hands and an obese lead-footed giant D level Haitian penguin whose head is also a magnet for right hands any day of the week.
