How do you rate greatness?

IF Tyson Fury retired undefeted after KOing Dillian White? | Boxing News 24 Fan Forum
Tyson Fury is great (but not as much as Usyk):
- beat Wlad anyway and ended his decade long dominance
- he only lost to one man and never lost by knockout
there is a lot of vomit; some are Fury's, and some are the problem of this or that era (Usyk also participates in this)
such as Wilder's 10 title defenses (make it 7; until Fury).
He's never fought AJ for undisputed, but that's been boxing's problem... for a long time.
@MaccaveliMacc
come on, write something, please, so that the topic returns to the top of the page; thanks
EDIT:
Now I did a little research. The "problems" in HW started when Norton became the WBC champion without beating Ali or Leon Spinks.
The "problems" in HW continue through Holmes, who never became WBA champion (nor undisputed), and later renounced the WBC title in favor of the new IBF federation...
Don't be surprised by Bowe throwing the WBC belt in the trash can, or Usyk's actions, or anything in the interim (between Norton and Usyk); "problems" started 50 years ago.

 

TOP Fighters

Champions & Contenders alike...
Skill & Consensus
Opponents - Win or Lose
Longevity among the Top
Career Questions - Secured or Restrained
Opportunity.

there are Loads of Great Contenders and Uncrowned Fighters out there...

i.e the TF, Usyk, and AJ's will be cited among such conversations - Wrong, absolutely wrong.

the Burley's, the Murders Row, the Forgotten - Steele's, McAvoy's and the like.

the Injured & Cut Short greats, who should be in conversations.

HUNDREDS of Great fighters, hundreds of them, for my money all these Achievement based lists & 'attempts' at lists are never all inclusive and never accurate.

AMONG the Greatest/Best is the way I see it;
150 Years of Boxing and thousands of great fighters i.e a Haugen or Gatti, not Elite like a Greb or SRR and Co, but very good Top Fighters that should never be thought of as any less.

 

By and large, as I've gotten older I don't rate fighters inter-generationally. I collect information about my personal favorites. As far as ranking them goes, my opinion this year might be different than last year depending upon whose career I've been tracking lately.

 

Resume. Everything else is negotiating with it.

Who did you beat and how good were they at the time ? How many great fighters are on your hit list ? Did you beat them because you were better, or because time had already softened them u p? Did you overcome something meaningful, size, style, circumstance, or was the deck quietly stacked in your favour ? That's the backbone. Everything else is merely decoration.

After that, I care about the things nobody else did. Genuinely unique accomplishments.

Pac being an 8 division titlist. Louis defending the HW title more times than anyone defended a belt. Moore knocking out half the known world while not aging. Langford having people seriously argue he was the best fighter from 135-HW. Greb going 45-0 because the concept of exhaustion didn't apply back then. McFarland being undefeated despite his 100+ wins. If only one man has done it, you've found something worth rewarding.

Then you've got the shiny stuff. Undisputed in the 4 belt era. Five divisions. 28-0 in title fights. Twenty consecutive knockouts. Longevity. All nice. But those are the first things people reach for because they're easy to count. Unfortunately Boxing isn't accounting, if the opposition isn't there, then I can't do anything for you.

 

-Resume stands head and shoulders above all

After resume, as secondary..

-Quantity of quality opponets
- title victories, title defenses, unifications and undisputed status
- Few and reasonable defeats/overall record

As tertiary considerations...
- Narrative. High knockout percentage...Cinderella story...iron chin....giant killer...perceived h2h...boss of a strong era...whatever the fighter's narrative is can add or subtract marginally.

My own unique metric is the top ten victories, which I have done a number of threads on. If A guy has a really stellar ten vicories, he cannot be denied.

 

I rate them on the Marciano scale. What is the Marciano scale you say? It's this nifty little thing where we judge how great a fighter is. So for instance Rocky Marciano which the scale is named after would be a 1. To be considered great you would need to exceed 0.1 Marciano. Of course no fighter can score 1 outside of Marciano as we know he's the greatest. I.e Muhammad Ali would score a 0.8 while Carlos Monzon scores a 0.85. Joe Louis bless his soul scores a 0.98 being the closest to perfection on the Marciano scale.

 

You know greatness when you see it. Sometimes, greatness is performing Texas Flood live at the El Mocambo. Sometimes greatness is in a 63-point game against the Boston Celtics. Sometimes greatness is in the maid uniform in Clue. But let me ask you this: Would you know the absence of greatness if you saw it? Or would you only know the presence which decimates the absence? Do you know when it's cold or only know when the heat has come to town? Without darkness we can never truly see the light. Without goodness, does evil manifest through the very...I forgot what we were talking about.

 

This is very Daoist.

 

The greatest fighter of the last 50 years is Roberto Duran, That is my scale of greatness

 

0.91 Marciano. Very much in the conversation for SBOAT

 

Marciano is the poster child for conditioning ,guts and determination, but he came along at the perfect time in history. Joe Louis was ancient ,and Walcott and Charles were already past it and he decided to retire rather than face off against a young Floyd Patterson. And of course Rocky would have played in the road before he came back to fight Sonny Liston

 

Patterson was 0.25 Marciano, Liston was 0.75 Marciano. Not that they weren't ATG. They just ain't got that perfection of a 1 Marciano.

 

This content is protected

 

Current Marciano Scale Listing
Marciano = 1
Joe Louis = 0.98
Roberto Duran = 0.91
Carlos Monzon = 0.85
Muhammad Ali = 0.80
Sonny Liston = 0.75
Floyd Patterson = 0.25