that doesn't really make sense. If beating a great fighter makes a great fighter, then what made the very first great fighter? in general it is considered that being one of the 100 best fighters of all time makes a great fighter.
yeah i think we can close the thread there....any skill or attribute or size of an internal organ (heart) doesnt matter if you dont win and win against the best
Well the first great fighter had the be the best fighter around beating other fighters that were considered legitimate contenders. After beating enough to build a legacy it would be safe to call him great. The next great fighter would have to beat him and do what the first great fighter did to secure his own legacy. But even if you have speed, power, timing, tight defense, good footwork, it wouldnt make you great if you couldn't beat elite fighters. For example people like Mark Breland or more recently Zab Judah.
yea but if someone beats all the good fighters easily, then doesn't that make him a great fighter? and if not then what does it make him?
That's an age old question a lot of great fighters face. They don't have great fighters in their prime to face so they fight the best around and beat them, but the critics still question their greatness, like Mike Tyson or Larry Holmes. So I think you could still consider them great because they still fought the best around. But it would depend on the circumstances and longevity I suppose.
Also beating them in their prime....thats why Gayweather will never be considered among the serious enthusiast as a great fighter.
Good job ....booradley....these two epitimize greatness....thats why I cringe when I hear nutsuckers refer to Gayweather as a great fighter.
One . . . beating other great fighters. Two . . . the ability to come back after every loss and continue on to reach greater heights in his career. Three . . . having humilty in wins and defeats.