Surely you can only measure ability by how they perform against quality opposition? Again it comes down to resume. Perhaps the manner in which they beat opposition could be included? Again though, you could include this under resume.
excellent stuff here. Yeah I would say opposition and which ATGs they beat. That is important. Longevity, but not just longevity fighting mediocre, but did they fight at the top level for over 10 years. If so that is impressive. Moving up and down in weight is another criteria, since I think only the greats can move up and down and win titles in different divisions.
Actually, it comes down to ability. Ability doesn't exclude resume. If someone asks you who are the best boxers of all time, then he is asking you who are the boxers who have the most ability. Whether you use resume, accomplishments, and/or watching tapes to establish your list of the best fighters of all time, at the end of the day you are ranking them from best to worse in terms of your perception of their ability.
Not sure I agree with that. A boxer can under/overachieve when it comes to ability...I'd say there are more factors when deciding whether a boxer is an ATG or not.
Lets take Wladimir Klitschko as a recent example. You can only base his ability at elite level by his performances against the people he has fought. That is rock solid evidence. Could he have beaten Jack Dempsey? Maybe. But that is just a (calculated) guess. It's not hard evidence of ATG status. His resume is fact. His ability (against other greats) is just perception.
you can't truely judge ability without resume. some fighters are flat track bullys and look awsome against medicore to good fighters.
I applaud your effort here Neverchair, but as i predicted these threads just point out the fact that most guys on here dont have a clue how they judge greatness from an objective stand point. I stand by my criteria and until i see a post with some improvement I will use these criteria. :smoke
I dont think you can rule out the reign and total record, it really says something about a guy like Joe Louis and Larry Holmes who are definitely top 5 guys on any objective list. It shows toughness, consistency and dominance that doesnt just require just athleticism. Dont you find it significant that a guy like James Toney can be competitive through 80 plus pro fights? What about Wlad fighting 60 times vs david haye with only 25 professional fights?