if u read my other post i said "Obviously if they beat legit good fighters moving up in weight", not bums like u said.
Ok you're convincing me. Ill amend. 1. Quality of opposition (resume) 2. Impact on the sport 3. Longevity 4. Ability to successfully move weights and still beat elite competition Im still not sure about 4. It puts heavyweights at a big disadvantage.
Im still having trouble with 2. The other three can be evidenced by hard facts. No 2 is just opinion and if proven at all, it is by looking at No 1.
Simply beating the best AT their best. That's why it's best to place these guys at the end of their career. When all is said and done.
I never said that you had to judge ability without resume. If a fighter looks awesome against mediocre to good fighters then he has the ability to look awesome against mediocre to good fighters and should be ranked as such. You're still ranking on ability. If you use resume, accomplishments, longevity, dominance, etc... to judge ability, then that's ok. But the bottom line is WHO IS THE BETTER BOXER and I'm not talking boxer as in a specific style of boxing, I mean boxer as in someone who competes under the rules of boxing. and yes, judging ability is subjective. Even when you look at a fighter's resume, how good you think that resume is is very subjective.
It's all opinion. I think Duran's victory over Barkley is one of the best wins of the last 50 years. Talk to some other people and they are less impressed with a soft, 160lbs, old Duran going up and beating up Iran Barkley who was the champion in 1989.
Ability has nothing to do with being an ATG, it's Accomplishment. Your Accomplishments take into account your Ability, not the other way around. Ability is like Potential, Accomplishment is the Result. You can have tons of Ability and Accomplish nothing.
But you can have two fighters who are admittedly ATG's with comparable resumes and comparable achievements. How do you separate them? You evaluate their strengths and weaknesses, and determine who was the more effective fighter at their best. Ability should certainly be a factor.
wrong again. If a fighter has a ton of ability but has done nothing with it then how do you know he has a ton of ability? If a tree falls in a forest and noone is there to hear it, does it make a sound? If you win a lineal championship by beating Carlos Baldomir by decision but I win a lineal championship by destroying a prime Oscar de la Hoya... In terms of accomplishments we both won a lineal championship, but my win demonstrates taht I have alot more ability than you. The truth is that alot of fighters are spoon fed title shots while others have to be two times better to reach the same goal. Not taking that into consideration is cheating history. People wanna know who is the best fighter of all time. Best = Most ability. That's the bottom line. You can say, "Well SRR was the best but Henry Armstrong is greater because he accomplished more." But what people really care about is WHO IS THE BEST P4P FIGHTER" You can say "I consider SRR the best because he accomplished the most, because he has the best resume, because he looked great on tape, because he was a complete fighter, because etc etc etc" but you are still judging how good he was.
It demonstrates you have a better resume. Most people would agree De La Hoya was a better fighter than Baldomir. Hence, good resume is proof of ability.
resume title defenses dominance ko/scorecards performances etc ability ten year plus dominance moving through the weights i may have missed one or two but fame and popularity does not come into it