You might not like to think so but it does play a huge role in how fighters are viewed. Ali, dempsey, jeffries, louis, Tyson, SRL etc etc there is a long list of very good to great fighters who dont get recognition because of their lack of fame and impact on the sport. Look at Tunney vs dempsey. Tunney took him to school but everyone knows and remembers Dempsey.
On accomplishment and Ability Neither of these can be used because themselves they mean nothing. Accomplishment needs to be broken down to something concrete that is measurable. IE in what areas did they accomplish anything? was it wins,. KO's, reign, resume etc Ability is entirely subjective and has no real use other than casual discussion about potential realized or missed.
I put no credence to this when determining status. Sure, it may be impressive for some men but so is also ruling your division with an iron fist. hagler, bhop, Zoo etc these guys were consistent at their weight and IMO that may even display greater dedication to training, maintaining your weight while still beign on top. I am still at my original 4 criteria.
Yup I agree with this too. Also because it disadvantages heavyweights. What was your original again? I cant find the post.
Ranking fighters is not an exact science and criteria will vary depending on what fighters are being discussed. At the very top of the tree will be the fighters throughout history who are sporting the most impressive win columns, but they'll be sorted by looking at other factors like ability (who was the more efficient and effective fighter at their best), accomplishments, and longevity (longest amount of time at the top level).