The most important is spending a decade or two, learning about fighters, before even attempting to rank them.
Not really. There's only so much you can actually learn about a fighter. I doubt it'd take me a decade to learn everything about a fighter. Things big enough to cause a massive shift in ranking are normally the first things you learn. Knowing the fine print of some of their lesser known fights won't drastically change how you view them. I get the idea that you need to have genuine, in-depth knowledge of the fighter, but there's not much difference between knowing a lot and knowing it all.
FighterS. Greatness is relative, so in order to rank somebody, you have to have a good idea about other people you compare him with. And that takes a lot of time.
I agree with both of you all... This is why we have to bring other factors into the equation, like eye-test, h2h matchups, willingness to fight the best (good call on this one Richard), and consistent wins over the contenders of the day. There is no doubt in my mind that Marvin Hagler would've fought the Basilios, Fullmers, Lamottas and Griffiths had he had the chance because he ducked nobody in his day. I actually think that old school fighters deserve credit for fighting 2x a month or once a month, even if that led to inconsistent performances and a padded record in some cases... Fighting 20x a year with 10 showcase/gimme fights and losing once shows me more about a champion's character than fighting 3x a year with 1-2 showcase fights and a perfect record.
Beating the best at their best is the most important criteria. Obviously this means the best available ... You can only fight who is there ... This would involve overcoming adversity and proving you can overcome the odds (if they are against you). Skills, the "eye test", titles, records, accolades, abilities and whatever all fall behind beating the best at their best. Nobody cares if you have he most powerful left hook or if you have the fastest hands if you never beat the best among your peers. You can navigate your way to picking up random belts against weak champions but that doesn't mean you're a great boxer.
My system I suppose is a combination of what was listed: 1) Reign as Champion 2) Quality of Opposition 3) Notable Losses/Omissions 4) Ability as a Fighter (the eye test) 5) Historical Significance (Accolades, records held, etc)
