Teddy Atlas: "Without longevity you can't be great."

I was watching a documentry the other night in which Teddy spoke the words in the title. Do you agree?
If so, what does it say about fighters like Marciano, Tyson, Foreman and Ray Leonard?

Tyson's dominance lasted only three years, Rocky made only six title defences, Foreman had a long combined career, but he didn't have a long career at the top. Lastly, Leonard retired and unretired multiple times, cherry picked certain fights and didn't dominate any particular weight class or era.

Perhaps many will not rate all the above as great per se, but I think the fair majority would. Teddy does have a point, but why do we make exceptions for the above fighters?

On the other hand, Virgill Hill enjoyed a very long stay at the top at 175, and was probably the best light heavy of his generation...yet few would call him a great fighter.
If we take longevity as a prerequisite for greatness, or at least an important aspect of greatness, surely a Virgill Hill must qualify?

Thoughts?

 

Armstrong didnt have longevity, So I suppose he is not great either.
Its a style's thing, people with MArciano's Frazier, Armstrong, Tyson's style are ment to fade out about as fast as they climb the top. There takeing more hits getting in to set up there power shots, were a boxer is working on avoiding punishment.

 

Yeah, I think longevity definitely is an important factor. That's why I don't have Foreman and Tyson in my top 5 for example. As for Armstrong you have to weigh achievement against longevity. His achievement of holding three world champion titles simultanously is unique, so that alone gives him a lot of credit. Had he coupled that dominance with SRR:s longevity he would without a doubt be nr. 1 p4p IMO, but since he didn't, he's somewhat lower.

Leonard (like Foreman) had longevity in a way since he sustained a high level of perfomance for a relatively long time. What he lacked is frequency rather, i e to sustain a high level for a large number of fights. His lack of frequency diminish his record somewhat, but his achievements still guarantee him a high standing. What separate him from SRR in terms of record is mainly his low frequency.

While style might be an explanation for lacking longevity, it's not an excuse. A fighter that perfomed at the highest level for 10 years is always going to be greater than someone who performed at an equally high level, but for, say, 5 years only. Quite simple really.

 

I'm not a big Teddy Atlas fan and I consider Salvador Sanchez(RIP)...great.

 

There is NO way Armstrong was going to have longevity with his swarmer style. No way.

 

I dont think greatness has any one property or connotation which a fighter must have in order to qualify as a great.

You can be great without having longevity (e.g. Armstrong). You can be great without having great skills (e.g. Rocky Marciano). You can be great without dominating your era (e.g. Beau Jack). You can be great without being consistent (e.g. Tony Canzoneri ) Heck, you can be great even if you don't have a great wins resume/quality wins (Ricardo Lopez).

But the more of these you lack, the less likely you are to be great. If you are missing more than one of the above, you'd have to really, REALLY be great in some of the other ways listed there to qualify as a great.

Of course, the more properties you have like the ones above, the more likely you are to be great.

 

It makes perfect sense.

I agree.

 

Too bad.

You want to fight with that style then you have to pay for it.

 

Tyson still had longevity. For a period of almost twenty years he was defeating top ranked contenders.

He may not have been right at the top for the entire time, but it's still a better example of longevity than, say, Aaron Pryor, Salvador Sanchez etc.

I think longevity and dominance are interrelated but ultimately exclusive. And I generally don't use time elapsed as the best indicator of dominance - Jack Johnson and Jess Willard were champion for longer than Mike Tyson, but were their title reigns as dominant? Ofcourse not.

Ray Robinson displayed "longevity" at middleweight, but not true dominance (compared to Monzon, Hagler), he never really made a solid run with the middleweight title, but he still did enough for me to consider him the best.

Ofcourse longevity is very important. The reputation of fighters like Archie Moore thrive on it.

 

Well, putting it in baseball terms, Sandy Koufax was great, and so was Warren Spahn. One was Achilles-great, the other was Odysseus-great.
Guys like Walter Johnson, who soar both high and long --
well, they're Herakles-great.

 

I believe longevity is a PART of the equation of an all time great.

 

If you don't have longevity, you better have a great resume. Thats the way I see it.

Salvador Sanchez, perfect example.

 

To put Tyson in the same class as Foreman and Ray Leonard is criminal, shame on you.

 

Longevity helps, but some rare fighters can achieve greatness in a short amount of time.

 

I agree with this - very good post