"Greatest" vs "Best"

This content is protected

Dwight Howard gives his opinion on the GOAT (Greatest of all time) debate. He clarified that to him, someone like Bill Russell would logically be the "greatest" due to his insane longevity and sheer number of championship wins (the most of any hall of famer). He further explains that while Bill had accomplished the most, he didn't think he was the "best" player of all time, nor did he have the best era in terms of skill (He thinks it would be Kareem and Jordan).

In other words, the "best" would be the guy who was the most skilled and would win the most h2h in their respective field, but that doesn't automatically make them the "greatest" who achieved the most. In sports, those are often 2 different things and what he's saying makes sense.

In boxing, in particular heavyweight boxing, this is how some people have judged the 2 consensus 1 & 2 heavies Ali and Louis. In my opinion, Ali was the best overall boxer at his peak and would probably win the most in a tournament of all the greats, but Louis isn't far behind and is the greatest due to his insane longevity and achievements (although Ali also has many great achievements). For other divisions, you have guys like Crawford and Mayweather who are formidable h2h threats with great skill in the ring, but are far from the most accomplished.

Thoughts...?

 

I completely understand what you're saying. Sometimes even in draws or losses, a fighter can display amazing "greatness". Even in this forum, people praised Wilder for taking his beating like a man in the 3rd Fury fight showing tremendous heart and trying to win despite being inferior in skill and getting dropped multiple times.

However, that single moment of greatness, despite being better than his title winning effort against Stiverne, nobody would say Wilder was a top 10 great fighter of all time. When we're talking all time greatness we are looking at if a fighter is consistently great across multiple fights not just 1 epic moment. Someone like Holmes is rated higher than Wilder because he survived the nuclear bomb from Shavers and got off the floor to win, the war in the 15th round with Norton while suffering a bicep injury, beating the much younger Mercer, etc. He was more consistently great than Wilder who had far fewer moments of greatness. Holmes also had more title defenses, beat better fighters, etc.

 

Fair enough. I disagree on Lewis being the best h2h, but you're certainly not crazy for thinking that and the argument has some merit. He had size, strength, skill, power, good ring IQ, etc and is arguably the best big man of all time on paper.

 

The best don't always become the greatest.

Fury is probably the best fighter h2h today, but his resume is paper thin. Even if he beat Usyk, historians will no doubt criticize him for missing so many important names in his era. Fury is obviously a huge threat (literally) with his combination of size, skill, and chin to most boxers before him, but even Fury's most hardcore supporters wouldn't dare claim he has the best resume or that he was the greatest heavyweight.

 

Same here. Some days I have Rocky 11-15, sometimes he's top 10. But for h2h, hell no he's not top 10 for the more recent modern sized eras (guys 230+). If we're talking about light heavies and cruisers, he'd a force to be reckoned with but he's just too small and his style too crude for the bigger modern giants.

His resume however is remarkable in some ways. He's almost a purely offensive fighter and had a pretty bad amateur career, yet he retired undefeated and basically cleared out his division. This shows how tremendous his offensive ability and endurance was regardless of how he looks on film, it obviously worked. Imposing your style and will on your opponent, forcing them to go at your pace is a type of skill. There weren't a bunch of major athletic talente or ranked skilled fighters that he missed (and the few he did miss like Valdez were beaten by guys he beat). He frequently defended against the #1 contender. The only controversial decision was Lastarza (which he won by brutal stoppage in the rematch). Settling things by KO the majority of the time clears up any disputes about who won and pleases the crowd, so that has to count for something.

So to sum it up, Rocky was no doubt a very great fighter, but clearly not the best in an unrestricted open weight division.

 

It isn't that simple.

Ike Ibeabuchi is a formidable guy h2h and looks good on film, but his career was cut short due to prison. Edwin Valero looked great at first, but sadly took his own life. Salvador Sanchez was phenomenal but died young. Or you can look at Ali and Tyson who lost 3 years of their prime and weren't the same when they came back and had mixed results in their career, but some argue they were #1 in their primes before they got into legal trouble.

Tyson in particular is very polarizing because given his talent, he certainly had the ability to surpass everyone before him but in terms of his career he was obviously nowhere near #1 (not even his own era as you could certainly argue Lewis and Holyfield were above him). But before prison, arguments can be made for him being the best h2h. He was utterly dominant and squashed several different styles (punchers, technicians, movers, etc). Ali also beat many different styles and had a hell of a career despite losing some speed during his layoff. Someone can be the best or most formidable h2h without having the best record.