Better to be Really good for a long time or Amazing/unbeatable for a short time?

There's often a divide amongst boxing fans and sports fans in general about what makes a guy an ATG. But i see this particularly among boxing fans. A guy like Tyson who had a somewhat short prime (if you only include pre-arrest as his prime) but fans just point to that one era and say hes the ATG coz of that segment of time. Roy Jones Jr sorta fits this as well. People tend to disregard their fall from their prime and ignore those losses and excuse them with a 'he wouldnt have beaten that guy in his prime so this doesnt count' type comment regardless of where they are in age. Just coz hes 9 years past his prime...a guy might only be 35 or something and not have a good excuse to my mind.

Im a life long spurs fan so sustained greatness is something i appreciate. but i do think boxing is one of the sports where you could make the case for your 'prime' to be the main consideration for greatness. i dont agree with that...but i think its more credible than in other sports. thoughts?

 

i think greatness over time is more impressive. a guy like hopkins or klitschko from the modern era. pac and floyd obviously have both under their belt (unbeatable period AND sustained greatness)