Can a fighter become a GREAT if he NEVER beats one prime HOF-class opponent?

Saldivar was coming of two years of inactivity and he never fought again after Jofre i think he was pretty much done at that point even if he was only 30 years old you have to remember he was a very offensive fighter who faced many high quality opponents throughout his career that takes a lot out of a fighter .

 

I don't think a fighter can be considered an ATG if he has never beaten a prime HOF fighter, it doesn't add up to me, but people (some posters on here especially) tend to disagree....

Wlad and Vitali spring to mind, but the only query i have is when people think they are ATG's? personally i dont think so, Lewis is an ATG because he beat the likes of Tyson, Holyfield, Vitali. Between the pair of them the Klits haven't beaten an in prime ATG or even HOF fighter.

Them aside i think its difficult to establish a legacy when you have only beaten stern competition at best, not beating someone who can truly test all of your attributes to see what your really made of is a major hole in some fighters resume'

So i think that you cant be considered a true ATG untill you have beaten at least 1 prime HOF fighter.

 

Who did Marciano beat then?

 

I think Jofre probably did beat a corpse version of Saldivar. He was only 30 but he hadn't fought a competitive bout in two years. It's a decent win in my mind, nothing more.

I voted yes. Resume is the most important factor in my criteria when ranking the greatness of fighters, but sometimes great fighters have dominated good divisions which haven't possessed great rivals. Consistency, longevity, and manner of victory would then also be considered, and guys like Eder Jofre are certainly great in my mind. Only a great fighter could dominate Bantamweight for so long, knocking out the majority of his challengers, to then move up to Featherweight and win the title, beating respectable fighters like Jose Legra and Vincete Saldivar, albeit substantially faded versions.

If you haven't got great, prime opposition on your win column, you best be sporting impressive consistency, numerous title defenses, spectacular dominance, and better than normal longevity. Ranking fighters isn't an exact science. It's a difficult task.

 

Walcott, Moore and Louis were all past their primes BUT at least he has 3 ATG's on his record, We know in his era he was a great fighter another example would be Holmes' era during the decline of Ali and the rise of Tyson but personally in a H2H basis i dont consider Marciano to be that high up on the all time HW rankings simply because of the size/weight disadvantage.

I think what the question and my answer are trying to point out is that in an era of alphabet titles, ludicrous mandatory defences against sub-par opposition and title shots to people who dont deserve them to further pad records and title reigns its hard to consider a fighter an ATG when his record doesnt have the type of fighter that tests all attributes.

 

yes. if you consistently dominate all there is infront of you, your skill set can be extrapolated and used in comparison with fantasy matchups.

 

This is why I think it's too complicated and silly to keep such a strict ruling on ranking the ATG fighters. Technically, Marciano does have these fighters on his resume, but on the night he fought them, were they really at their best? Were they really any better than very good? Probably not, and that's why a bit of common sense should be applied when ranking. It's why ability, longevity, and accomplishments are all factors that should be considered. Perhaps fighters from forgotten era's were overshadowed during their time, but would have probably been considering ATG's today. Lupe Pintor would have certainly done damage at 118, 122, and 126 today.

Some posters rank based purely on ability.

 

Marciano never fought Schmelling.

 

Yeah the thing with ranking ATG fighters is it is based purely on opinion, Is a prime Ali better than a prime Tyson, Lewis? we will never know, on the question in hand however my opinion on the matter is that i can't physically consider a fighter to be an ATG if he's never been fully tested by an elite fighter in their prime.

 

Brain in overdrive was thinking Louis for some reason

you get the point im making though?

 

Well if you can't according to you guys, how does the great that is beaten become a great?

 

what about joe calzaghe then?
jones was past his best, but what about hopkins?

 

calzaghe is great because he was the best in the history of a weak division. that's it. 168 was a stopover division and it's best fighters (toney, jones, benn, etc) weren't there that long. the hopkins and jones wins almost count against calzaghe, for hopkins considering how close and controversial it was and for jones considering how pathetic it was that he even took the fight

 

A great fighter is a great fighter, whether he's surrounded by other great fighters or by scrubs, it makes no difference. It just means he's robbed of the opportunity to demonstrate his greatness.

Sometimes a fighter is SO great that he makes every fighter around him look like scrubs, no matter how good they are RJJ style.