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

Of course. When a fighters career is over, and critics take the time to decipher who is great and who deserves the h.o.f...that is when you judge those fighters accordingly...

What is rare is that a poster who loves a certain fighter could think up something like this in hopes that a Floyd fan replies...so that this fan of a certain fighter can point out their success in getting a rise out of that Floyd fan... Only that fan could write something convoluted like this, and act as if he didn't imply anything...:good

 

No. What do fighters do to build up their careers? They fight journeymen, shot fighters, and bad fighters. By the time they build their way up to becoming someone considered a really good fighter, in most cases they face tougher tests by fighting more polished fighters. The only way to prove you are among the greatest of the greats is to beat another greatest of the greats. The poll results do not surprise me considering the users here. Just as it is easier for a fighter to look really good against his earlier competition, it's just as easy to look like a great of all time by not beating another great of all time. It's simple and only a fanboy wouldn't get this concept.

 

Absolutely. Fighters can't control who fights in their era.

 

Of course...but we don't have to be comfortable with it.

 

Great thread. How should I put this. NO. Well, at least in my opinion, but it's really not that simple. People's opinions are just too varied. Longetivity, titles, fight record, etc, basically things on paper. They do count for something, but I really don't care if a fighter was 30W-15L-4Draws. If you beat the best fighters at their best, there won't be any excuses as to how great this fighter really is. To be fair, you have to take all those things into account because all those things make a great fighter.

 

At some point, you have to be wiling to bestow greatness on someone without them beating a prime HOF-calibur fighter because divisions go through highs and lows. If we stuck strictly with your view of things, then there's no saving the heavyweight division because the two dominant heavyweights never beat a prime HOF fighter, and if they both retire without anybody taking their titles, then what? It's impossible for there to ever be a great heavyweight ever again because there are no great heavyweights to earn greatness against? That can't be right. At some point there HAS to be other criteria necessary to determine greatness.

Sometimes you know greatness when you see it. They move like nobody else, hit like nobody else, slip shots like nobody else, do or show something you've rarely or never seen that makes you think, "this guy is special". Sometimes it's really that easy to know that you're looking at a fighter who is going to be famous and if they dominate their opponents in rare fashion and defend their titles with extreme prejudice, you know they're great even if there are no other greats around in their division during their career.

 

Using the Same logic we could ask should a fighter be classed as truly Great if they have bad nights and lose to inferior fighters. Surely a great would have the consistency for that not to happen?

 

Yes, if the fighters fan base is big enough. It's really difficult for an unpopular fighter though.

 

It's so damn easy to answer this question...

Just think of the best possible fighter you can think in history with any kind of combination of skill, stamina, flair, speed, power etc. etc.
Now put him in the worst possible era, where none of the opponents even come close to HOF status and imagine what will happen.
Will this boxer now suddenly not be great anymore because all his opponents are (or look like) tomato cans?