How do you rate greatness?

Patterson had nothing to do with Rocky retiring.,,absolute zero. If anything Patterson’s team wanted no part of Marciiano.

 

Did the fighter rise to the occasion or did they fold? Do they learn from their mistakes and adapt? Do they overcome fear? Could they get off the canvas against another great fighter and win?
Maybe greatness can go the other way in just absolute domination over the competition like young Mike or RJJ.
Both are great and are examples of rising above.

 

Personally I'm very sparing with the word ,"great".
I think its routinely used so much as to have become meaningless.
For example UK fighters.
Great
Wilde
Lewis
Ted Kid Lewis
Driscoll
Welsh
Moran
Berg
Buchanan
Lynch

Very Good
McAvoy
Watt
Froch
Charnley
Harvey
Minter
Downes
Hatton
Conteh
Eubanks
Benn
Watson
Honeyghan
Kane

Good
Fury
Joshua
Laing
Bellew
Macklin
Boon
Mills
Sibson
Bruno
McCrory
Groves

 

Benny Lynch is the greatest among those names. Not because O have any valid reasoning but because I'm from Scotland and we always back our boys. I'm curious Mcvey Where would you rank Calzaghe? That's one of the biggest names missing on your list.

 

I remember Chris Eubank senior being asked how he would like his children to remember him and he replied after one of his enigmatic pauses 'As the man who will always get up even when he knows he cannot win'.

Nuff said....

 

To an extent it does, but ironically, it usually doesn't matter. Eras that have have poor competation are usually perceived as such because they have non-fighting champions. If Dempsey had fought Wills, Godfrey, Greb, Siki it woould be perceived as a better era. If Holmes had fought Page, Dokes, Tubbs, Thomas...someone would have given him a go.

The champion has an active hand in creating the era and how the era is remembered.

 

When I rate fighters it's mainly
1)How well you fought in your era
2)Skillset
3)How they'd do in other eras

 

Resume and what that resume proved or suggested a fighter is capable of.

 

Calzaghe is verygood/great,marginal.I'd put Conteh in that category too.

 

Some questions I consider when rating greatness:

Did they fight the best at their best?
Did they challenge themselves with tough fights and rematches?
Did they elevate the sport or harm the sport?

 

In addition to factors mentioned above, I do make concessions for the conditions in the eras when guys hit their primes, whether it be the sport being outlawed, the color line, war, the paucity of new, decent heavies after WW2.... It is not in a fighter's ability to change sweeping historical events, but those factors do still linger in some lesser degree in my judgement.

 

How they match up H2H in their era is the gold standard, really. But this question expands when we're talking about greats facing each other, because dominating an era is the bare minimum requirement to be in the top 10 ATG rankings at any respective weight and to be in this conversation, usually. Obviously, from this point on, it gets entirely subjective and depends on what you're ranking and what you deem the greater attributes to be.

Look at Ali, Louis, and Wlad. All three are greats. Louis beat more top 10 opponents than anyone. Wlad had more title fights and had a longer reign than Ali. Obviously, they're all in the conversation as legendary heavyweights. When it comes down to ranking greatness, it comes down to fine margins. Ali is above Louis and Wlad because of the quality of the opposition and the calibre of his overall resume, for me, but the subjective factor on top of that, I think, was his sheer will to win.

Whether it was Liston putting vinegar on his gloves and blinding him for a round before he still went on to beat him and then knock him out in 1 round in the rematch, or Cooper hitting him with a left hook that would have knocked out a horse. He still went on to win. Frazier broke his jaw in the first fight, before he beat him decisively in Manila in the 3rd fight, he left it all on the line, even as he was significantly on the decline after being robbed of his best years. If Wlad would have knocked out Joshua at Wembley, I think he'd have a much stronger argument to be in this bracket, for example.

Foreman being the overwhelming favourite in Zaire, or the fact he was slowing down completely when he beat Spinks in a rematch, Ali showed a steely grit in the ring that I don't think Louis or Wlad had. Finding a way to win when it feels like the tide is completely against you is the highest level of greatness for me, but then some would argue technical prowess trumps that and they'd have Wlad above Louis, for instance, it depends on what you think is the integral component.

 

Didn't fight his brother.
Didn't fight Juan Carlos Gomez, Chris Arreola, Solis, and some of the other people his brother beat.