How important are aesthetics in rating a fighter?

Fairly important.Fighters that look good often seem better than they are.

 

Canelo vs Golovkin for one.

When Canelo flurried and looked good he looked like a master boxer. The counters and flurries made some forget the rest of the 70% of the time that he was eating jabs and running.

Leonard / Hagler is arguably another such match. Leonard looked good and stylish for short bursts even though it was Hagler pushing the pace and making the fight.

On the other end of the spectrum we have Marciano who looked questionable and clumsy even, but he always got the job done, style or no style.

 

Erislandy lara is another one. Incredibly boring, monotone pace and he doesnt like opening up and taking risks even when a guy is hurt. But...it works. For a stick and move counter type, he can easily put the crowd to sleep. But from a boxing purist's point of view, hes brilliant technique wise.

David haye is the opposite. Exciting crowd pleasing puncher. Athletic, fast, explosive, etc. But the guy's a front runner, his technique and defense are "meh", resume is nothing to boast about, and he doesnt have much heart in him, so he'll be lucky to be rated in a top 50 list when he retires.

 

Top 50 of what?

 

A list of the best heavyweights of all time.

 

Monzon never looks good.

 

Monzon looks great to me.

The idea that there is one model of boxing aesthetic and the advent of the concept of "slickness" has ruined boxing.

Effectiveness is the only and true measure of boxing excellence.

 

Well purely by the eye test RJJ is top 3 ATG p4p

By a balanced observer he is somewhere between top 20 and top 40

While someone just going on resumee might have him only somewhere in the bottom half of top 100



Another big factor is how much you buy into excuses like "Lewis/Tyson were out of shape or unfocused for this loss" and at what degree of aging/performance and skill decline a fighters losses are no longer counted against him.

I personally only look at a Fighters prime and any wins out of prime are an extra bonus point while losses out of prime don't hurt a legacy much for me as long as it's obvious it's no longer the same fighter

 

Maybe, but I just despise Andre Wards style so much, same with Calzaghe.
I don't like smothering or slapping.
I don't mind moving as long as the "runner" actually lands clean hard shots.

I give Hopkins a pass for alot of his BS because he was actually a really exciting fighter until his mid 30s and then he started with the "dirty old man tricks", unfortunately he only got the spotlight when he was already 36 and most people only remember dirty old man Hopkins and not "executioner Hopkins"

 

I doubt you'll find many people (anybody?) who considers aesthetics a component of greatness, but I think the eye test is critical for head-to-head matchups.

 

someone like Duran got a lot of points for his attitude and charisma, even though in my mind he lacked wins over other great fighters..

 

In simple terms, aesthetics concerns a wholly subjective experience of something, one considers to be beautiful to look at. So, in determining the overall greatness of any given Boxer, it has little to no importance.

Aesthetics is perhaps more applicable to an individual contest where, no matter the skill level, a competitive bout can have, as a spectacle, an aesthetically pleasing result and be remembered as such. But, again, this is no measure of talent/greatness. It is easy to fall into the the trap of confusing boxers, who appear to be talented, with them actually being talented.

"Effectiveness", as already pointed out by @Seamus , is the only real measure of value. But I would add that even this needs to be supported by a measure of consistently positive results, over time. Not in some one-off spectacular (or even a handful of good looking outings).