How many good wins equals a great win?

There’s no sliding scale.

A fighter who beats all the ‘good’ opponents he faces and loses to all the ‘great’ ones is at a shelf below the top guys but above the good ones.

 

It's obviously an imprecise science.

On one hand if you never beat someone, lets say an "ATG", then you have never truly proven yourself capable of beating one, of rising to that level. On the other hand there's times when all the moons align and ATG's are upset by far lesser fighters. The fighter may not have performed at his usual high level for a multitude of reasons. I'd class Louis - Schmeling, Lewis - Rahman and Tyson - Douglas on that level while acknowledging Schmeling and Douglas fought incredible fights themselves. Douglas never showed such class and determination all at once on any night prior or after. Schmeling had a perfect gameplan, a winning gameplan whilst louis had dogged it in training like Tyson.

Rahman and Buster have that huge win but it hasn't done a great deal for their standing in historical lists, number wise. Buster's win has immortalized him forever, it's one of the most iconic moments/achievements in boxing history. Don't however look for him high on any achievement/ATG/P4P lists. That huge one off upset has to be backed up by something. It's not enough on it's own.

Salvador Sanchez has an ATG win over Gomez and a host of other good to very good wins. That Gomez win elevates his resume plenty as he showed he is wholly capable of beating a very elite operator as well as compiling a long term winning (and title defending) streak without hiccup. I'd proffer that the win for most people has elevated him over Pedroza who has a myriad of good wins. If Sanchez was missing Gomez and Pedroza instead had an imposing victory over him perhaps it would be Pedroza remembered slightly better? It's a good question.

It's a mixed bag and every "good" win is different. 10 good wins for one guy won't be exactly the same as 10 wins for another guy.

Frazier's win over Ali is around the best in history to many. He also had a solid record prior to Ali, tho detractors don't want to accept that. Tho he lost the next two that win elevated him enormously, alongside his other conquests.

So basically after that long winded dribble.............it depends LOL. There is no formula.

 

Consistency is usually better. Fighters are often reminisced on as having been great because they gave a fighter a lot of problems in a losing effort or because someone is a fan of a fighter and reaching for straws.

 

I’ve always valued consistency over one big flashy win. To me, multiple really solid wins mean more than one “great” win. Being consistently good against strong opponents is way harder than peaking once on the perfect night.

A lot of people treat a “great win” like it automatically settles everything, while they downplay “good wins.” But those labels don’t always tell the full story. Sometimes a win is considered “great” just because the guy you beat had already beaten someone elite, or beaten you, and that creates this weird circular logic where everyone’s greatness just feeds off each other.

On the flip side, there are plenty of “good wins” that are actually over elite-level fighters. The only reason they’re not labeled “great” is because they lost to someone better before they could build that reputation, and sometimes they’re never the same after. If that same fighter had won that one key fight, suddenly beating him would be considered a “great” win. The level of the fighter doesn’t change, just the narrative around them.

That’s why I think having multiple high-quality wins is more impressive than having one massive victory. We’ve seen tons of fighters hit a huge peak for a short stretch and then never reach that level again. Staying consistent at a high level is much harder and way rarer.

At the end of the day, there are a lot of one-hit wonders in boxing. There aren’t many fighters who can repeatedly prove how good they are over a long period of time.

 

Perfectly summed up with some great examples.

 

If you want an example of consistency and good wins building a fighter’s reputation look at Hagler before he fought Hearns.

If you want an example of how a fighter was elevated with one win to a new level look at Hagler after beating Hearns.

 

The specifics of the wins matter more then the quantity.

For example if a fighter is barely beating good opponents and getting wrecked by the ATGs quantity will not make this better then obliterating half as many good opponents but barely losing to ATGs.

 

People tend to rank fighters who dominated in perceived weak/weaker era's lower I tend to notice.

 

Depends on the great win. Some great wins are so great that no amount of good wins will ever equal it. And some good wins are so mid-good that they will never stack up to even a mid-great win. And some great-good wins can easily stack up to a low-great win because they were so good. But a great great win? You can never good win into that. Makes complete sense.

 

Actually, I've nailed down the formula. The conversion rate is wins over Fernando Vargas, as every win against him is considered a good win of his opponent's career.

10 Tito Trinidad TKO Vargas = Duran UD Leonard
50 DLH TKO Vargas = Foreman KO Moorer
100 Mosley TKO Vargas 1 Eye Fight = Rahman KO Lewis
250 Mosley TKO Vargas 2 = Corrie Sanders KO Klitschko
∞ Mayorga UD Vargas = Theoretical Impossibility to Amount to a Great Win

 

Interesting thread. A guy like Michael Nunn took years to get into the hall of fame but imo, he had one of the best runs before losing to James Toney. He beat Frank Tate, Juan Roldan, Sumbu Kalambay, Iran Barkley, Marlon Starling and Donald Curry one right after the other in just two years. That is a very eclectic group of fighters that all have very different styles.

Too me, that is one hell of a run that is not really remembered or talked about much because of the loss to Toney who ended up being a great fighter but at the time, this wasn't thought of as a difficult defense compared to the guys Nunn beat from 88 to 90.

 

People love to say Barrera’s fairly narrow win over a past his best Hamed was great, but Gary Russel from the Lomachenko fight would’ve ud’d Hamed from that night and probably beaten Barrera too.

 

Sometimes a fighter beats the greatness out of another and we don't notice, assuming subsequent poorer performances represent what he once was. Some fighters even beats the goodness of opponents.

 

Even then statistically speaking based on odds 1.5 Tito Wins over Vargas is worth around 1 Duran Win over Leonard