How many good wins equals a great win?

For me the signs I'm looking for in a win that means the most to me is overcoming adversity in a fight. Particularly a MAJOR fight.
That would equal "extra"" great win to me... as long it's a very good fighter.

I feel like many Early champs Sullivan, Johnson, Dempsey had an ass kicking coming... In Dempsey/johnson case it came true in Tunney & Willard. Were they out of their prime sure. But that's not the point... Not facing that level of adversity in their prime we don't know how they would respond because simply they didn't have good enough competition challenging them NOT because they were so dominate. That's how I see it.

The case can be made for Jeffries greatness. He got his ass kicked by both Fitz & Corbett. What we learned this man can survive an ass kicking...that mean's much more to me than someone who was barely challenged & coasting along..like Jack Johnson & Jack Dempsey. The Data proves he can survive an ass kicking. While Dempsey & Johnson both folded the one point in time they were actually pushed into a tough competition fight as champion. Johnson wasn't getting challenged fighting Frank Moran...how much credit does he deserve for this?

Fitz survived plenty of ass kicking in Maher & Corbett and overcame in big money fights. Same with Langford & Mcvey.
Peter Jackson survived an ass kicking in the Slavin big money bout.

Just to me personally there's a bunch of fighter's i feel that just navigated their career to avoid an ass kicking...Johnson & sullivan & corbett are the very first I think of

I'm always going to rank someone I know can survive an ass kicking over someone who wasn't pushed.
I think Peter Jackson is light years ahead of John Sullivan
and I think Langford should be ranked over Jack Johnson. (many feel this way)

I'm not saying Johnson or Dempsey couldn't survive an ass kicking. Not my point. What i'm saying is that it's "extra credit" to me.
I'd rather have a known over a question mark any day of the week.

I for one never use someone's lack of domination as a detriment to them such as people use Marciano's slim wins as a sign of weakness I go 180 in the other direction. I wanna know a fighter can overcome...that is everything in boxing.

So a good win can certainly weight much more than a great win done with ease if you apply this formula to non Big money matches.
I love the fighter's who can rise from the canvas and overcome.

One of the very best Examples in this is the kid Carter vs Peter Maher bout.
The 2nd round was one of the most explosive in history.
Maher set out to stop him & dropped him in round 2.
Maher sailed in to finish him and Carter clipped him on the head & down went Maher.
Maher was so pissed he got up & charged him again not waiting to regain his senses.
Big mistake.
Carter set him up like a bowling pin & Knocked him out cold.
Three knockdowns in a single round.

Was it a big championship fight no...
But it certainly tells you what you need to know that Carter can survive adversity.
Those win's should always count for more & not be used as a detriment because someone struggled.
Struggling is 100% needed in a fighter's career it's downright essential.
Not struggling is a huge red flag for me because there's zero data showing how a fighter will react when the time comes (that's a negative) not a positive.
Just because they struggled once 5-8 years ago means nothing the fighter goes through peaks & valley's in their career.
Overcoming is the single most essential quality in a fighter. The Bulldog's are always challenging themselves.