Rating fighters is actually getting more difficult and confusing for me ... for example, so now "behind the scenes action" is a criterion of boxing greatness ?? Not even sure what it means. Nevermind transparency of behind scenes action.
True enough about Columbus and Jackson, but Theodore Roosevelt has actually improved his historical standing in the polls of historians on American presidents. In 1948 and 1962 he was ranked #7. In the several polls in the 21st century, he has ranked between #2 and #5, by consensus #4 or #5. Jackson and Woodrow Wilson are the ones dropping. I personally think they should drop more. Not certain why you think old Teddy deserves to hit the skids. The biggest drop was old James Buchanan, rated 26th back in 1948. He is now ranked #43 and petty much considered the very worst or close to the worst president.
What's not to love about Buchanan? :good I mean, look at him. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/James_Buchanan_-_post_presidency.jpg You can almost smell the failure wafting off his photo.
Well, watching your country spiral toward a Civil War where millions would die and major cities burned to the ground and doing nothing to stop that trajectory tends to lower your success rate. Being gay and having your fiance overdose because she can't deal with it tends to lower your standing. Being described by your peers as "an old maid" doesn't help, either. Just stuff like that.:good
So sayeth you, like it means something to any but "the few". "The many", will give fighters the respect they are due, and not impose 21st century thinking on them.
I am not talking about how great he was perceived to be, I am talking about how great he actually was. Presumably he did not become any less great, because better fighters such as Ali came along. For that reason we have to compare him to the people who came before him, as well as the people who came after him. Among the people who came before him, you would end up with a pretty short list of people who could be greater.
Greatness isn't set in stone though, it's an opinion. Every fighter did whatever he did, but the assessment of that can change as research brings new information to light, myths get busted, old assumptions get challenged, people take a new look and so on. Just like with all fighters, indeed any historic figure. As a reverse example, Sonny Liston is more highly regarded now than he ever was when he was actually fighting. His accomplishments didn't change, but the perception of them has.
The presumably his actual standing has remained consistent, regardless of how people have interpreted it. Better fighters might have come and gone, but it would not alter his standing relative to the men who went before.
