And give their heavier counterparts hell, does that make them greater on a P4P basis? Does Billy Conn beating Louis on the cards and basically losing due to a bad decision make him greater if only in a P4P sense? A past his prime Ezzard Charles almost stopping Rocky via a TKO and going 15 with him?
Yes. Conn didn't "beat" Louis on the cards. He was slightly ahead after 12 rounds, and no matter what he'd done, he would've still needed to at least win another round or two and avoid being knocked out to secure a victory. You can't just sort of anoint him the winner for being ahead after 12. Admittedly, his decision was bad in the 13th round(a lack of ring intelligence at crucial moments is a park of your make-up as a fighter anyway), but the little "Conn had the fight in the bag and was at no risk except that he decided to brawl" line that gets passed around so often is unreasonable. No to the first, but yes to the second. Let's put it this way: If Ding-a-Ling Man Wilson moves up to heavyweight to fight Wladimir Klitschko, takes the beating of his life and loses every second of every round, but then he accidentally tears Wlad's nose open with an elbow, should he be lauded as a great fighter? I don't think so. Charles lost badly in the Marciano rematch, and the outcome was only ever in question because of a one-in-a-million astronomical stroke of luck.
Yup. You've just defined Emile Griffith's entire career! He didn't just go up in weight class, winning titles along the way. He campaigned up and down, dropping from middleweight to welterweight to challenge Jose Napoles (losing a decision) and returning to middleweight only two months later. Griffith was a natural welterweight and even as middleweight champion he seldom was as big as or weighed as much as his top opponents.
