what is a better indicator of a fighters level

Having a multiple fights against elite or top opposition is better than crushing cans yes

 

...

 

Great question, as it can be hard to tell. For instance, I once saw a powerful young heavyweight crush a bunch of cans and was really impressed. Then he KOd an ATG heavyweight and I was sure about him, even though the ATG was old as **** and out of shape. Then he KOd a LHW ATG who was younger and I was totally convinced.
Then, he fought a guy who was prime, strong and brave. Imagine my surprise when I was proven wrong and found out that Mike Tyson was a big ****ing hype job who never beat anybody worth a **** when you look back.
Then I see an ameture legend who is matched unusually tough in the early going, but I am unimpressed because he appears to struggle more than he should that early in his career. But then he gains experience and goes on a totally insane 20 fight KO streak, with 6 of them against top ten fighters! All of them are his size and none of them are washed up either! Proven wrong again?!? Yep, come to find out Gennady Golovkin IS the true beast the world has been waiting for.
Great thread, glad you gave me the platform to explain these things👍🏼

 

Theres no substitute for facing elite level competition. I would even argue that your performance, good or bad, with a top level fighter can overshadow an entire career.

 

Plenty of folk have made this claim about plenty of fighters.

And many of them turned out to be ego-stroking idiots when they proved to be incorrect.

(not that I disagree with your examples, but I've read the same thing countless times for countless fighters; however there are not countless elite fighters out there)

 

What impresses me more doesn't necessarily tell me who is better.

A football team can be 5-0 with 5 blowout wins over bad teams and another team can be 4-1 and have faced three or four top-25 teams and the 5-0 team might be better when they meet head to head.

Same with boxing. The more battle-tested guy with the great resume might get whipped by the undefeated young guy who has been fed cans ... just because the up-and-comer hasn't been tested doesn't mean he will lose when he is tested. He just hasn't been tested yet ... and maybe a couple of those journeymen he blew out were a little better than you thought, he just was so good he completely outclassed them.

Easy example: George Foreman's resume wasn't nearly as impressive as Joe Frazier's when they fought. Yet look at the result.

 

Fighting an elite opponent and winning even if the odds are against you is the most impressive to me.

 

Yeah, I saw this fine honey with the meat, bread and potatoes, but in the end she couldn't f--k worth shet. :smoke

 

Pre-Judging boxers is the same.
We learned a long time ago that you cannot judge a book by it's cover.
After Audrey Harris, Zab Judah, Lucien Bute, Jeff Lacy, Michael Grant, we should know that the only real testament to gauge a boxer is less by appearance and more by competition. :smoke

 

There's as little certainty in a good performance against a single elite level fighter as there is crushing a bunch of lower level ones.
In boxing (like other sports) you have good and bad days, good and bad style matchups, good and bad strenghts vs weaknesses clashes etc. One fight doesn't tell you the whole story, or even two.

Like said by CST, the eye test usually works a lot better, certainly over multiple fights.
Innoue/Loma/Rigo/GGG/Spence/Usyk/Artur/Gonzo/Kova all pass this test with flying colors, so we can see they're the real thing.