What is most important when evaluating greatness

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by shza, Feb 22, 2021 at 7:12 AM.

What factor is most important when evaluating greatness...

  1. Legendary wins over top 100-200 ATGs

    10 vote(s)
    35.7%
  2. Quantity of quality wins over top 5 contenders of the day

    6 vote(s)
    21.4%
  3. Overall record and consistency

    12 vote(s)
    42.9%
  4. “Eye test,” skills and dominance

    10 vote(s)
    35.7%
  5. Titles, records, and accolades

    1 vote(s)
    3.6%
  6. Mythical h2h matchup

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Senya13

    Senya13 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,654
    744
    Jul 11, 2005
    The most important is spending a decade or two, learning about fighters, before even attempting to rank them.
     
    ironchamp and shza like this.
  2. Bulldog24

    Bulldog24 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,039
    2,294
    Aug 2, 2013
  3. George Crowcroft

    George Crowcroft 'Snarky Little Gobshite' - IntentionalButt Full Member

    20,905
    29,207
    Mar 3, 2019
    Not really.

    There's only so much you can actually learn about a fighter.

    I doubt it'd take me a decade to learn everything about a fighter.

    Things big enough to cause a massive shift in ranking are normally the first things you learn. Knowing the fine print of some of their lesser known fights won't drastically change how you view them.

    I get the idea that you need to have genuine, in-depth knowledge of the fighter, but there's not much difference between knowing a lot and knowing it all.
     
    Colonel Sanders likes this.
  4. Seamus

    Seamus Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    43,731
    14,777
    Feb 11, 2005
    Mike Tyson had carriage.
     
  5. Senya13

    Senya13 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,654
    744
    Jul 11, 2005
    FighterS. Greatness is relative, so in order to rank somebody, you have to have a good idea about other people you compare him with. And that takes a lot of time.
     
    Bujia and Bukkake like this.
  6. Bulldog24

    Bulldog24 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,039
    2,294
    Aug 2, 2013
    Overcoming adversity is undisputed P4P ATG H2H #1
     
  7. shza

    shza Member Full Member

    319
    331
    Dec 15, 2018
    I agree with both of you all... This is why we have to bring other factors into the equation, like eye-test, h2h matchups, willingness to fight the best (good call on this one Richard), and consistent wins over the contenders of the day. There is no doubt in my mind that Marvin Hagler would've fought the Basilios, Fullmers, Lamottas and Griffiths had he had the chance because he ducked nobody in his day.

    I actually think that old school fighters deserve credit for fighting 2x a month or once a month, even if that led to inconsistent performances and a padded record in some cases... Fighting 20x a year with 10 showcase/gimme fights and losing once shows me more about a champion's character than fighting 3x a year with 1-2 showcase fights and a perfect record.
     
  8. Colonel Sanders

    Colonel Sanders NSB defector Full Member

    6,370
    2,570
    Sep 13, 2012
  9. ron davis

    ron davis Member Full Member

    339
    231
    Sep 2, 2013
    Excellent point!
     
  10. KidDynamite

    KidDynamite Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,168
    589
    Sep 16, 2012
    Beating the best at their best is the most important criteria. Obviously this means the best available ... You can only fight who is there ...

    This would involve overcoming adversity and proving you can overcome the odds (if they are against you).

    Skills, the "eye test", titles, records, accolades, abilities and whatever all fall behind beating the best at their best. Nobody cares if you have he most powerful left hook or if you have the fastest hands if you never beat the best among your peers. You can navigate your way to picking up random belts against weak champions but that doesn't mean you're a great boxer.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2021 at 7:59 PM
    Smokin Bert likes this.
  11. ironchamp

    ironchamp Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,087
    549
    Sep 5, 2004
    My system I suppose is a combination of what was listed:


    1) Reign as Champion

    2) Quality of Opposition

    3) Notable Losses/Omissions

    4) Ability as a Fighter (the eye test)

    5) Historical Significance (Accolades, records held, etc)