What about if you have never seen him and his only ventures into world class ended in stoppage defeats? What about if he often lost to modest journeymen with losing records? Including being stopped 11 times. How would you classify him then?
their not modest journeymen mcvey, are they now. among them were 2 later world champions, 6 Top 10 contenders, MOST of the other fighters from 1937 - 49 were World Classed fighters, by the Ring Magazine evaluation (and quite a few understandings here by the looks of the thread) MOST of them from 1938 - 49 Top 10 in the UK - which IS one of the Strongest of LEADING Boxing Nations... 3 of them top noted HWs, 2 of them Top L-HWs... 2 others who fought for world titles WHOM he couldn't get near, reported on for as long as 6 years and 5 out robberies among them. so good thing you don't work for RING Magazine then, otherwise what would be left of Boxing with none worth the mention outside of 11 men per division!
I'd say it means good enough to contend - and contend seriously - at a world championship level. Not necessarily a world champion, but at least a mandatory or multiple time challenger, with the ability to make it a live fight. A journeyman on the fringes who gets a title shot as an easy defence doesn't count. Record is difficult - Zivic lost about a third of his fights, but was definitely world class by any definition. Probably more reliable in the modern era, but then you still get Mexican guys with mediocre looking numbers who are good fighters. Depends on the opposition.
It's difficult. Take Maurice Harris, for example. The guy has almost a 500 record. But he had skills. Was he world-class? Sometimes. It depended on where his head was at when the bell rang. He'd go on run, get ranked, lose badly several times, go on a run, get ranked, lose badly. He was involved in multiple eliminators. Looking, back, though, it doesn't look good.
There is relatively little professional boxing activity in the world, especially in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, at the present time in comparison to the amount which was taking place during the first half of the Twentieth Century. As a result, I believe that the qualitative depth in each weight division at the present time is far less than it was from 1900 to 1950. - Chuck Johnston
Anyone who has occupied a world ranking should be labelled as world class. Like if Antony Crolla was to face Mike Alvarado he could rightly say he's facing a world class opponent. It's also an attribute that stays with you forever due to experience. So if Kid Galahad was to beat Nehomar Cermeno he could say he's beaten a world class opponent.
I don't think you are "always" a world-class opponent. Guys may not be world-class when they first begin their careers, they can become world-class with the proper training, and then they can drop off badly if they suffer too many beatings or are matched poorly. If Muhammad Ali stepped foot in the ring today, and someone pummeled him, that guy didn't beat a world-class fighter. He beat a sick old man. I know that's an extreme example. That's kind of why I've always based it on skills and talent, and not he "once" was ranked. Being a world-class fighter isn't a constant, in my opinion. You can get there, and then you can drop off.
So, if the guy's overall record is 179-20, with 120 knockouts, and he lost every time he fought name, would you classify him as world-class?
He was twice ko'd in ONE ROUND by a man whose record at the time was was 0-1-0 and 1-1-0 .He was having his 29th and 31st fights. In his 16th fight he was stopped in 5 rds by a man whose resume was 1-0-3. In his 26th fight he was outpointed by a fighter with a 1-0-0 record. In his 34 th contest he was kod in 1 rd by a fighter whose stats were 3-1-0. In his 48th fight he drew with a man whose record was 3-16-0 that boxers career resume is 22 fights w4 L17 ` draw [with him]. Every top fighter beat him, every worldclass fighter stopped him. Can you name any other boxer whose record is so bad whom you also think was world class?