what type of fighter is the entry standard for being great

Agreed.

 

:rofl

 

Just to add to that, I was more impressed say with Frankie Randall's effort against Julio Cesar Chavez in their first fight than I was by Castillo's performance against Floyd.

Now maybe I'm confusing how good a 'fight' Chavez-Randall was with how good of a 'performance' it was by Randall, but I can say that I did think Randall put up a great fight there.

That Chavez, past his peak and maybe lacking a bit of motivation as he was, still wouldn't have gone down by anything less than a super effort on an opponent's part.

 

What was your assessment of the rematch? (Randall-Chavez 2 I mean, not the undignified snoozefest that was JLC-Floyd II)

 

It was building up to another good battle before Flip Homansky bailed Chavez out. I think Randall would have come out on top again if it was fought out to its conclusion.

Given that I had Randall ahead I consider it a win for him. The Chavez of the Randall fights are still betters win at 140 than anything since imo.

Better than Phillips' over Tszyu for instance, and definitely better than Hatton's over Tszyu. (Better than DLH's over Chavez too.)

 

Does anyone consider Frankie Randall a borderline great, as per the shout outs in this thread?

 

He has a far better resume and was a far better fighter than Ottke and Malchewski, who both make your top 10 P4P ATG list no doubt. So **** you and your emoticons, Hans Zimmer

 

He's definitely a door keeper to greatness for me, together with the other guys I listed.

 

Sanderline Williams

 

Only a handful of points away from wins over Toney, Benn, Graham & Barkley.

 

Yeah, he was a genuinely good journeyman with tidy slick skills.Good enough to be a good contender (or better champ than the likes of Joppy and Holmes in a weaker era )were his mindset and management different.

Add in Frank Tate to that list as well.

Williams is the kind of guy who would have beaten or at least fought evenly with Pavlik and taylor while out of shape on a weeks notice.I'd take him at his best over Glen Johnson too.

Maybe Ken Buchanan, marcel and Ismael Laguna would be a more appropriate, serius answer...if you can't compare to those two in terms of accomplishments and \or skills it's likely you aren't great imo.All great talents on their night with short reigns and a few standout wins and no WTF losses in their prime...makes it easy to compare with a wide variety of fighters.

Marquez is a very good fighter overachieving in a weak decade imo.Not great, though i woudn't argue strongly with anyone one way or the other.

 

Sanderline just settled into his journeyman role after a few early losses. He usually didn't even train for the fights. One could imagine that he may have very well won some of those fights decisively had he not needed to pace himself as much.