Where would you rate a fighter with SD losses to numerous great fighters?

Assume there's a fighter who started extremely young in the later 60s. His only fight results against *top* level opposition were the following:

Loss, split decision, vs Ali, ca 1967
Loss, split decision, vs Frazier, ca 1970
Loss, split decision, vs Ali (2nd fight), ca 1972
Loss, split decision, vs Foreman, ca 1974
Loss, split decision, vs Norton, ca 1976
Loss, split decision, vs Larry Holmes, ca 1978

Aside from these fights, he was undefeated. Following the Holmes loss, he retired. In between, he confined himself to beating journeymen.

He made a brief comeback a la Foreman in the later 80s with the assistance of Mackie Shilstone. During this second career -- once again, fighting journeymen on the way up -- he ultimately scored the following result:

Loss, split decision, vs Michael Spinks, ca 1987

Following the loss to Spinks, he retired again, bewailing the fickleness of judges.

All of the results were legitimate. They were all good fights that genuinely could have gone either way, but the judges happened to vote against him every time. In accordance with tradition, his opponents universally agree in retrospect that he was the best fighter they ever faced. (As opposed to all the fighters who actually beat them.)

Where would a resume like that rank on your all time heavyweight list, if anywhere?

 

At first glance, he just looks like a better Ken Norton. He has similar results against Ali (close fight against prime Ali, but no victory to counterbalance it) and Holmes. His razor thin loss against Norton also suggests an equivalent level with Ken.

But. On the other hand, he's better against Foreman -- though I have no idea how he only squeaked by with an SD loss after Foreman presumably gassed. And he improved on some of the performances by Ali (vs prime Frazier) and Holmes (vs Spinks); the latter due to extreme age.

My guess is that this guy is better than Norton.

Based on his results, including his close fight with Norton, his persistence into old age, the Foreman result, etc., I'm thinking some sort of slick, big boxer with an extremely good jab, but not a puncher. He probably could clinch well and frequently, considering that's the only way Ali beat Frazier anywhere close to Frazier's prime. The loss against Foreman indicates a very negative style.

But that's just a guess; I didn't think through what his style would have to be like to achieve these results. Interesting pastime to guess. I'd be interested to hear the forum's own guesses.

A version of Holmes with a strong streak of Ruiz/Young in him (when somebody fails to push him) might achieve these results.

 

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. I agree that all fighters deserve a lot of credit for getting into the ring, and risking their health.

But when we use the term "great," it's basically just a shorthand for fighters who accomplished more in competition than others. Muhammad Ali was "greater" than Jimmy Thunder in this sense, for example, because he actually held the title.

That's why we have titles in the first place: to recognize that some boxers seem to be more accomplished at boxing than others. I don't see how it's insulting to consider one fighter greater than another when the idea of levels of competition is intentionally built into the sport. (Heck, the entire idea of a boxing match involves judges deciding which boxer performed better.)

 

Ah, but that would make it too easy.

"What measure an SD loss?" is a more interesting question, IMO.