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

Yes crosstrainer, I understand completely and at 'Face value' it seems logical,

but it has been hijacked and watered down to stupid degrees... not saying by you, or anyone in particular, but just generally speaking and to the point it is ridiculous.

i.e Jersey Joe Walcott - Champion, Contender and great and noted fighter throughout the 'most' of his career. then a Tyson Fury or even a Klitschko comes along and they are Greater, or a Bhop or a RJJ.

Well first off NO They are not and secondly, they are great, sure, and among the thousands of great fighters... but then too, there are the Lloyd Marshalls who is also better, but though not actually winning a title or fighting for one, yet are Greater Fighter than Bhop, RJJ and certainly the Fury's and Klits.

likewise a Eubank or Herol Graham for example gets often cited, crazy, great fighters sure, but not in the vain of a Joe Louis, JJW or Charles for example.

so what I'm saying is, it has gotten to the point where ALL these Achievement Based Champions', alphabet titles, fought no real TOP Fighters with either side of 20 fights, CAN get included, in these conversations and list and ratings... Utter madness and Nonsense.

same with Ratings, some Fury Type comes along and suddenly ATG Great Heavyweight Ratings get altered, and can be altered regularly depending on if it's their 2cd HW Title Win or 3 HW Title Win, yet still only a 30 fight career and maybe 5 Noted fighters in that career.

Where as a Marshall or Walcott, fought 100 fights, 15 years against 2 - 3 Dozen NOTED Fighters.

Its ridiculous and just down right insulting.

you could make a List of 10 Greats from any Walcott, Marshall or Charles type fighters and it would put these others whole Careers to Shame - NO Comparison

that's what I mean.

 

Depends on your definition of greatness doesn't it? I don't consider Eubank or Graham greats, but it's a very subjective term and everyone interprets it differently.