Ok, my first thread. Let's take this situations, there are two fighters, Fighter A and Fighter B. They're both good sized Heavyweights, so there is no moving weights. They both fought in different eras, so were unable to fight each other. Also there is only one belt (if only), so the champion is the champion. Fighter A: Record: 50-0-0 45 K.O.s Dominated what was thought to be a weak division with many B and C class contenders, no else in the same class. Won every fight by either (T)KO or lobsided UD's. Defended his world title 15 times. Fighter B: Record: 47-3-0 42 K.O.s Fought in a very competetive era with three other ATG fighters. He had two fights with each of these, losing one and winning one in highly competetive fights. Retired a four time world champion, with 10 total defenses. Both fighters had the same amount of fights and retired at 35, both of them champions at retirement. Both in the top 5 Pound for Pound lists. Who has the better resumé/who do you rank higher? EDIT: Figher A is not Joe Calzaghe.
good first thread Anyhow its fighter B clearly, he fought the best competition, and won a title 4 times Fighter A was clearly never tested, never been challenged and never had to overcome adversity. He just fought cabdrivers in Cardiff I mean wherever he's from
It gets down to the particulars of how good were these B' and C' level fighters that A' beat and how highly do the ATG fighters that figther B' defeated rate and how overall impressive each man performed and what they showed in each performance, but far more often than not fighter B' would be the higher rated fighter.
Some of the guys Fighter A beat would be contenders or beltholders in todays world. The top 5 in their weight, respectable, good, but not great. Others were not so good but had become number one contenders after so long. The ATGs that Fighter B beat would be lower end ATGs and definite Hall of Famers. Trying to think of an example, but I can't at the moment.
This isn't an exact example of what your trying to say, but we'll do who was the greater bantamweight, Ruben Olivares or Carlos Zarate? (I apologize for how long this is). Olivares is something like 63-3 at 118lbs, Zarate is 54-1 with the loss a close decision he arguably should have won in his last fight at the weight. Olivares beat Lionel Rose (one of the best bantamweights ever), Alan Rudkin, went 2-1 with Chucho Castillo (another excellent bantamweight), Salvatore Burruni (former champion), Jose Medal (again, an excellent bantamweight), Takao Sakurai, Efren Torres, and a couple more solid contenders. He lost twice to Rafael Herrera. Zarate beat Alfonso Zamora (an excellent bantamweight), and some solid fighters like Rodolfo Martinez, Paul Ferreri, Danilo Batista, and Alberto Davila and a few others. Both were quite dominant at their best, both amassing very long undefeated streaks, the vast majority of the wins coming by knockout. Zarate was stopped in 5 by the great Wilfredo Gomez at 122lbs, and lost a close decision to the outstanding Lupe Pintor before retiring and then later coming back. Olivares moved up to featherweight, where his record is a little mixed. He won the vacant title against Zensuke Utagawa, two knockouts of Bobby Chacon, wins over Art Hafey, and a knockout of a young Jose Luis Ramirez, the only stoppage loss for Ramirez in over 100 fights. However he lost to Arguello, David Kotey, Danny Lopez, Eusebio Pedroza, and in the 3rd fight with Chacon. So who is the greater fighter? Olivares has more losses, and for the most part wasn't quite so dominant at bantamweight as Zarate, but fought considerably better fighters in his career, and had far more success at a higher weight, and they're roughly equal in terms of H2H ability. I, like most people, rate Olivares higher. Especially on an all-time list when taking into account their overall career, but even at bantamweight. Like I said, it's not a perfect example, but it fits. Zarate is fighter A, with some very good wins and a more prestine record who was for the most part more dominant, Olivares is fighter B, with superior competition in his career and better wins plus multiple titles. While some say Zarate is greater, most rate Olivares higher, and for good reason.
Also, you could do the comparisons between Hopkins and Calzaghe. This will get a lot of bull**** responses from blind fans of both fighters, but years from now (and today as well), Hopkins will be rated higher by most boxing fans, despite Calzaghe's more prestine record (Hopkins was an overall more dominant champion, so this doesn't quite fit either for the fighter A and fighter B approach). If you did a poll of who was the greater fighter between Hopkins and Calzaghe in the General, it would be pretty close with Hopkins ahead I believe. If you did the same poll in the Classic forum, it would be a pretty one-sided poll in Hopkins favor.
Good post, nice to have a bit of insight and knowledge. I'm still a little stuck on which I'd view as better, which is why I'm yet to vote.
The thread has good points, but I personally think judging greatness is too subjective to be put into such classifications, because even though a lot of fighters fit into one of these molds, there are plenty of exceptions where other intangibles, such as the era each man fought in, losses in their prime, talent and ability, etc. come into play. For instance, not many people know who Lloyd Marshall was, but if you look him up, you'll see a fighter with one of the best resumes ever. Even so, I don't know of anybody who knows both men that rates Marhsall higher than Roy Jones, despite the vast superiorty of Marshall's resume. The reason being, Marshall lost to a lot of those same guys he beat, he very likely wasn't as overall talented as Jones, and Marshall fought in an era where fighters had hundreds of fights and often fought every other week, so it would be somewhat difficult to not have a good resume in that setting, where as Jones has had 50 something fights in an era of 2 or 3 fights a year. Jones is the greater fighter because of these reasons, despite how much better Marshall's resume is. But if both fighters are from the same era, than more often than not the fighter with the better resume we'll be rated higher than the fighter with the prettier record.
That depends on the person(s) calling the division weak or strong and how good of a Cherry picker fighter B was. Fighter A took on all comers but fighter B only fought ATGs after they got old
Tough to call. What if Fighter A fought the best guys around? What if Fighter B made those other fighters look greater than they were because he lost to them?