Your Hottest Takes:

I would be surprised if he didn't start declining a bit within the next 2-3 years but I am pretty confident he is getting over 30.

 

Hopkins is better than Monzón

 

Qawi at heavyweight was like a fat unskilled Frazier

Teddy Atlas is correct

 

That's fair. Consistency is better as a ground for forum conversations, but in accordance with my list of hot takes earlier in this thread, the rules our "greatness" lists go by are ultimately based on personal preferences anyway. So there's nothing wrong per se with a guy listing, say, Ross Puritty over Larry Holmes. He just won't have many amicable conversation partners.

 

I wouldn’t say that, because I don’t think greatness should be based on just one win. It’s more about the total number of quality wins a fighter has, and how dominant or impressive those wins were. At least that’s the perspective I try to stay consistent with.

From that angle, I don’t really see how someone could argue that Wilson is greater than Briggs. Wilson might have a better single win on paper, but when you look at the broader resume, Briggs clearly had more success overall. That’s the kind of context I think should matter most when evaluating a fighter's career.

 

I actually think you raise some really interesting points. I agree there's no perfect system that applies cleanly to every fighter across every era. And yeah, fighters absolutely need to be judged in the context of their time in which case achievements like becoming undisputed definitely carry extra weight.

That said, when I talk about consistency, I don’t mean applying one rigid formula without nuance. I mean being consistent in how we weigh certain elements, like not excusing losses for some fighters but penalizing others harshly for similar situations. Context always matters, but so does fairness.

I think we’re actually on the same page in a way, both of us are trying to measure greatness in a way that respects the era and circumstances a fighter comes from. I just lean more toward resume and wins as the bedrock, because achievements can sometimes be a product of opportunity, timing, or even weak divisions. But as long as the criteria are applied thoughtfully, I can respect multiple approaches.

 

Y'know, when I dig in, it's kind of interesting:

Not counting losses, Briggs's best are probably a draw against Botha (do we count that?), a very disputed victory over an ancient Foreman, and a win against Liakhovich.

Wilson has a victory over Briggs.

Briggs certainly has the volume, but the highlights don't actually seem all that far apart.

 

I think overall you’d still have to say Briggs had the higher highs and the more successful career. He won multiple belts, was in bigger fights, and stayed relevant for a longer stretch. Wilson basically just has the early win over Briggs and not much else to show for it.

But yeah, your breakdown definitely highlights how underwhelming Briggs’s actual resume is when you peel back the layers. Outside of the Foreman robbery and the late KO of Liakhovich, there’s not a lot of substance there. It’s one of those cases where name recognition and longevity kind of overinflate the perception of his accomplishments.

 

Yeah, I actually really like how you break that down, using resume as the foundation and then applying longevity, consistency, dominance, and achievements as tiebreakers. That’s a very clear and fair way to structure things, and I think it avoids a lot of the usual bias traps people fall into and pretty similar to how I rank fighters as well.

And you're right, the Inoue vs Donaire example is a great test case. If we’re going strictly by resume then Donaire has a very real argument for being better. He’s got wins across multiple eras, beat more top guys, and held titles in four weight classes.

But I think the reason most instinctively go with Inoue is because of dominance and achievements. Undisputed, multi-division champion, and he’s done it all without close fights or controversy. He’s made top-level guys look outclassed, and that kind of visual impact leaves a strong impression.

That’s why I think it’s important to be clear about what we’re prioritizing. If resume is king, then Donaire deserves more credit than he often gets. But if dominance and historical milestones factor heavier, then Inoue starts to pull ahead. The real challenge is deciding when achievements become more meaningful than resume depth, especially in modern divisions where unifications and undisputed runs are harder to come by due to politics and fragmentation.

 

I think punishing fighters for loses also leads to some unusual outcomes, where fighters are punished for daring to be great and awarded for carefully managing their careers and avoiding challenges, difficult style clashes, fights in difficult circumstances (on the road, short notice etc.). It does not make sense to me, at all.
Not sure if the example You presented quite works (it's not jus about names on the record, but also the timing - Wilson beating inexperience Briggs is not quite the same as beating him in his prime for World Title - and Briggs did win a world title against a solid opponent) - but I don't see any issue with ranking fighter with Wilson-like career above fighter with Briggs-like career. We can acknowledge that Briggs was a better fighter, but if You spend most of You career having showcase fights against club-fighters, then some less talented fighter taking on more challenges can accomplish more and have a greater career than You.

I also go step further than just ranking wins. I also credit fighters for losses if the fight is close and They had an argument for winning. That leads to me ranking Erislandy Lara very highly, for example.

 

It probably helps that most of his losses were robberies

 

I agree with this and You put it well. In the rules of scoring a boxing match, We have a set of criteria, but - like Harold Lederman used to regularly remind us - "a strong emphasis on clean, effective punching". I look at assesing fighters careers quite similarly, with a lot of factors but ultimately "a strong emphasis on the overall career resume".

 

I wouldn't quite go that far to be honest - outside of Williams fights those were moreso "close fights which could've gone either way", in my book.
I use an approach here which was inspired by an old Argentinian scoring system. Back then, You needed at least 3 points of a difference over an opponent to be declared a winner. "Win" by smaller margin would still officially be called a draw (Which is why Carlos Monzon has so many early career draws for example).
It's not quite what I do, but there's a similar idea. I don't see why I should give Canelo more credit than Lara for the fight that They had together, just because the split decision went his way - where different trio of judges could've just as well scored it the other way. I treat those type of fights as a draw, for the purposes of my rankings. So no full credit to either guy, but partial credit to both.