Does the "greatest of all time" debate consider. . . .

[actjac]

a totality of work over the course of a career like Floyd Mayweather Jr. or rather like Muhammad Ali, Julio Cesar Chavez and Roy Jones Jr. just an exceptional few years of brilliance?

[gilgamesh]

Depends on who you ask actually, but anybody that's doing it right is considering the totality of the career.

[SenorPipino]

Who you beat, when you beat them, how many you beat.

Longevity, of course plays a role.

Are you saying that Ali, Chavez and Jones were only exceptional fighters for a short time and don't deserve inclusion?

[siablo14]

P4P should only consider head to head match-up. As in, who you would think would in a head-to-head match-up in their primes.

[gilgamesh]

P4P should only consider head to head match-up. As in, who you would think would in a head-to-head match-up in their primes.

Nope.

People are wrong about who they think is gonna win a fight all the time. A resume of a fighter that has PROVEN he can and has beaten better fighters than someone else beats "what if's" and "maybe's"

[JCS]

In all fairness, it should be a mixture of both..

50% peak value/achievement
50% career value (in total)

[squiggy]

a totality of work over the course of a career like Floyd Mayweather Jr. or rather like Muhammad Ali, Julio Cesar Chavez and Roy Jones Jr. just an exceptional few years of brilliance?

Seems to me that Muhammad Ali's mere period of exceptional brilliance lasted almost exactly as long as Mayweather's did.

[Lackeos]

There are very few fighters in the p4p top 50 who had short reigns as elite. Ali, RJJ, and JCC are all poor examples of having short reigns. JCC was relatively elite for about 10 years. Ali for about 14 years. RJJ for about 9-10 years.

Fighters who are considered top 100 all-time are the 100 fighters who actually deserve this recognition. They often share the following qualities...
-During their prime, non-elite fighters rarely get the best of them (defined as winning a majority of the fights they've had in an uncontroversial manner). Note, for example, that Jake LaMotta beat SRR once, but did not get the best of him in their series of fights. This criteria can be somewhat relaxed for old-time fighters who fought dozens of times per year.
-Significant dominance over many world class fighters, numerous elite fighters, and sometimes another ATG.
-Legitimately all-time great boxing ability (which is a composite of their technical ability and their physical gifts).

So notice how Jermaine Taylor, Oliver McCall, and Antonio Tarver all beat ATG opponents, and in some cases, even got the best of them. But none of them are themselves considered ATG's. None of them flattened an extensive array of great opponents. Having the skills of an ATG should correlate with a resume that leaves behind no doubt that you are a clear two levels above typical world class fighters like George Groves, Badou Jack, and Jorge Linares. In other words, you should be winning at least like 80-85% of your fights against world class fighters, 65-70% of your fights against elite fighters, and about 50% of your fights against other ATG's.

[gilgamesh]

There are very few fighters in the p4p top 50 who had short reigns as elite. Ali, RJJ, and JCC are all poor examples of having short reigns. JCC was relatively elite for about 10 years. Ali for about 14 years. RJJ for about 9-10 years.

Fighters who are considered top 100 all-time are the 100 fighters who actually deserve this recognition. They often share the following qualities...
-During their prime, non-elite fighters rarely get the best of them (defined as winning a majority of the fights they've had in an uncontroversial manner). Note, for example, that Jake LaMotta beat SRR once, but did not get the best of him in their series of fights. This criteria can be somewhat relaxed for old-time fighters who fought dozens of times per year.
-Significant dominance over many world class fighters, numerous elite fighters, and sometimes another ATG.
-Legitimately all-time great boxing ability (which is a composite of their technical ability and their physical gifts).

So notice how Jermaine Taylor, Oliver McCall, and Antonio Tarver all beat ATG opponents, and in some cases, even got the best of them. But none of them are themselves considered ATG's. None of them flattened an extensive array of great opponents. Having the skills of an ATG should correlate with a resume that leaves behind no doubt that you are a clear two levels above typical world class fighters like George Groves, Badou Jack, and Jorge Linares. In other words, you should be winning at least like 80-85% of your fights against world class fighters, 65-70% of your fights against elite fighters, and about 50% of your fights against other ATG's.

It's also important in key wins over ATG's not just THAT you beat them, but HOW you beat them.

For instance Taylor's 2 wins over Hopkins are both considered close contests that were unsatisfactory to the audience and didn't necessarily have a clear cut winner even though Taylor got the decision both times.

Hopkins' key wins on the other hand leave no doubt. He blanked Pavlik pretty much. Ditto with Tarver. Ditto with Trinidad. Whenever he beat some of the biggest names on his resume he beat them VERY clearly. That stuff stands out to people when remembering fighters.

[Lackeos]

It's also important in key wins over ATG's not just THAT you beat them, but HOW you beat them.

For instance Taylor's 2 wins over Hopkins are both considered close contests that were unsatisfactory to the audience and didn't necessarily have a clear cut winner even though Taylor got the decision both times.

ATG's are supposed to be 50/50 against other ATG's. There's tons of examples of Ali and Frazier fighting close ones, Calzaghe and Hopkins, Pacquiao and Marquez, Mosley and DLH, Trinidad and DLH, etc. Taylor fighting on super close terms with Hopkins gives credence to his candidacy, if anything. His close fight with Winky Wright (#2ish p4p at the time) also helps support his case. But what sinks his candidacy is that he was only 6-4 against world class / contender type opponents e.g. Sam Hill, William Joppy, Kassim Ouma, Spinks, Pavlik x2, Lacy, Froch, Abraham, and Soliman. An ATG would have gone 9-1 or 10-0 against those 10 opponents. If Taylor had gone 10-0 against these opponents, plus virtual draws with Hopkins and Wright, we would be regarding him roughly on-par with Andre Ward.

[actjac]

Who you beat, when you beat them, how many you beat.

Longevity, of course plays a role.

Are you saying that Ali, Chavez and Jones were only exceptional fighters for a short time and don't deserve inclusion?

I am not saying that. . . . . I am asking does a boxer's lifetime of work trump a shorter term brilliance of those who may fight and beat all comers (including other elites) to consider GOAT status.

[gilgamesh]

Who you beat, when you beat them, how many you beat.

Longevity, of course plays a role.

Are you saying that Ali, Chavez and Jones were only exceptional fighters for a short time and don't deserve inclusion?

I am not saying that. . . . . I am asking does a boxer's lifetime of work trump a shorter term brilliance of those who may fight and beat all comers (including other elites) to consider GOAT status.

Depends on what was achieved in that short term of brilliance.

Henry Armstrong for instance became a 3 weight World Champion and made 19 title defenses of the Welterweight crown in a 3 year span.

[SenorPipino]

Who you beat, when you beat them, how many you beat.

Longevity, of course plays a role.

Are you saying that Ali, Chavez and Jones were only exceptional fighters for a short time and don't deserve inclusion?

I am not saying that. . . . . I am asking does a boxer's lifetime of work trump a shorter term brilliance of those who may fight and beat all comers (including other elites) to consider GOAT status.

Depends on what was achieved in that short term of brilliance.

Henry Armstrong for instance became a 3 weight World Champion and made 19 title defenses of the Welterweight crown in a 3 year span.

And fought to a draw for the middleweight championship, while holding the featherweight, lightweight and welterweight belts.

Most felt that Armstrong was robbed in his middleweight challenge of champ Ceferino Garcia.

Only the referee scored that bout. There were whispers, loud ones, of a fix.

But despite not getting the official nod, Armstrong's accomplishment was probably one of the greatest but practically unsung achievements in the annals of boxing. Maybe sports.

And they didn't have a different weight division for every pound back then folks.

Armstrong had to climb from 126 to the 160 lb. division to challenge for 4 different titles. All in about a year's period.

And of course there wasn't 5 to 10 alphabet champions in each division.

Just one. You couldn't accuse Armstrong of being a dreaded cherry picker.

Phenomenal stuff. Just for that 1 year of fistic brilliance, Armstrong deserves a VIP ringside seat in the ATG Hall of Fame.

[gilgamesh]

I am not saying that. . . . . I am asking does a boxer's lifetime of work trump a shorter term brilliance of those who may fight and beat all comers (including other elites) to consider GOAT status.

Depends on what was achieved in that short term of brilliance.

Henry Armstrong for instance became a 3 weight World Champion and made 19 title defenses of the Welterweight crown in a 3 year span.

And fought to a draw for the middleweight championship, while holding the featherweight, lightweight and welterweight belts.

Most felt that Armstrong was robbed in his middleweight challenge of champ Ceferino Garcia.

Only the referee scored that bout. There were whispers, loud ones, of a fix.

But despite not getting the official nod, Armstrong's accomplishment was probably one of the greatest but practically unsung achievements in the annals of boxing. Maybe sports.

And they didn't have a different weight division for every pound back then folks.

Armstrong had to climb from 126 to the 160 lb. division to challenge for 4 different titles. All in about a year's period.

And of course there wasn't 5 to 10 alphabet champions in each division.

Just one. You couldn't accuse Armstrong of being a dreaded cherry picker.

Phenomenal stuff. Just for that 1 year of fistic brilliance, Armstrong deserves a VIP ringside seat in the ATG Hall of Fame.

I believe Henry Armstrong weighed no more than 142 or 145 pounds even when he was fighting for the Middleweight Title as well isn't that right?

[SenorPipino]

Depends on what was achieved in that short term of brilliance.

Henry Armstrong for instance became a 3 weight World Champion and made 19 title defenses of the Welterweight crown in a 3 year span.

And fought to a draw for the middleweight championship, while holding the featherweight, lightweight and welterweight belts.

Most felt that Armstrong was robbed in his middleweight challenge of champ Ceferino Garcia.

Only the referee scored that bout. There were whispers, loud ones, of a fix.

But despite not getting the official nod, Armstrong's accomplishment was probably one of the greatest but practically unsung achievements in the annals of boxing. Maybe sports.

And they didn't have a different weight division for every pound back then folks.

Armstrong had to climb from 126 to the 160 lb. division to challenge for 4 different titles. All in about a year's period.

And of course there wasn't 5 to 10 alphabet champions in each division.

Just one. You couldn't accuse Armstrong of being a dreaded cherry picker.

Phenomenal stuff. Just for that 1 year of fistic brilliance, Armstrong deserves a VIP ringside seat in the ATG Hall of Fame.

I believe Henry Armstrong weighed no more than 142 or 145 pounds even when he was fighting for the Middleweight Title as well isn't that right?

Now get this.

I went to the Bible of Stats, BoxRec itself, and found that in 1938, when Armstrong challenged Barney Ross for the welterweight title, he weighed just 133 1/2.

Three months later, Armstrong actually gained 1/2 lb., to 134, when he dropped down and won the lightweight championship from Lou Ambers.

And just 3 months later (obviously they didn't negotiate for 6 months or more back then to sign big fights. Fighters fought. They didn't sit around) he came in at the exact same 134 when he battled to that disputed draw with middleweight king Ceferino Garcia.

Mr. Consistency, Henry Armstrong.

Apparently the thought of demanding a catch weight never occurred to Armstrong.

If you negotiated for a catch weight back in that era, you would have been branded a pansy.

[siablo14]

And fought to a draw for the middleweight championship, while holding the featherweight, lightweight and welterweight belts.

Most felt that Armstrong was robbed in his middleweight challenge of champ Ceferino Garcia.

Only the referee scored that bout. There were whispers, loud ones, of a fix.

But despite not getting the official nod, Armstrong's accomplishment was probably one of the greatest but practically unsung achievements in the annals of boxing. Maybe sports.

And they didn't have a different weight division for every pound back then folks.

Armstrong had to climb from 126 to the 160 lb. division to challenge for 4 different titles. All in about a year's period.

And of course there wasn't 5 to 10 alphabet champions in each division.

Just one. You couldn't accuse Armstrong of being a dreaded cherry picker.

Phenomenal stuff. Just for that 1 year of fistic brilliance, Armstrong deserves a VIP ringside seat in the ATG Hall of Fame.

I believe Henry Armstrong weighed no more than 142 or 145 pounds even when he was fighting for the Middleweight Title as well isn't that right?

Now get this.

I went to the Bible of Stats, BoxRec itself, and found that in 1938, when Armstrong challenged Barney Ross for the welterweight title, he weighed just 133 1/2.

Three months later, Armstrong actually gained 1/2 lb., to 134, when he dropped down and won the lightweight championship from Lou Ambers.

And just 3 months later (obviously they didn't negotiate for 6 months or more back then to sign big fights. Fighters fought. They didn't sit around) he came in at the exact same 134 when he battled to that disputed draw with middleweight king Ceferino Garcia.

Mr. Consistency, Henry Armstrong.

Apparently the thought of demanding a catch weight never occurred to Armstrong.

If you negotiated for a catch weight back in that era, you would have been branded a pansy.

how much did he get paid per fight?

[asdfjkl]

For me, a great boxer is a boxer that performed way beyond my expectations, or a boxer that clearly dominated the field out there. If Tyson Fury wins his fight against Anthony Joshua, then he's probably one of the most amazing boxers in the history of the sport. Nobody expected Muhammad Ali to be the, or one of the, best boxers ever during his carreer, but he won when people didn't expect him to. George Foreman, became world champion, lost the title and didn't box for nearly a decade, comes back and nobody took him serious any more. Then he eventually became world champion again, nobody expected that, now he's an all time legend.

[caldo2025]

It's unanswerable honestly. The ONLY viable way to do it is to determine the greatest within an era like a decade or 20 years or maybe each of our lifetimes. Because I don't feel like you can determine such a thing from 60 year old video of a fight. You have to live and breath in the times in which these gladiators entertained to fully understand what each boxer really did. Not to mention how each boxing generation has made it better for the one after them so there are way too many factors in play to come up with THE ANSWER to this.

[Heretic]

It's unanswerable honestly. The ONLY viable way to do it is to determine the greatest within an era like a decade or 20 years or maybe each of our lifetimes. Because I don't feel like you can determine such a thing from 60 year old video of a fight. You have to live and breath in the times in which these gladiators entertained to fully understand what each boxer really did. Not to mention how each boxing generation has made it better for the one after them so there are way too many factors in play to come up with THE ANSWER to this.

This exactly. Eras cannot be compared. Ali would be a cruiser weight in today's boxing... That doesn't make hes achievements any less great.

For me the most important ranking factor is who you beat, how you did it and how shot the opponent was. Also ducking and cherry picking opponents devalues boxers career. That's why I will never consider Mayweather to be that high on all time lists.

[caldo2025]

It's unanswerable honestly. The ONLY viable way to do it is to determine the greatest within an era like a decade or 20 years or maybe each of our lifetimes. Because I don't feel like you can determine such a thing from 60 year old video of a fight. You have to live and breath in the times in which these gladiators entertained to fully understand what each boxer really did. Not to mention how each boxing generation has made it better for the one after them so there are way too many factors in play to come up with THE ANSWER to this.

This exactly. Eras cannot be compared. Ali would be a cruiser weight in today's boxing... That doesn't make hes achievements any less great.

For me the most important ranking factor is who you beat, how you did it and how shot the opponent was. Also ducking and cherry picking opponents devalues boxers career. That's why I will never consider Mayweather to be that high on all time lists.

Could NOT agree more. The worst part is that Floyd probably would have beaten all of the opponents he's ducked and dodged over the years but we'll never know right? In each of Floyd's best victories, there's a "yeah but" factor in play that made a huge difference in the fight. He beat ODH...yeah but he was wicked old. He beat Canelo...yeah but he starved him out. Manny...Yeah but the fight should have happened 5 years sooner when they were both in primes.

Think about how outrageous Ali's victory over Foreman was. Foreman was the baddest man on the planet and just knocked Norton and Frazier out in two rounds. Ali took that challenge on when Foreman's bacon was sizzling the loudest. There was legitimate concern that Foreman would kill Ali inside the ring that night. Floyd doesn't have a victory even remotely close to this one. Not even close.

[Heretic]

It's unanswerable honestly. The ONLY viable way to do it is to determine the greatest within an era like a decade or 20 years or maybe each of our lifetimes. Because I don't feel like you can determine such a thing from 60 year old video of a fight. You have to live and breath in the times in which these gladiators entertained to fully understand what each boxer really did. Not to mention how each boxing generation has made it better for the one after them so there are way too many factors in play to come up with THE ANSWER to this.

This exactly. Eras cannot be compared. Ali would be a cruiser weight in today's boxing... That doesn't make hes achievements any less great.

For me the most important ranking factor is who you beat, how you did it and how shot the opponent was. Also ducking and cherry picking opponents devalues boxers career. That's why I will never consider Mayweather to be that high on all time lists.

Could NOT agree more. The worst part is that Floyd probably would have beaten all of the opponents he's ducked and dodged over the years but we'll never know right? In each of Floyd's best victories, there's a "yeah but" factor in play that made a huge difference in the fight. He beat ODH...yeah but he was wicked old. He beat Canelo...yeah but he starved him out. Manny...Yeah but the fight should have happened 5 years sooner when they were both in primes.

Exactly. There should be asterisk next to almost all of hes later career fights. Didn't make the weight against tiny JMM. KO over Ortiz and so on.

Floyd also made sure he had the stylistic edge in fights. The plan was to win on points. He avoided opponents that could challenge him on speed. No fights against Bradley or Khan or other fast boxers going for points wins. I am not saying that Bradley or Khan would have won against him but those would have been interesting stylistic clashes. Judah is the only fast boxer that come to mind that fought against "the money" and he had the edge on stamina in that fight.

Think about how outrageous Ali's victory over Foreman was. Foreman was the baddest man on the planet and just knocked Norton and Frazier out in two rounds. Ali took that challenge on when Foreman's bacon was sizzling the loudest. There was legitimate concern that Foreman would kill Ali inside the ring that night. Floyd doesn't have a victory even remotely close to this one. Not even close.

Ali's win over Foreman is one of the greatest wins in boxing history. If not the best. Up there with the likes of Tyson vs Douglas, Tyson vs Holyfield, Pac vs JMM 4 and so on...

[caldo2025]

This exactly. Eras cannot be compared. Ali would be a cruiser weight in today's boxing... That doesn't make hes achievements any less great.

For me the most important ranking factor is who you beat, how you did it and how shot the opponent was. Also ducking and cherry picking opponents devalues boxers career. That's why I will never consider Mayweather to be that high on all time lists.

Could NOT agree more. The worst part is that Floyd probably would have beaten all of the opponents he's ducked and dodged over the years but we'll never know right? In each of Floyd's best victories, there's a "yeah but" factor in play that made a huge difference in the fight. He beat ODH...yeah but he was wicked old. He beat Canelo...yeah but he starved him out. Manny...Yeah but the fight should have happened 5 years sooner when they were both in primes.

Exactly. There should be asterisk next to almost all of hes later career fights. Didn't make the weight against tiny JMM. KO over Ortiz and so on.

Floyd also made sure he had the stylistic edge in fights. The plan was to win on points. He avoided opponents that could challenge him on speed. No fights against Bradley or Khan or other fast boxers going for points wins. I am not saying that Bradley or Khan would have won against him but those would have been interesting stylistic clashes. Judah is the only fast boxer that come to mind that fought against "the money" and he had the edge on stamina in that fight.

Think about how outrageous Ali's victory over Foreman was. Foreman was the baddest man on the planet and just knocked Norton and Frazier out in two rounds. Ali took that challenge on when Foreman's bacon was sizzling the loudest. There was legitimate concern that Foreman would kill Ali inside the ring that night. Floyd doesn't have a victory even remotely close to this one. Not even close.

Ali's win over Foreman is one of the greatest wins in boxing history. If not the best. Up there with the likes of Tyson vs Douglas, Tyson vs Holyfield, Pac vs JMM 4 and so on...

Heretic, you might be my favorite member of this site now. If I end up learning how to go back and read up on your stuff i will because everything is so right on that you are saying. Well F'ng done son.

[Heretic]

Could NOT agree more. The worst part is that Floyd probably would have beaten all of the opponents he's ducked and dodged over the years but we'll never know right? In each of Floyd's best victories, there's a "yeah but" factor in play that made a huge difference in the fight. He beat ODH...yeah but he was wicked old. He beat Canelo...yeah but he starved him out. Manny...Yeah but the fight should have happened 5 years sooner when they were both in primes.

Exactly. There should be asterisk next to almost all of hes later career fights. Didn't make the weight against tiny JMM. KO over Ortiz and so on.

Floyd also made sure he had the stylistic edge in fights. The plan was to win on points. He avoided opponents that could challenge him on speed. No fights against Bradley or Khan or other fast boxers going for points wins. I am not saying that Bradley or Khan would have won against him but those would have been interesting stylistic clashes. Judah is the only fast boxer that come to mind that fought against "the money" and he had the edge on stamina in that fight.

Think about how outrageous Ali's victory over Foreman was. Foreman was the baddest man on the planet and just knocked Norton and Frazier out in two rounds. Ali took that challenge on when Foreman's bacon was sizzling the loudest. There was legitimate concern that Foreman would kill Ali inside the ring that night. Floyd doesn't have a victory even remotely close to this one. Not even close.

Ali's win over Foreman is one of the greatest wins in boxing history. If not the best. Up there with the likes of Tyson vs Douglas, Tyson vs Holyfield, Pac vs JMM 4 and so on...

Heretic, you might be my favorite member of this site now. If I end up learning how to go back and read up on your stuff i will because everything is so right on that you are saying. Well F'ng done son.

Maybe you should not. I think we have been on opposing sides of the fence many times in the past

But hey that's how it goes with people who have strong opinions about stuff important to them

[jamamb]

Could NOT agree more. The worst part is that Floyd probably would have beaten all of the opponents he's ducked and dodged over the years but we'll never know right? In each of Floyd's best victories, there's a "yeah but" factor in play that made a huge difference in the fight. He beat ODH...yeah but he was wicked old. He beat Canelo...yeah but he starved him out. Manny...Yeah but the fight should have happened 5 years sooner when they were both in primes.

Exactly. There should be asterisk next to almost all of hes later career fights. Didn't make the weight against tiny JMM. KO over Ortiz and so on.

Floyd also made sure he had the stylistic edge in fights. The plan was to win on points. He avoided opponents that could challenge him on speed. No fights against Bradley or Khan or other fast boxers going for points wins. I am not saying that Bradley or Khan would have won against him but those would have been interesting stylistic clashes. Judah is the only fast boxer that come to mind that fought against "the money" and he had the edge on stamina in that fight.

Think about how outrageous Ali's victory over Foreman was. Foreman was the baddest man on the planet and just knocked Norton and Frazier out in two rounds. Ali took that challenge on when Foreman's bacon was sizzling the loudest. There was legitimate concern that Foreman would kill Ali inside the ring that night. Floyd doesn't have a victory even remotely close to this one. Not even close.

Ali's win over Foreman is one of the greatest wins in boxing history. If not the best. Up there with the likes of Tyson vs Douglas, Tyson vs Holyfield, Pac vs JMM 4 and so on...

Heretic, you might be my favorite member of this site now. If I end up learning how to go back and read up on your stuff i will because everything is so right on that you are saying. Well F'ng done son.

aww, isnt that sweet, and with valetines and all too

[Syntax Error]

a totality of work over the course of a career like Floyd Mayweather Jr. or rather like Muhammad Ali, Julio Cesar Chavez and Roy Jones Jr. just an exceptional few years of brilliance?

I think you do Ali a disservice to say that he is rated for an exceptional few years of brilliance.

It's widely acknowledged that he missed his prime years & it's his performances in the 70s (the greatest HW decade) where he was past his best are the reason why so many think he is the GOAT.