candyslim wrote:1. At this moment Fitzsimmons' achievements unequivocally exceed what Joshua has done in his career to date. A three weight undisputed champion is an achievement to admire.
I'm glad we're still on the same page. I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly.
candyslim wrote:2. My point was that whatever else Joshua achieves by the time has career can be evaluated in historical context, one of those achievements will not be winning titles in more than one weight division, and since that is one of the most impressive achievements in boxing that would seem to put AJ at a considerable disadvantage in comparison with lighter fighters. My point was that it isn't logical to judge any fighter's achievements using a measure which is physically impossible for him (or her) to achieve, even if he were the p4p GOAT. Not claiming he is of course but you get my point?
It's a tricky one because a three weight champion is a fantastic accomplishment and you can't disregard it and it wouldn't be right to. It's a bit of an enigma.
The barometer for historical contribution or accomplishment is not restricted to one specific criteria; such has the amount of world titles gained in different weight classes.
For instance, on a pound-for-pound basis, would anyone suggest that Duke McKenzie is a “greater” fighter than Marvin Hagler, because the former is a three-weight world champion, but the latter is not?
Therefore, comparing the legacy and accomplishments between fighters’ of different eras (assuming there’s adequate information available to perform an accurate analysis), when evaluating “greatness” (as in historical contribution) is entirely feasible.
I agree that ability is almost a meaningless factor to consider when evaluating “greatness”, because fighter A from the current era might be able to defeat fighter B from an earlier generation, but the latter may have contributed much more to the sport (from a historical perspective) than the former has ever done.
Therefore, at this point in time, Bob Fitzsimmons is almost certainly a “greater” fighter than Anthony Joshua. One could easily argue that Lennox Lewis, David Haye and Frank Bruno are “greater” than him also.
That being said, Anthony Joshua is clearly improving with every fight he competes in and his popularity and legacy is growing in stature with each victory he gains, so it’s reasonable to suggest that he has the potential to one day become “Britain’s Greatest Ever Heavyweight”, but he’s not there yet (in fact he’s nowhere near it).
So to suggest that AJ has already contributed more to the sport of boxing than the likes of Lennox Lewis, Bob Fitzsimmons, Frank Bruno and David Haye has done, which the Sky Sports News poll is eluding to (as a form of promotion), is utterly preposterous, which is precisely the very reason why their ultimately decided to delete their aggressively derided poll!
It seems that we pretty much share the same opinion on this matter.
I know you'll answer that you talking of recorded achievement rather than whether he would have beaten X or not, so I'll concede the point and save you the trouble.
