Printable View
Do you go for more title defenses against lesser opponents, or less title defenses against better opposition. Im bringing this up because Lyle brung up a point that Lewis and Holmes shouldn't be rated as high as Foreman, Now Foreman only made 3 defenses all together but beat Frazier, Norton, which is probably better than any name on Lewis or Holmes record, because both of those fighters were at there peak whats your opinion's on this ??
I tend to rank fighters by the quality of their opposition, regardless of how many title they held for how long. There's always exceptions though, like Joe Calzaghe, who may not have fought the highest level of competition, but he dominated his division for a significant period of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
I second that bro. Amen to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHI tend to rank fighters by the quality of their opposition, regardless of how many title they held for how long. There's always exceptions though, like Joe Calzaghe, who may not have fought the highest level of competition, but he dominated his division for a significant period of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
It depends on how crappy the competition was. Holmes didn't beat anybody on the level of Frazier, and neither did Lewis, but they beat everybody out there who they could have possibly faced. They faced very good competition, but there was no real HoF around to give them a career defining fight. It's not like Holmes or Lewis was Sven Ottke. Holmes did beat Norton, too, but of course it was an older version. I'm not convinced Foreman would have beaten Lewis or Holmes, and Foreman fell apart mentally after the loss, and to me, that works against him.
Actually, I think it's often an impossible comparison. It's two different types of greatness - absolute peak ability and performance vs resume. Here's an example. Riddick Bowe at his absolute peak (Holyfield 1) was truly great. Fighting like he did that night, he could have given Ali a run for his money, then he sparked two pretty good fighters (Dokes and Ferguson) in a total of 3 rounds. For a 9 month period, he was about as good as any HW has ever been. Then he lost it.
I agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by RozzySean
I rank quality of opponents over quantity, Joe Louis a great champion had quite a few defenses of his belt but he also had the bum of the month club. We can name the quality fighters Joe Louis faced. We can't name any bum of the month members.
Ray Leonard retired with 40 bouts. Most guys who retire with 40 fights champion or not only have a few big names from that era or the division they fought in on their resume, Ray Leonard had all time greats from welterweight to middleweight.. So I would rate him higher then a guy like Joe Calzaghe lets say who has more bouts but less stellar opposition. No disrespect to Calzaghe he is a great champion I am just using him as an example.
Quality over Quantity any day.
Of course when fighters take a long time off I start to lose interest in them.
Exactly, quality is much more important. Joe Frazier and Sonny Liston also made under 4 defenses. BUt they had some huge winsQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
Have to echo Lance and Killersheep.....Quality over quantity.Quality on a fight per fight basis, performance In the bouts and Quality of opposition.
You can beat a top p4p fighter after some sub par matches....that does not automatically warrant p4p inclusion Imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
Myself personally, I don't even care if they have a title. Having a strap means nothing really to me if they do not have the desire to be the best. Now fighters who want to go in there and mix it up with the best, with a desire to be the best, they are the lifeblood of the sport in my eyes.
I agree. But longevity is a quality in itself, and a fighter should get credit for that also.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
To go with RozzySean's example - on his best night Bowe was better than Holyfield has ever been, but for Holyfield to stay at the top so long and continuously facing the very best in the world, I would rate Holyfield above Bowe. I would also rank Calzaghe above Roy Jones, if we were ranking Super Middleweights, even though a prime Roy Jones at SMW could put a beatdown on Calzaghe and still be able to play another game of basketball the same night.
Quality over quantity for me
But I agree with what Mikkel_K is saying. When ranking fighters for the greatest in a division it is not just based on whom would have beaten who. More importantly for me are: quality of opposition, achievement, consistency & performance.
I've talked about this quite a few times and said that there is a big diiference between 'The Best' and 'The Greatest' i.e if you rated fighters on who would win on their best night if they all fought, you would have a completely different list to a list where you looked at opposition, titles, lonjgevity, heart etc etc.
I wanna see peoples 'Best' & Greatest' lists and see how they differ - really interesting to me.
Talk about covering your bases... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Galaxy
True bro haha, missed a couple letters there. Fixed it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikkel_KTalk about covering your bases... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Galaxy
Chur brutha