How is a fighter's legacy measured?

Something interesting i have picked up on from this forum is that people seem to have 1 rule for 1 boxer and another rule for a different boxer.

Take for instance 2 great heavyweights, lenox lewis and mike tyson. Both were fantastic boxers.

What i have noticed is that when people speak of lenox' biggest wins, they say that he beat a 'past his prime tyson' (and this is true, along with holyfield and boe it is his biggest win).

However, why is lewis' legacy measured against mike tyson (who he beat)?

If you then use this same rule and apply it to tyson (as i like to use the same rule for everyone, not different rules for different boxers) and say tysons biggest win came over a past his prime larry holmes or trevor burbeck.

This doesnt exactly make tyson look very good does it?

Tyson was a fantastic boxer, yet if we use the same analogy that we did against lenox ('lenoxs biggest wins are against a past it tyson and past it holyfield), and apply it to mike tyson...tyson is only as good as his biggest wins...against a past it holmes and trevor burbeck...in other words it doesnt make tyson look very good does it?

Do people try to use this analogy in order to put fighters down?

'His biggest wins came against a past it ...(insert fighters name here)...'

Because for me at least, when i take lenox lewis as an example and compare him like for like with tyson, lenox faced many of the opponents that a prime tyson faced as well, and lenox battered them accordingly in v simmilar fashion that mike did.

Coupled with the fact that lenox also beat riddick boe, does this not add more credability to lenox?

This is not a dispute against tyson or lewis, nor is it intended to be, its just a dispute about the way i see people trying to measure up another boxer by saying 'he beat a past his prime' etc.

In the case of lenox, lenox faced equal opposition than tyson faced, but he also beat tyson, holyfield and boe...so why is his 'greatness' measured up against tysons, when hes actually achieved more than what tyson has done by beating v simmilar calibre of opponents that tyson did all the way through his career.

In the end i dont think you can judge a fighter strictly on records (although they are a good indication), i certainly dont think you can say 'his greatest career win was against a past it (insert name)'...because for the very same fighter who you're saying is 'past it', you could say that his greatest career win was against another 'past it' boxer.

Just for example, if we take lenox again and say his best career win was against a past it tyson...does that mean that when we discuss tyson, he should be measured by beating a 'way past it' holmes?

So, in other words, lenox beat someone who beat a 'way past it' holmes...doesnt make him sound very good. Doesnt make tyson sound very good either does it?

I read this post the other day and gave it some thought as I know I've responded to this very same question before...
I just hope I it stays consistent.

I measure fighters legacys and greatness all the same...
Here are some things I look at:

1. All around skills
2. Quality of opposition
3. Career longevity
4. How the fighter handled adversity
5. Titles

Take my All-Time P4P list, it's changed so much throught the years...
Theres just so many greats around that the more you learn on one you move others down the list...

Pretty much there performances against other good fighters. The more top fighters they have beaten or performed well against the greater their legacy.

Legacy is in the eye of the beholder. A fighter's record is what it is, it is for others to interpret. There are many fighters that look great on paper, for one reason or another, and one person will say it's a great legacy, while another will point out the asterisks.

Take Marciano for example, sure he went 49-0 and retired undefeated as heavyweight champon, but there are some, me included, who think that fact is very misleading, for various resons pertaining to quality of opposition a,ong other things. There are many other such examples. Joe Louis for example, Sure he had lots of title defenses, but unless I am mistaken, the term "bum of the month club" was coined in reference to his opponents. How valid is that comment? How much of a difference does it make? The answer is subjective.

That being said, a fighter's record against other top class fighters is as good a criteria as any, as others have mentioned here.

A good indicatopr of legacy, in an all time p4p context, might be to look for ranking lists that show consensus among people in the know, such as sportswriters, but even there you will find disagreement, and you will see things that you disagree with yourself.

I think with modern day fighters its hard as theirs so many belts many fighters never face the best fighters in there division.

A prime example for me would be Calzaghe, fought so many bums in his title defences although i do think if he would have fought the best he would have still ruled the division. These days its such a shame we are always left with so many questions to answer