# of fights in relation to greatness of a fighter

If a fighter has 100 fights say like JCC does that mean he is remembered as a greater figter than a guy with say 50 fights? I know that opposition plays a role and that in 100 fights you have alot of bums in there but that also shows alot of persistency.

Here's a super hypothetical.

Let's say there is a guy out there who's 5-1 (5KO) right now, and for some reason Mayweather took him as a tune up and the guy wins. Then goes on the following run...

Mayweather
Cotto
Pacquiao
Margarito
Hatton
Williams

I dont know why or how this happens it just does, now the guy is 11-1 (11KO) and he retires. Does the fact that he only had 12 fights make him less of a great fighter as opposed to having the same fights listed above, but padding his record with lesser fights up to say 40-1?

Whats your take?

i think that the quality of str8 fights against all those would make him almost equal :confused: difficult one, but u can look at it that JCC stood the test of time:confused:

anyone know of any fighters who had few fights but count as great????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drago

i think that the quality of str8 fights against all those would make him almost equal :confused: difficult one, but u can look at it that JCC stood the test of time:confused:

---

I see the whole test of time thing, but I just dont know if it trully is necessary to say a fighter could be an ATG. Would a fighter with that run even make the hall of fame?

That guy would exist alongside - father christmas, the tooth fairy and god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

That guy would exist alongside - father christmas, the tooth fairy and god.

---

LOL I know its impossible, but humor me.

Who beat him?

Because clearly he is the greatest fighter that ever lived by MILES!!!

A six fight - one loss - novice goes on to beat half-a-dozen pound-for-pound fighters on the bounce.

He da man!!! Fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Who beat him?

Because clearly he is the greatest fighter that ever lived by MILES!!!

A six fight - one loss - novice goes on to beat half-a-dozen pound-for-pound fighters on the bounce.

He da man!!! Fact.

---

Not the point. Does he number of fights matter in relation to how great he would be remembered as?

Well 30-40 of JCCs fights really could be taken off his record, and he should still be considered just as great. If he would is another story. Quality means much more than quantity. Same thing applies to Yori Boy Campas. There a story in the numbers and I think history usually ends up being pretty fair. Davey Moore could have retired at 12-0 haven just beaten a 41-1 former champion. But then again, there would always be a question about his longevity, which he proved not to have anyways. But he proved it and ultimately answered the question. Buck Smith has a 179-19-2 record. But he was never even an elite fighter. Quality>Quantity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnixAA

If a fighter has 100 fights say like JCC does that mean he is remembered as a greater figter than a guy with say 50 fights? I know that opposition plays a role and that in 100 fights you have alot of bums in there but that also shows alot of persistency.

Here's a super hypothetical.

Let's say there is a guy out there who's 5-1 (5KO) right now, and for some reason Mayweather took him as a tune up and the guy wins. Then goes on the following run...

Mayweather
Cotto
Pacquiao
Margarito
Hatton
Williams

I dont know why or how this happens it just does, now the guy is 11-1 (11KO) and he retires. Does the fact that he only had 12 fights make him less of a great fighter as opposed to having the same fights listed above, but padding his record with lesser fights up to say 40-1?

Whats your take?

---

Can you imagine the hatred Mayweather would get for taking a fight against a 5-1 fighter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnixAA

If a fighter has 100 fights say like JCC does that mean he is remembered as a greater figter than a guy with say 50 fights? I know that opposition plays a role and that in 100 fights you have alot of bums in there but that also shows alot of persistency.

---

IMHO, not necessarily. I did some stats a while back on Chavez. Though no doubt he's a well-deserved ATG, he did pad his stats incredibly by fighting a bunch of bums for his first 40-some fights.

When you take his opponents won-loss records on a cummulative basis, he didn't reach the .500 mark until his 45th fight. Before that, his record was filled with a bunch of fighters with records like 8-17 and 0-8. He was even fighting debutantes (fighters with 0-0 records) as late as his 42nd fight.

All his early fights were in Mexico, no doubt against bums off the street anxious to make a quick buck. How else to explain the following stretch:

Opp # 14: 0-0
Opp # 15: 0-0
Opp # 16: 0-0
Opp # 17: 0-0
Opp # 18: 0-6 (at least he had fought)

Is it any wonder Junior is getting coddled so much?

;) ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnixAA

If a fighter has 100 fights say like JCC does that mean he is remembered as a greater figter than a guy with say 50 fights? I know that opposition plays a role and that in 100 fights you have alot of bums in there but that also shows alot of persistency.

Here's a super hypothetical.

Let's say there is a guy out there who's 5-1 (5KO) right now, and for some reason Mayweather took him as a tune up and the guy wins. Then goes on the following run...

Mayweather
Cotto
Pacquiao
Margarito
Hatton
Williams

I dont know why or how this happens it just does, now the guy is 11-1 (11KO) and he retires. Does the fact that he only had 12 fights make him less of a great fighter as opposed to having the same fights listed above, but padding his record with lesser fights up to say 40-1?

Whats your take?

---

If he beats all of those guys and just has 12 fights then he is an ATG because that would be one impressive resume.
Anyone who beats 6 World Champions is a great in boxing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drago

anyone know of any fighters who had few fights but count as great????

---

Ones that quickly springs to mind is James J. Jeffries who only had 22 fights recorded to his record.

Sung-Kil Moon fought 22 times (not in the hall :(
Yoko Gushiken fought 24 times (not in the hall :(
Jiro Watanane fought 28 times (not in the hall :(
Yutaka Niida fought 28 times and he announced his retirement already
Michael Spinks fought 32 times
Kostya fought 33 times

IMO if you fought 12 guys who are all ATG's and thats all you fought, and you beat them all or had a winning record, then IMO you deserve to be near the top.

IMO competition and consistency are the two most important things to define greatness, who can fight the biggest variety and the highest caliber of opposition and still come out on TOP

that is why IMO a guy like Leonard or Duran should be way higher than JCC in the ATG list because they fought and beat better guys even though they fought less guys, and in Duran's case he did much better later on in his career than JCC did.

Difficult question! I don't think it's the amount of fights that makes you a great fighter though, for example JCC is one of the all time greats IMO and fought 115 times taking on some great names along the way such as Angel Hernandez, Pernell Whitaker, Hector Camacho, Frankie Randall and Meldrick Taylor just to mention a few.

But in my eyes SRL is even greater than Chavez in the grand scheme of things and perhaps it has something to do with his rivalries with other ATGs such as Duran, Hearns and Hagler. I suppose Greatness is something that the media gives you and if your lucky (or maybe unlucky) enough to have opponents who could be in all time p4p lists, never mind just current lists as SRL was, then you have a chance to create your own greatness only fighting 40 times in your career as he did!