What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

Personally I go for redemption...

Take Tommy Hearns; sure the fights with Leonard (fight one) Duran, Hagler, Shuler, Andries and Hill were superb in their own unique ways; but nothing personifies Hearns' Greatness, than the redemption he got in the Leonard rematch.

Yes, officially it was a draw, but everyone involved in that fight, including Leonard, knows who really won. ;)

Longevity at the top of the game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

Personally I go for redemption...

Take Tommy Hearns; sure the fights with Leonard (fight one) Duran, Hagler, Shuler and Andries were superb in their own way; but nothing personifies Hearns' Greatness than the redemption he got in the Leonard rematch.

Sure officially it was a draw, but everyone involved in that fight, including Leonard, knows who really won. ;)

---

i know what you mean, but tbh Hearns did not beat him convincingly.....He almost got knocked out in the 12th round and 5th.
Hearns was lucky to make it out of the fight, but you're right he did win on points....
But he certainly was the worse for ware

oh......to the question
A fighter who gets hurt and knocked down and gets back up to win against an opponent of whom he can't beat (nigel-mcclelan)...
And a fighter who losses and comes back in a rematch, (chris-carl thompson).
And obviously who he has beaten blah blah blah

Yeah maybe Hearns won the rematch but no doubt about it Ray was the better fighter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_One77

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

What 'quality' do you consider most, when rating the Greats?

Personally I go for redemption...

Take Tommy Hearns; sure the fights with Leonard (fight one) Duran, Hagler, Shuler and Andries were superb in their own way; but nothing personifies Hearns' Greatness than the redemption he got in the Leonard rematch.

Sure officially it was a draw, but everyone involved in that fight, including Leonard, knows who really won. ;)

---

i know what you mean, but tbh Hearns did not beat him convincingly.....He almost got knocked out in the 12th round and 5th.
Hearns was lucky to make it out of the fight, but you're right he did win on points....
But he certainly was the worse for ware

---

No doubt it was a damn close fight, but all the rounds were very easy to score, one way or the other, and IMO, 113/112 to Tommy should have been the scorecard on all three judges, it was that obvious... ;)

Grace under extreme pressure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cockey cockney

Yeah maybe Hearns won the rematch but no doubt about it Ray was the better fighter.

---

I have a hard time with that one actually.. It may be that Ray was better, but really Thommy was doing very well in their first fight.. And could have won it if he had learned to hang on occasionaly, imo. He was convincingly outboxing SRL, using his own bolo punch and taunts against him.. I just watched that fight for the first time in a couple years last night so I dunno it's fresh in my mind.. Hearns was a great great fighter, but I suppose he didn lack that sort of instinct that SRL had, to recover from being hurt etc.. I think really it's just his chin wasn't as good, other then that Hearns had practically everything leonard did and alot more power and range. Plus he beat most great opponents of SRL spare for Hagler, but that fight and the Mugabi fight afterwards took alot out of Hagler and SRL pretty much rested and waited till the time was right to fight him, dictated all the terms of the fight, then wouldnt give him the rematch.. I never respected that.. I personally think Hearns SRL I is one of the greatest fights ever and doesn't get enough recognition as such.

I think the most important quality is that they beat the best in their era.

I definitely agree that extra weight is given to a fighter who comes back from defeat.

Take Sugar Ray Robinson, 5 times middle weight world champ. He is more highly regarded than Carlos Monzon who reigned for as long as Robinson but never lost a defense. It's ironic that if he had lost and come back, like Ali or Robinson he would have been more highly regarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

I think the most important quality is that they beat the best in their era.

I definitely agree that extra weight is given to a fighter who comes back from defeat.

Take Sugar Ray Robinson, 5 times middle weight world champ. He is more highly regarded than Carlos Monzon who reigned for as long as Robinson but never lost a defense. It's ironic that if he had lost and come back, like Ali or Robinson he would have been more highly regarded.

---

[click] superb manipulation of stats. ;)

IMO, the Middleweights and Welterweights were boxings' strongest division. And IMO, SRR was easily boxing's finest 147lber and #2 at Middleweight, that is why in my ratings he is 11 places ahead of Monzon, who I consider Boxing's finest ever 160lber.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britkid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

I think the most important quality is that they beat the best in their era.

I definitely agree that extra weight is given to a fighter who comes back from defeat.

Take Sugar Ray Robinson, 5 times middle weight world champ. He is more highly regarded than Carlos Monzon who reigned for as long as Robinson but never lost a defense. It's ironic that if he had lost and come back, like Ali or Robinson he would have been more highly regarded.

---

[click] superb manipulation of stats. ;)

IMO, the Middleweights and Welterweights were boxings' strongest division. And IMO, SRR was easily boxing's finest 147lber and #2 at Middleweight, that is why in my ratings he is 11 places ahead of Monzon, who I consider Boxing's finest ever 160lber.

---

Thanks for the :coolclick:, have one yourself ;)

Above all else, I look at talent, level of competition, and longevity. How many different weight classes a fighter has won belts in means nothing to me.

Showing up when it counts, especially in clutch time baby!

Not too big on longevity. Who cares if all your fighting is a bunch of girl scouts.

But fighting great when your in with a great. 8)

longevity and opposition

The ability and heart/guts to come back strong after a defeat and go on to dominate your division always impresses me. 8)
Most of the greats have done this 8)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smashup

The ability and heart/guts to come back strong after a defeat and go on to dominate your division always impresses me. 8)
Most of the greats have done this 8)

---

Yes. :)

Nowadays, fighters are encouraged to steer clear and keep that "O" on their record.

But to come back from a defeat, is so much more difficult. 8)

Who they fought,how they dealt with adversity and I am more impressed by someone who cleans the division properly then moves than someone who jumps weight classes picking and choosing who to fight. They must also fight the the best challenges available,no dusking or making excuses.

JUDASITY ;)