# of fights in relation to greatness of a fighter

[rjj tszyu]

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!

[donnydarkoIRL]

In the case of Salvador Sanchez, his records certainly tells the tale of a great fighter, but our understanding of his greatness is limited as his career was tragically cut short.

So although I personally feel Quality far outweighs Quantity, there is some logic to the thread.

[DaxxKahn]

In the case of Salvador Sanchez, his records certainly tells the tale of a great fighter, but our understanding of his greatness is limited as his career was tragically cut short.

So although I personally feel Quality far outweighs Quantity, there is some logic to the thread.

Quality sure does tell what the fighter is worth...

Taeth might have put it best...

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........


Those 12 guys can make or break you...Hell we have some ATG ranked fighters that only fought 2 or 3 top caliber opponents....

Take a guy with a short record of 20-30 bouts but put 5 or 6 top names on it and you have to surpass the the guy with 70 fights and 2 top names on it......

We can all step in with hand picked opp and score wins...Perfect example was the Damguaard one I used..

Thomas Damgaard

38-1 28 ko's 71+ KO%...

On paper he looks like a legend in the making....I remember before the fight thinking "Why have I never seen this guy in action?"....Until I took a look at him on boxrec.....

Prime example of how numbers can decieve....

JCC was used originally as an example but out of his 107-6-2 record he has

32 guys with less then 15 bouts...18 with less then 10 wins on their record...after winning his first world title he was still facing guys with 1-14 , 0-0, 4-3, 1-0 type records.....Many of those guys were just for padding...

I am not picking JCC apart here by any means because at the end of the day he is an ATG hands down and there are many others out there who have done the same thing but the example is to show that numbers can not be the basis for the decision of how great a fighter is...


A guy like SRL had only 40 ights all together on his resume but with less then half the bouts of JCC he had on his resume, Duran twice, Hearns Twice, Hagler, Benitez, LaLonde, Terry Norris and Camacho SR, some won some lost but the names are all greats......

Not comparing the two or saying who was a better fighter just showing how the resume gane with numbers can be deciving at times

[Trainer Monkey]

Considering the demographics,and negotiations,guys dont fight as often as they used to once they win a title,so I think its who they beat,not how often they fight.
Also the investment angle screws things up as well,it takes longer to win a title, because if a manager thinks he has something he's going to take as many padding fights as he can for his guy before he'll risk him on a title shot.
Its who you beat,not how many fights you have.

[Mikkel_K]

I pretty much agree with everyone here - quality over quantity - but I'd like to add that it could probably make a difference why the given fighter would only have 12 fights.

If he retired by his own will and relatively young, he might be accused of ducking someone (that's what that say about Mayweather or Lewis at least). Maybe that would compromise the legacy?

[DaxxKahn]

I pretty much agree with everyone here - quality over quantity - but I'd like to add that it could probably make a difference why the given fighter would only have 12 fights.

If he retired by his own will and relatively young, he might be accused of ducking someone (that's what that say about Mayweather or Lewis at least). Maybe that would compromise the legacy?

Lewis was not young he was 37.....He can not be considered ducking anyone because he fought and beat EVERYONE!!!.....People who use the Vitaly rematch as an example are just haters...he beat the man once regardless of how close it was he won with little to argue about...that cut was a legit stoppage caused by a punch...Vitaly was ahead but not dominating Lewis...Both men were tired and hanging on each other.....

If anything Lewis is guilty of knowing by that fight his time was coming and why go out on an embaressing loss?

Anyone who faults a fighter for doing so is an idiot

[killersheep]

I wish fighters fought more often, many strap holders are down to 1 or 2 fights a year. There is something to be said for actually defending their belt. On the other hand in the example you gave Mr. X who fought and beat that list you made would surely be considered great, because he defeated the absolute best of the day. Quality trumps quantity everytime. I think optimally a fight should fight as often as possible early in their career until they get to big name fights and then it could go down to 3 or 4 a year. Fighters nowadays just don't fight as often as they used too. The only active fighters I can think of that still have old school activity are "Yory Boy" Campas 92-13-0 (74 KOs) and James Toney 71-6-3 (43 KOs). Actually now that I think about it there are a lot of fighters in Thailand that are that active.

[Onix]

I am in total agreement that the quality of a fighters opponents matters most, but is there nothing to say about longevity, consistency, or just an overall will to keep fighting?

I mean its not easy to want to keep going for longer than you need to. If you have secured a legacy but want to keep going because you love to fight, that says alot also. If my hypothetical fighter beat the same guys but instead of doing it back to back he did it in six years (one every year) and padded his record in between and got up to 48-O fighting bums alls the way but fighting 6-7 times a year, is there nothing to be said about that consistency or workrate?

[C-Lo]

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?

Honestly, someone who is 5-1 would never get a shot at a big name. They would find someone who was washed up and somewhat of a name or someone whose style matches up well with them.

But someone who would be able to pull that off would be LEGEN...(wait for it)...DARY

And my opinion on the topic, chalk another one up for Quality over Quantity. Look at Edwin Valero, he is on one of the hottest knockout streaks out there yet people still don't believe in him because his opposition has no quality. 24 fights, 24 knockouts, amazing on paper, but in reality, not all that impressive. Now look at Nonito Donaire. 20 fights (13 by KO), and 1 loss. He fought one name in Darchynian and he is held in higher regard because he took a name out.

[Mikkel_K]

I pretty much agree with everyone here - quality over quantity - but I'd like to add that it could probably make a difference why the given fighter would only have 12 fights.

If he retired by his own will and relatively young, he might be accused of ducking someone (that's what that say about Mayweather or Lewis at least). Maybe that would compromise the legacy?

Lewis was not young he was 37.....He can not be considered ducking anyone because he fought and beat EVERYONE!!!.....People who use the Vitaly rematch as an example are just haters...he beat the man once regardless of how close it was he won with little to argue about...that cut was a legit stoppage caused by a punch...Vitaly was ahead but not dominating Lewis...Both men were tired and hanging on each other.....

If anything Lewis is guilty of knowing by that fight his time was coming and why go out on an embaressing loss?

Anyone who faults a fighter for doing so is an idiot

I should have worded it differently, as I absolutely agree with you. Lewis retired at the right time and had nothing more to prove. However, and that was my point, you do get people saying something different. Even if it is wrong.

In the case of Mayweather it might be right, but the basic point was just that a guy going out as a champ will get (some) people questioning him, fairly or unfairly.

[DaxxKahn]

I pretty much agree with everyone here - quality over quantity - but I'd like to add that it could probably make a difference why the given fighter would only have 12 fights.

If he retired by his own will and relatively young, he might be accused of ducking someone (that's what that say about Mayweather or Lewis at least). Maybe that would compromise the legacy?

Lewis was not young he was 37.....He can not be considered ducking anyone because he fought and beat EVERYONE!!!.....People who use the Vitaly rematch as an example are just haters...he beat the man once regardless of how close it was he won with little to argue about...that cut was a legit stoppage caused by a punch...Vitaly was ahead but not dominating Lewis...Both men were tired and hanging on each other.....

If anything Lewis is guilty of knowing by that fight his time was coming and why go out on an embaressing loss?

Anyone who faults a fighter for doing so is an idiot

I should have worded it differently, as I absolutely agree with you. Lewis retired at the right time and had nothing more to prove. However, and that was my point, you do get people saying something different. Even if it is wrong.

In the case of Mayweather it might be right, but the basic point was just that a guy going out as a champ will get (some) people questioning him, fairly or unfairly.

I wasn't calling you an idiot mate...Just saying that it is an idioc way of viewing things....And you are right it happens all the time....it is almost as f a fighter can never do enough...

I don't fault ANY fighter for retirement and I personally do not believe that any fighter is afraid (Ducks) another fighter out of fear but I do believe there are fightrs who take the easier road if case be allowed.....

DLH as much as I dislike him at this point in his career is one man that can never be in that sentece where anyone can say "He never fought so and so because" DLH has proved that he would fight anyone or should I say No one but the best...

In Lennox case there was no more worthy challengers....There is always that one more guy left but when you look at it in the oppisite view the question is...Even if I beat the guy is it worth it?....what will it do for my legecy