What is a more important factor in determining a fighter's greatness?

Question

An undefeated record or quality of opposition? Many cite Rocky Marciano's 49-0 record as proof positive that he was the greatest heavyweight ever. But what great champions wouldn't have been 49-0 against that opposition? Conversely, Muhammad Ali's opposition was devastating from stem to stern. A collection of beautiful boxers and devastating sluggers. I'm not so sure Rocky would have retired undefeated if he'd had to face the likes of Sonny Liston, George Foreman, Larry Holmes or Joe Frazier. Heck, Jimmy Ellis, Jimmy Young, Ron Lyle, George Chuvalo and Earnie Shavers could have made it a rough night for Rocky. Everyone else did, why not they?

The Rock was a great fighter, but he fought during one of the weakest stretches in the division's history. Charles, Louis, Walcott and Moore were all old men, well past their respective primes.

So I ask you, what is more important in determining greatness? Opposition or an undefeated record? Thanks all for listening to my bs!

Answer 1

Douglas, I know of no serious boxing pundits who claim Marciano was the greatest heavyweight of all time. Rock will always be in the top ten, but always somewhere in the middle, never "the best". Opposition is just as important to all time greatness as skill level. Statistics and record play a part, but the measure of a man, and a boxer is in his opposition. Sugar Ray Robinson's list of opponents could fill a wall at the boxing hall of fame, and Ray elevated his skill level and performance to never before or since heights because of the greatness of the men across from him. Same can be said for Ali, the heavyweight division never had the line up of talent prior to Ali, and certainly haven't had talent like Ali faced since.

Clearly, opposition is more important than record, do you rank Valuev anywhere near any of the names you mentioned in your question? It wasn't bs, it is an important question that applies to life in any respect. Quality over quantity every time in the real world, just as in the boxing ring. Very important and necessary question, thanks for asking it.

Answer 2

I agree with you on some points but not all. Ali's competition wasnt the greatest no pun intended LOL. George Chuvalo sucked, Jimmy Young and Ken Norton were overrated as was Joe Frazier (yes he was). I think Larry Holmes and Lennox Lewis faxced stiffer competition and I know 95% of you will disagree with me but I believe that guys like Mike Weaver and Frank Bruno were underrated, Tim Withersppon would have whipped Jimmy Young's a____, and guys like Carl the Truth Williams and Michael Grant would have fared well in different eras. Sorry I've gotten away from the real topic. I believe greatness consists of several things; longevity, competition, not just record but how you rebound from losses (look at Ray Leonard and Lennox Lewis recovering from losses as compared to Mike Tyson and Roy Jones Jr.)....A fighter doesnt choose his era or his weight class (I think Calzaghe and Hopkins and the cruiserweight Holyfield were great champions but their competition was questionable.).....so we sometimes dont realize how great a fighter was until after theyre gone. A classic example is Donald Curry. I believe he was a great fighter. An accomplished amateur and Olympic representative in 1980, he turned pro and won several titles in different weight classes along with becoming undisputed welter champ in 1985 only to lose the title the following year. History doesnt remember him much but those who recall that era remember how he beat quality welters like Marlon Starling, Pablo Baez, Elio Diaz, Nino LaRocca, Colin Jones, Milton McCrory, etc. He may not have been undefeated but for 8-9 years he was one of the best fighters pound for pound in boxing. To me that was greatness, not a Sven Ottke who never fought outside of Germany (maybe once) and who retired undefeated.

Answer 3

I go with quality of opponents, and dominance.
Rocco has a sketchy list, but flat-out dominated some great heavies.

Answer 4

TO ME IT IS A NO-BRAINER - QUALITY OF OPPOSITION IS THE MORE IMPORTANT.

LIKE YOUR QUESTION AND I WILL USE TO EMPHASIZE A POINT.

ALL I KNOW IF U CAN'T SEE THAT, THEN U DON'T KNOW BOXING, PERIOD.