Measuring greatness

Guys, over the years and months I have been reading posts on the old 606, and on the new forum I have read a lot articles questioning the claims to greatness of some of the sports bigest names- Duran dismissed as "a bar brawller", Louis as a "plodder", Ali as as an "american hype job" I could go on and on.
So what I am interested in hearing is what factors you all consider the most important when judging greatness. Below I have outlined some of the factors that could /are often used and , for what it's worth my thoughts on the matter.
Record wins/losses/draws. To me one of the least reliable measures, but I have often heard arguements for that rely solely on the stats- Marciano being unbeaten therefore the best ever HW, Louis's 25 defences proving his claim to be the best ever HW.
Longevity- I know that one particular poster reckons this to be the least important factor, but if we give Holmes credit for clearing out the division in the 80's, how much more should we give Ali for clearing it out twice in the 60s and then in the 70s?
Quality of oposition-who you beat- For me this rates highly -a fighter that defeats other great fighters must be a great, but this seerms unfair on those in a weaker era, or indeed those we perceive as weaker era's- I never fully understand the critcism Marciano gets for the lack of quality opponents depiste the fact that Walcott and Charles were excellent boxers -indeed Bert sugar has Charles in his top ten. Yes he was once a LW, but Rocky him self was no giant. Tyson, Holmes & Kitchko also suffer this, but Tysons' & Holmes' records includes a lot of ex title holders. Kiltchko..erm...
How you beat them- Foremans blow outs of Frazier and Norton have been presented as greater victories than Ali's wins over the same ,but to me Ali's win over Foreman negates any arguement for George being rated higher, but I know a lot of people that are deeply impressed by spectacular knockouts, far more so than boixng masterclasses.
To me how you lose is often more important than how you win- Generally I think we place far too much value on fights records when it comes to looking a defeats than judging the manor of those defeats- For example all of Tyson's loses were one sided beatings in which he never looked like turning things round (except for the pityful displays against Williams and that Irish guy, when me basically just quit) to me this is far more detrimental to his standing than say Lewis's two fluke losses, which were due to carelessness and were easily reversed. (the past his prime arguement doesn't hold water-look what Ali archieved when past his) De la Hoya is sometimes marked down as not ever winning the big ones, but do razor thin losses to a possibly juiced Mosley, and a clear robbery loss to Trinidad really have such a great bearing when placed in the context of such a successful career?
Talent/Skill - seems obvious that a great fighter should haver great skill and talent, but surely how it's put to use that is more relevant - those who rate tyson, sorry PRIME tyson so highly often seem to do so based on the relatively few rounds that he fought at his absolute best.It also is a very subjective area- I believe than Duran was probably the best in-fighter the game has ever seen, slipping and blocking an incredilbly number of shots when you consider the pressure and ferocity he bought to the ring, yet some of you think he's pub fighter.
Being in great fights, again sounds obvious that a great fighter should be in great fights, but again I belive that too often we look at the result rather than the performance. For example I truly believe that the performance that Frazier put in in Manila ( or indeed Ali's performance in Madison Square) enhances his claim to greatness, even though me lost- which is the greater performance Fraziers over 14 of the best rounds ever, or Tyson knocking out Spinks or Holmes (generally considered his best performnaces)? In fact I rate Leonard's performance in Montreal as his finest hour-there was always the belief, proved in the rematch, that he could outwit Duran, but to have stood toe to toes, playing him at his own game, and to have come within a couple of rounds of out -fighting the fighter was remarkable. Again it may not be fair, but for me lack of participation in a great fights matters, as that is where qualities such as heart , guts, determination are unearthed-Louis, Ali, Frazier etc all proved their greatness in adversity- Tyson folded.
Sorry to have such a limited number fighters in the examples, but atleast most posters will have seen the fights mentioned, and lets face it a lot of the "prime Tyson" crew often seem somewhat ignorant of the history of the division- please don't hold up his distruction of Berbick as some sort of proof that he was the best ever- it's an insult to the many true and knowledge contributors on these pages.

First up, welcome aboard, horizontalhero.

Your article is a cracker with which to open your account, and I agree with just about every word of it.

One, oft neglected, quality which I feel contributes to a fighter's ' greatness ' is how he fares when in decline. The word ' prime ' irritates me beyond belief, since it encourages us to draw a line somewhere during a fighter's career and dismiss anything which he did the other side of this line. In my opinion the greatest fighters were able to accomplish great wins even when clearly past their pristine best, and while they might also have shipped the odd loss or turned in the odd mediocre performance, those great wins are a measure of true quality. From Fitzsimmons and Langford all the way through to Bernard Hopkins we have seen legendary fighters conjure up wonderful performances to defy the odds even though they are clearly past their halcyon days.

Of course it's all subjective, but I agree that quality of oppoisiton is probably the most crucial factor.

While no on can doubt Ali's skill, he's usually considered the greatest HW of all time based mainly on the names he has on his record. A resume that no other HW can match.

In a modern context, I would probably have Carl Froch ahead of Haye and Khan in a British P4P list, even though one could argue that he's the least talented of the 3. However, since he has fought the highest calibre of opponents, he's probably the most deserving Brit for the No.1 spot.

While I agree with Windy's point to an extent, I do feel that the style of a boxer is what usually determines how well they fare when in their declining years.

For example, Hopkins ability to defy the odds is strongly down to his boxing style and manner. Bhop is a fighter that predominantly relies on his advanced boxing IQ and ability to nullify his opponents. These strengths don't get affected greatly by father time.

On the other hand, Jones Jr is a boxer who's style relied heavily on athleticism, speed, movement and reflexes. Obviously, as Jones got older and his physical gifts began to decline, he was unable to conjure up anything decent, let alone special......unlike Hopkins.

J.Benson II wrote:
In a modern context, I would probably have Carl Froch ahead of Haye and Khan in a British P4P list, even though one could argue that he's the least talented of the 3. However, since he has fought the highest calibre of opponents, he's probably the most deserving Brit for the No.1 spot.

I personally think after the AA fight Carl proves that he's up there in the skill and talent department with Khan and Haye, but it's down to what you consider talent I guess.

Comes down to who you beat primarily, you can have all the talent in the world but if you don't apply it then it's worthless. Just look at Kirkland Laing could do it all but lacked the drive to really prove himself.