(Side note: same rules apply. Try to remain civil and respect others' opinions)
The Topic of Discussion: What is greatness, and how does a fighter ascend to such a thing?
Almost every boxing fan has a pretty vague, but relatively consistent, list of great fighters that have made their mark on the sport (not the business). However, the "requirements" we set for one to achieve greatness seems to vary from one fan to another; hell, it sometimes even varies within the same fan.
I want the BLH community to really think about the answers that they'll I've here. What makes a fighters great in your eyes? Which fighters do you think are great that deserve more credit? Which fighters get too much credit?
I have my answer. Most of the people here have heard me go on about it on many threads. I do my best to remain consistent. Here is my point of view (which y'all should criticize to all hell):
A fighter can achieve greatness through beating the best in his division. A title used to be a sure way of helping, but for modern fighters I tend to take this with a grain of salt, since most belts are pretty meaningless anyways. One can even dispel any doubt by moving up (or down I guess) in weight to challenge bigger/stronger fighters. Some can even attain this greatness through loss. Sometimes we learn more about a fighter through a loss, than we would through any victory.
I also believe that a fighter can show great skill, but still not be great. A perfect example in my eyes is Mike Tyson. The man blew tuna cans out the water (obviously not just tuna cans). He was ahead of most fighters, but he was not great. He failed every test in the ring. Sure, he was a physical specimen, but he was also weak minded and able to be broken. (I wish to leave the rest of my opinions on this matter for another post)
In my eyes, a fighter becomes great, when he dares to be great and either fails valiantly, or triumphs. What do you guys think?
What are the requirements? Are there any? Is everything a case-by-case, or does there have to be a way to measure how great a fighter is? Does one look at the impact a fighter had, or does one look at his resume? Can you separate the two?