Otherwise no argument, but I can't see Quartey up there, especially if Calzaghe is being generous and Hamed is not listed. Quartey did not have the defining wins either, although he probably deserved a narrow one
I think you have an original way of defining greatness if Jones does not fit in. I guess you base it on 'boxing skill'?
This is pretty much the nail on the head. I'd rank Oscar, Marquez & Lopez together in a special 'very, very near great but not quite' category, I think.
Quartey's comp in losing was better than the bulk of Calzaghe's undefeated record... if I had a 168 pounder who was exactly the same as Ike Quartey, the same level of fighter, same skills, same strengths and weaknesses, only he weighed 168 pounds? I would give that guy a FANTASTIC chance to beat Joe Calzaghe Hamed I wasnt sure about, frankly... his comp was for the most part ordinary to awful, he was incredibly inconsistent and he sometimes looked damn near horrendous in some of his bigger fights... Hamed had very unique gifts and was an outrageously powerful puncher, but I think we must measure what he FAILED to do as much as what he COULD HAVE done... there are fighters greater than hamed whom I think he might beat, to be honest
When thinking about Oscar and how great he is, I can't help but compare him to Ray Leonard. And in that regard, I agree, Oscar is a shade below. He behaved just short of great at times. Still, he covered a ton of weight, fought everyone, and beat a bunch of very good fighters.
Agree Oscar is one of those guys who I can't really envision anyone beating EASILY... he's good enough to beat A LOT of fighters, and good enough to lose competetively to the very greatest fighters
Hamed, to me, falls into that almost impossible to rate aspect of greatness. Hamed, as a sporting figure during his years, was great. I struggle with the word.
Exactly. It's kinda like Tyson, IMO. By the time either fought anyone good they had declined. So it's totally subjective how good they were at their very best. But even I as something of a Naseem apologist would never make a claim for even his 'near' greatness.
I would argue that Tyson was clearly greater than Hamed... he unified his division, rather than holding 1/4 of the belts... Tyson's comp was, in my estimation, certainly no worse than hamed's and he often looked spectacular in dispatching it... If Tyson's prime years had been 1991-1997 instead of 1986-1991, he would have unquestionably been on my second list with a bullet
I am not saying Hamed should necessarily be in there, I just thought that if Quartey qualifies then there are others who deserve a thought. I can see Quartey having the tools, perhaps also the skill to become a truly great even though he did not have an actual great career, but if you give him a pass, then perhaps other guys who looked highly impressive for a while could be included
I'm always curious how heavyweight achievements get weighted versus smaller guys. I mean, a featherweight wins a title, beats a great bantamweight jumping up and a 38 year old former great, then loses to a no hoper and largely goes off the rails. How does that get rated historically versus Tyson? Or against say Hamed? Im not making any implications here, I'm just asking the question to the night.
And BTW, I wasn't necessarily comparing Hamed to Tyson in my original post - just saying that similar principals apply in gauging just how good they were or weren't. Hamed was a level below Tyson, i agree.
Maybe you consider Kermit Cintron gags more worthwhile than the discussion which has now ensued. Good for you. I certainly don't.
That's upto the individual. You'd like to think everyone weighs it up just the same (certainly, I make the effort to do just so), but...
