Comments Thread For: Chris Algieri?s School of Thought: Jaron ?Boots? Ennis is on the cusp of greatness

[Bronx2245]

Crawford just disrespected his best win. Take out Spence he didn't have a rival at 140lb or 147lb. We are still trying to guage boots. Stantious was a good measuring stick.

boots still has time.

Crawford's run @ 140 was mediocre at best, and he blew his chance to become a SUPERSTAR, by staying at Top Rank, when all the best WW opponents were at PBC. I don't want Boots to make the same mistake!

[DeeMoney]

Jordan plays basketball, so how about we compare to him to ATG Boxers? Let's start with Leonard and Hearns. They started at WW too. Then they moved up and continued to win! How about Duran, Whitaker, Jones, and Mayweather? Yup, all moved up from their starting weight classes, and continued win. So if Boots stays at WW, and fights the likes of Stanionis, Barrios, Norman, and Glasyov, he can never become an ATG! Simple as that!

First off, I'm not tracking the logic in what you are implying. I am stating that a fighter should not have to move up in weight simply to challenge themselves if by doing so they move beyond where they are at their best (ergo the comparison to MJ handicapping himself). Simply moving up to a higher weight class does not necessarily prove that you are a better given fighter (some people handle weight better). Moreover, there is nothing wrong in being better at a given lower weight because of your relative athletic ability at that weight.

Now, you cited some all time greats who moved up in weight, but thats nothing unique, there are plenty of not all time great fighters who moved up in weight too. Most fighters move up in weight class as they age and they can no longer make the weight they are at. They werent great because they moved up in weight, they were great AND they moved up in weight. The fact that they found consistent success was a product of them already being great. Now you may evaulate greatness based on ones ability to move up in weight, to me its not as important. I prefer to evaluate how great a fighter is in the ring relative to the given weight class. Certainly, having better opposition allows for a more accurate assesment (ergo Boots remaining at the weight makes it difficult to prove his greatness).

That being written what about ATGs like Hagler, or Monzon? They never moved up, yet I wouldn't denounce them as not being great. What about htose like Benny Leonard, who only moved up late in his career and never really had any success when he did? Most everyone still would rank him as a top 15 atg. What about the plethora of heavyweights who never had a chance to move up in weight? Do we discount their greatness as such.

WE are all free to have our criteria for greatness, and to be certain it is easier to prove against superior competition, but I don't hold it against a fighter for remaining at a weight where they are at their relative best even if it means they dont end up facing as difficult competition. AS long as they make weight I am good with them being dominant and staying in a weight class, as this is a sport and physical (and relative physical) ability is a key component to success.