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

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 cl (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 clic 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 cles 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.