He may sometimes take a trial fight before taking a big money fight. Mohamed Ali, Oscar De la Hoya, Bernard Hopkins etc.
Your postulates are fallacious at best based on actual boxing history.
Your # 3 type ( with the accompanying note ) is blatantly unfair for the likes of Rocky Marciano, Ricardo Lopez, Joe Calzhage but would be spot on for the likes of Ottke and a few Oriental major or minor title holders in the lower weight classes who never really tested themselves against the best available opposition in their time. Prime example of this is Thailand's Samson Dutch Boy Gym who reigned as WBF super flyweight titlist for a decade estblishing an astounding record of 38 successful defenses fighting an assortment of challengers, mostly patsies and fall guys.
Your types 1 and 2 with the accompanying notes are also fallacious. For example, Muhmmad Ali could be the prime embodiment of your types 1 and 2 champion but how do you consider him as having fought in a weak era when he lasted more then two decades and fought the best of at least two eras in the heavyweight.
I believe this is another dig at the current undefeated champions of today chiefly Floyd Mayweather, Jr. and possibly Andre ward and even the Klitschkos but you don't have to warp boxing history to accomplish this end. You should do better than this.
Are you asking which makes the best Champion or which is the best boxer.
Fighter 1 would be the best champion
The best boxer is none of the 3
Characteristic:- No.1--Greatest Fighter ever.....
No.2--Just a Good fighter.....
No.3--Worst fighter ever...
A champion is a fighter that beat the best compeition. He may be seen as ducking by some but that comes with the territory. He is also the most talked about boxer because he is doing something right.
1. A true champion fights everyone including the best of his era no matter what. If he loses, he comes back and kicks their asz and keeps winning. He does not give up nor does he avoid and use excuses.
1. A champion who fought everyone and occasionally struggled or lost but would come back to win.
2. A champion who fought everyone and dominated but lost at old age.
3. A champion who didn't fight everyone but dominated those he did fight, retired undefeated.
Note;
Fighter 1 will likely be considered to have had the greater competition because of the competitiveness.
Fighter 2 will likely be considered to have been a champion in a weak era.
Fighter 3 will likely be accused of dodging.
Which of these resumes would you consider the best and the worst?
