Two Questions

[marbleheadmaui]

How do you define an "all-time great" and what is your criteria?

In your opinion how many have there been since John L. Sullivan?

I'll do my answers later. I want to see the gang's opinion.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

[Mars_ax]

How do you define an "all-time great" and what is your criteria?

In your opinion how many have there been since John L. Sullivan?

I'll do my answers later. I want to see the gang's opinion.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Geezus Marb, you aren't asking for much of a reply are you. ( admit it, you're a glutton for punishment aren't you dude)

All-time is way to subjective there's hundreds of all-timers, may I suggest best ever in each division? For example: Joe Louis @ HW, Roberto Duran at Lightweight, Ray Robinson at Welterweight, et al.

As for a sensible criteria to use to create a list of the greatest boxers of all time. I'd say, the number of titles and defenses, longevity, dominance over contemporaries, how they represent the sport, and how they capture the imagination of the wider public would be a good start.

[JonesJrMayweather]

Well for me, all time great, I look at the era/decade in which the fighter is fighting. Then I look at how he performed against that era. Next I'll use the history of the sport as a reference for deciding if said fighter did reasonable things to make the most of being the best. Naturally as times change so do the politics of the sport. I don't penalize the modern era for not fighting 60+ fights because of how long it takes now to promote fights. And the old era fighters don't get extra credit just because they're old era fighters. I also look at all the circumstances surrounding each fighter's "defining" fights. Then I make a decision.

[miron_lang]

How do you define an "all-time great" and what is your criteria?

In your opinion how many have there been since John L. Sullivan?

I'll do my answers later. I want to see the gang's opinion.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

1. ALL Time great should have beaten many recognized and legitimate champions, Champions that have proven themselves by beating other legitimate champions.

Here's the hierarchy.

Lineal Champions weigh more
Ring Champions weigh more
Alphabet Champions weigh some
Vacant Alphabet weigh less


2. I am bad in history but i'll try

SRR, Ali, Foreman, Armstrong, Pep, Saddler, Greb, Louis, Duran, Leonard, Hearns, Hagler

Roy, Hopkins, Barrera, Morales, Floyd, Pacquiao, Ricardo Lopez, JCC, Wilfredo Gomez, Salvador Sanchez


and many more

[generalbulldog]

Not in any particular order

-Titles, particularly lineal ones
-resume
-dominance
-how good were the opponents? And did they have something left at the time? And the conditions.
-Accomplishments

For instance I do not consider Aaron Pryor an all time great. Why? Resume. I see it as weak with just a faded Arguello fighting a few divisions from his very best weight. I don't consider Kostya Tszyu an atg another long reigning 140 champ either with just a past prime JCC on his record. I also don't consider Wlad an atg also even if he reigns the division another 2 years. Resume is very important. Now I consider all 3 as hall of famers but not atgs. That's just a different class, imo.

I believe if all 5 of the criteria are met then they are an atg in my eyes. It's just very subjective. Although someone like Roy Jones does not have a lineal title but he is an atg in my eyes because of the other factors he's met.

[rjj tszyu]

Not in any particular order

-Titles, particularly lineal ones
-resume
-dominance
-how good were the opponents? And did they have something left at the time? And the conditions.
-Accomplishments

For instance I do not consider Aaron Pryor an all time great. Why? Resume. I see it as weak with just a faded Arguello fighting a few divisions from his very best weight. I don't consider Kostya Tszyu an atg another long reigning 140 champ either with just a past prime JCC on his record. I also don't consider Wlad an atg also even if he reigns the division another 2 years. Resume is very important. Now I consider all 3 as hall of famers but not atgs. That's just a different class, imo.

I believe if all 5 of the criteria are met then they are an atg in my eyes. It's just very subjective. Although someone like Roy Jones does not have a lineal title but he is an atg in my eyes because of the other factors he's met.

Roy Jones was THE man and Lineal champion at 175. He held and defended 6 different alphabet titles at the same time. Now that is what I call unification. The only reason he didn't get the WBO is because Michalczewski wouldn't leave Germany and Roy wouldn't leave the U.S. But he would have easily beaten him.

[JonesJrMayweather]

Not in any particular order

-Titles, particularly lineal ones
-resume
-dominance
-how good were the opponents? And did they have something left at the time? And the conditions.
-Accomplishments

For instance I do not consider Aaron Pryor an all time great. Why? Resume. I see it as weak with just a faded Arguello fighting a few divisions from his very best weight. I don't consider Kostya Tszyu an atg another long reigning 140 champ either with just a past prime JCC on his record. I also don't consider Wlad an atg also even if he reigns the division another 2 years. Resume is very important. Now I consider all 3 as hall of famers but not atgs. That's just a different class, imo.

I believe if all 5 of the criteria are met then they are an atg in my eyes. It's just very subjective. Although someone like Roy Jones does not have a lineal title but he is an atg in my eyes because of the other factors he's met.

Roy Jones was THE man and Lineal champion at 175. He held and defended 6 different alphabet titles at the same time. Now that is what I call unification. The only reason he didn't get the WBO is because Michalczewski wouldn't leave Germany and Roy wouldn't leave the U.S. But he would have easily beaten him.

Let's not forget he was at the Hill v RJJ fight sitting ringside...

[Violent Demise]

Not in any particular order

-Titles, particularly lineal ones
-resume
-dominance
-how good were the opponents? And did they have something left at the time? And the conditions.
-Accomplishments

For instance I do not consider Aaron Pryor an all time great. Why? Resume. I see it as weak with just a faded Arguello fighting a few divisions from his very best weight. I don't consider Kostya Tszyu an atg another long reigning 140 champ either with just a past prime JCC on his record. I also don't consider Wlad an atg also even if he reigns the division another 2 years. Resume is very important. Now I consider all 3 as hall of famers but not atgs. That's just a different class, imo.

I believe if all 5 of the criteria are met then they are an atg in my eyes. It's just very subjective. Although someone like Roy Jones does not have a lineal title but he is an atg in my eyes because of the other factors he's met.

It's amazing how some ignore history or just don't know much about it. The man Pryor decimated for the title Antonio Cervantes was an outstanding fighter. Hall of Famer

[JonesJrMayweather]

Not in any particular order

-Titles, particularly lineal ones
-resume
-dominance
-how good were the opponents? And did they have something left at the time? And the conditions.
-Accomplishments

For instance I do not consider Aaron Pryor an all time great. Why? Resume. I see it as weak with just a faded Arguello fighting a few divisions from his very best weight. I don't consider Kostya Tszyu an atg another long reigning 140 champ either with just a past prime JCC on his record. I also don't consider Wlad an atg also even if he reigns the division another 2 years. Resume is very important. Now I consider all 3 as hall of famers but not atgs. That's just a different class, imo.

I believe if all 5 of the criteria are met then they are an atg in my eyes. It's just very subjective. Although someone like Roy Jones does not have a lineal title but he is an atg in my eyes because of the other factors he's met.

It's amazing how some ignore history or just don't know much about it. The man Pryor decimated for the title Antonio Cervantes was an outstanding fighter. Hall of Famer

He said he considers them HOF, just not ATGs. I mean Dwight Qawi is in the HOF, but he isn't going to make anyone's top 100 ATG list.

[generalbulldog]

Not in any particular order

-Titles, particularly lineal ones
-resume
-dominance
-how good were the opponents? And did they have something left at the time? And the conditions.
-Accomplishments

For instance I do not consider Aaron Pryor an all time great. Why? Resume. I see it as weak with just a faded Arguello fighting a few divisions from his very best weight. I don't consider Kostya Tszyu an atg another long reigning 140 champ either with just a past prime JCC on his record. I also don't consider Wlad an atg also even if he reigns the division another 2 years. Resume is very important. Now I consider all 3 as hall of famers but not atgs. That's just a different class, imo.

I believe if all 5 of the criteria are met then they are an atg in my eyes. It's just very subjective. Although someone like Roy Jones does not have a lineal title but he is an atg in my eyes because of the other factors he's met.

It's amazing how some ignore history or just don't know much about it. The man Pryor decimated for the title Antonio Cervantes was an outstanding fighter. Hall of Famer

He said he considers them HOF, just not ATGs. I mean Dwight Qawi is in the HOF, but he isn't going to make anyone's top 100 ATG list.

Exactly. My criteria is different than someone's. Guys like Pryor and Tszyu are great fighters that are HOF, but not atgs in my eyes because I see it differently. If they are all time greats for someone, cool that's your view, not mine.

Just like the thread starter of this thread considers Ricardo Lopez greater than RJJ in some other thread, I don't but that's his opinion and the guy has his own reasons. So I respect that. Just like I got my own reasons for judging things. Not everyone is going to agree on things or see eye to eye on these rankings, debate or mythical matchups. Just check out the Prime Oscar vs Manny/Floyd thread. There's differences of opinions. And that's how it is for everyone.

And about Roy being lineal champ at 175. There is debate on that, I'm not going to get into it here in this thread.

[HattonTheHammer]

i disagree about the whole titles being the prime dominance thing

maybe 20 or 30 years ago but nowadays its very possible to see 2 absolute hall of famers competing for no belt whatsoever just in a 12round contest

the true longevity of a fighters resume will come down to a combination of just how good they were and entertainment value

ie:mayorga HOF....nah gets beat up all the time klitschko HOF.....boooooooorring NO

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

To be very simplistic, the easy choice is to pick the guy that stands OUT, if at all.
The harder options are the the guys who where in his company.

For example Muhammad Ali is an all time great. Joe Fraizer is debatable if so.

(edit) Also this has to be something that is looked at maybe +/- 10 years after a guy has retired.

[marbleheadmaui]

How do you define an "all-time great" and what is your criteria?

In your opinion how many have there been since John L. Sullivan?

I'll do my answers later. I want to see the gang's opinion.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Geezus Marb, you aren't asking for much of a reply are you. ( admit it, you're a glutton for punishment aren't you dude)

All-time is way to subjective there's hundreds of all-timers, may I suggest best ever in each division? For example: Joe Louis @ HW, Roberto Duran at Lightweight, Ray Robinson at Welterweight, et al.

As for a sensible criteria to use to create a list of the greatest boxers of all time. I'd say, the number of titles and defenses, longevity, dominance over contemporaries, how they represent the sport, and how they capture the imagination of the wider public would be a good start.

See I don't think there are hundreds of ATG's. But I also can't prove why. I just like to keep terms like that more restricitve. Say top 50 or something.

[marbleheadmaui]

Well for me, all time great, I look at the era/decade in which the fighter is fighting. Then I look at how he performed against that era. Next I'll use the history of the sport as a reference for deciding if said fighter did reasonable things to make the most of being the best. Naturally as times change so do the politics of the sport. I don't penalize the modern era for not fighting 60+ fights because of how long it takes now to promote fights. And the old era fighters don't get extra credit just because they're old era fighters. I also look at all the circumstances surrounding each fighter's "defining" fights. Then I make a decision.

Thanks! Shouldn't things like total wins count for something?

[marbleheadmaui]

How do you define an "all-time great" and what is your criteria?

In your opinion how many have there been since John L. Sullivan?

I'll do my answers later. I want to see the gang's opinion.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

1. ALL Time great should have beaten many recognized and legitimate champions, Champions that have proven themselves by beating other legitimate champions.

Here's the hierarchy.

Lineal Champions weigh more
Ring Champions weigh more
Alphabet Champions weigh some
Vacant Alphabet weigh less


2. I am bad in history but i'll try

SRR, Ali, Foreman, Armstrong, Pep, Saddler, Greb, Louis, Duran, Leonard, Hearns, Hagler

Roy, Hopkins, Barrera, Morales, Floyd, Pacquiao, Ricardo Lopez, JCC, Wilfredo Gomez, Salvador Sanchez


and many more

Pretty darn good I think. I'd quibble and say alphabets don't count at all