Printable View
What do people see as an all time great fighter? How can you decide one from another? Does an all time great have to be somewhere in the top 30, 50 or 100 P4P of all time rankings? There has been a lot of discussion recently saying whether guys like Froch, Cotto and Martinez are all time greats, they are certainly future hall of famers but do they make fighters all time greats lists?
To be an ATG you need to beat at least another HOF fighter, be in a great top level fight, showing great heart, consistent champion over a period of time.
Everything that Master said plus you have to be a consistent winner, but you don't have to be undefeated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
You should have a lengthy career and have fought at a consistent high level for the majority of your career.
You have to have been a champion and more than once helps, as does being a champion in a different division or divisions.
Most important, in my opinion, is you have to be seen as fighting and beating the top/best fighters in your division or divisions consistently.
I know a lot of us have individual criteria for what an ATG should or should not be and I'd like to hear them.
What about the fighters you are certain would have been ATGs but their careers were cut short for one reason or another?
YOu dont have to be undefeated but I think there should be a win % . If you have 10 losses you probably cannot be an ATG, unless you have 140 wins. But if you are 57-10, there is NO WAY you can be an ATG. I think it goes first and foremost by losses. Marciano was an ATG. Foreman with only 4 losses in 70 fights---ATG. Joe Louis with only 2 losses---ATG. Ali only 5 losses----ATG. Frazier only 5 losses----ATG. Larry Holmes---ATG all the way---only a few losses---18 straight title defenses. No doubt about Larry. Mike Tyson???----not sure. Not sure about Tyson.
An ATG is NOT a Buster Douglas who has 1 night of pure glory and then fades from all stardom. Leon Spinks is NOT, even though he beat the great Ali. Gene Tunney 's only claims to fame are his 2 wins over Dempsey. Tunney cannot be an ATG.
Number of losses, longevity, title defenses. That is it for me.
Is Fritzie Zivic an atg iyo? How about Carpentier?Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
Btw Tunney beat Harry Greb 4 times. Jack would not even fight the guy.
being popular with the fans seems to be the biggest thing these days......
Historical accomplishments, more than anything else, qualify someone as an ATG. Sugar Ray Robinson beating numerous HOF fighters, being the greatest welter ever, and winning lineal MW titles multiple times. Henry Armstrong holding 3 of 8 available world championships at the same time and beating HOF fighters while doing it. Ray Leonard winning super fight after super fight and overcoming the odds to beat Hagler (although I feel ray lost that one). Joe Louis defending his title 23 times and cleaning out the division. Ali being the first to win the HW championship 3 times, overcome the odds to beat foreman, engage in the fight of the century and thrills in Manila, and beat the best heavyweights over 3 generations of the Holden era of heavies.
Good Thread in light of all the recent talk. IMO , to be an ATG, the 1st requirement is to be the best in your Division for a decent period of time, or to have beaten someone who is the the best in the division and then continued to show that form . It's a phrase that's banded around all too often nowadays and I don't necessarily see a correlation between HOF and ATG. The only other alternative is for unique achievement that defies belief.
I reckon an ATG should apply to very few , simply because we are talking about being one of the best of all time, not just the era they boxed in.
I honestly think that it applies to probably less than 5 current boxers.
if you pressed me for names , I would probably only say Mayweather and Pacman for their achievements, and Maybe Hopkins more for his unique Longevity and being a World Champ at 50 and not necessarily for his boxing prowess.
I think it's a fine balance between in ring and accomplishment.
1) In ring ability - what did the fighter bring to the table? Were his skills elite-level? Skill/intelligence/physical attributes/ect. What did he do great? What was he not so good at? How did his skills/physical attributes/intelligence stack up with that of other established ATGs?
2) Accomplishment - Was the fighter ever THE guy in his division? How long? Was he ever THE guy in the sport of boxing? For how long? Did he fight a reasonable amount of top quality, top ranked opposition?
These are very subjective obviously, and of course allow human bias to skew them to make a fighter look good or shitty (depending on the bias).
For instance, take Marciano. A lot of people generally say his quality of opposition wasn't as great as other HW champs, that he fought in a weak division. There may be some validity to that, but he is undoubtedly an ATG because he was THE guy in the HW division for several years and fought the top guys of the time. Then there are people who take it the other way, and say "well 49-0 he retired undefeated so that means he's the greatest HW ever". So it's a fine balance.
What do you mean by "not for Hopkin's boxing prowess"? Like him or not, he's one of the greatest talents to ever enter the ring with one of the highest boxing IQ's of all time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
Mayweather, Pacman, Hopkins, Klitschko, and JMM at least should all have their ATG tickets punched.
Jesus, if Hopkins doesn't deserve ATG status than I don't know who does. The man has had an incredible career.
Is Pacquiao an ATG? To me he is but I dont think he is or ever has been better then Floyd despite bein gin the same division for a lot of their prime careers? I agree it should be a select few considered ATGs. From this generation I have Floyd, Pac, Wlad, Viatali, Jones Jr, Hopkins but cant think of much others. I certainly dont have Hatton, Cotto, Froch etc despite all being great fighters and future HOFrsQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilkeyjoeIs Pacquiao an ATG? To me he is but I dont think he is or ever has been better then Floyd despite bein gin the same division for a lot of their prime careers? I agree it should be a select few considered ATGs. From this generation I have Floyd, Pac, Wlad, Viatali, Jones Jr, Hopkins but cant think of much others. I certainly dont have Hatton, Cotto, Froch etc despite all being great fighters and future HOFrsQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
I suppose the criteria can be as narrow or as broad as one wants to make it however imo they have to have certain attributes and I'm not sure we can attach all that much to titles in about a 15 title era.
Plenty of all time greats(those that could compete in the top of any era) never got a belt. That was the reasoning for it fragmenting from the NBA. The line up for the title was just to long. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Now of course we have about 10 guys in every division claiming to be some kind of world champion. Same with winning records, scrutiny is needed.
You can find these attributes in one way or another in countless boxing books by both trainers and historians.
INPO
1-Smarts. The ability to think ahead of the action and stay focused under adversity.
2-Speed. To execute ones thoughts.
3-Defense
4-Accuracy. Get the most out of the above
5-Power. Exclamation point but not necessary.
6-Conditioning.
7-A set of Balls
8-Motive and discipline
9-Chin. Not an absolute necessity but desirable.
10-A trainer and good cut man.
=Success
Pacquiao for sure is an ATG.
And if we consider Roy Jones as an active figher, he is also undisputedly an ATG.
Where does Lennox Lewis stand?Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
On his legs because he is a legend.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedWhere does Lennox Lewis stand?Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust