Two Questions

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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. :rolleyes: ( 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 :(

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjj tszyu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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. :rolleyes: ( 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Tough to argue with any of the criteria I think. I understand your judgements on the three men. I may not agree, but it is surely reasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Yup. I think one has to wait until his best foes have retired.

I don't even bother with all time greats lists. Too many factors would have to go into it and I'm not gonna spend that much time on that exercise.

If I were to take on the endeavor I would have to break down into universal terms how good the opposition was, by that I mean I would have to have a system that quantified how good the heavyweights of the late 1800's were in comparison to today and every era in between. I would have to take into account activity (fights per year), accolades (titles, awards etc.). I would consider ATG's as the elite of the elite throughout history, and without a system to quantify that it's simply opinion much like a p4p list.

Certainly there are the obvious choices like Jimmy Wilde, SRR etc. but I don't have a good criteria to base it on, just opinion. The problem with counting titles in THIS era compared to prior eras is the fractionalization of the sanctioning bodies, they are so deluded they are really nothing more than marketing tools. While it's true that lineal titles carry more weight even the lineage comes into question with all of the weight class jumping nowadays.

My take on ATG's is almost entirely resume driven. I think there are basically two paths

1) Take on great fighters, fight them repeatedly, and beat them more than they beat you. That's how men like Greb and Robinson and Ali and Gans and Ray and Benny Leonard earned it.

2) But if there is a dearth of great fighters in or around your division? You find every conceivable challenge, take it on and lose very, very rarely. That's how Joe Louis, Marvin Hagler, Miguel Canto and Ricardo Lopez earned it.

Things that I think add weight to a given fighter's case are long, high quality, title reigns as THE MAN, multiple title reigns as THE MAN, overall number of wins and activity level and limited bad losses.

Now I almost always only consider a fighter's extended prime. From when he faced his first contender until when he could no longer compete there. A long prime, measured in fights, says a lot. A short one does too.

The last factor for me is really intangible. I want to see the man tested, how he responds to great adversity. That means daring matchmaking and a vibrant struggle in the face of what seems to be a losing battle.

Three things for me count little, if at all. Fighting style, alphabet stuff and early or late losses.

FWIW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

My take on ATG's is almost entirely resume driven. I think there are basically two paths

1) Take on great fighters, fight them repeatedly, and beat them more than they beat you. That's how men like Greb and Robinson and Ali and Gans and Ray and Benny Leonard earned it.

2) But if there is a dearth of great fighters in or around your division? You find every conceivable challenge, take it on and lose very, very rarely. That's how Joe Louis, Marvin Hagler, Miguel Canto and Ricardo Lopez earned it.

Things that I think add weight to a given fighter's case are long, high quality, title reigns as THE MAN, multiple title reigns as THE MAN, overall number of wins and activity level and limited bad losses.

Now I almost always only consider a fighter's extended prime. From when he faced his first contender until when he could no longer compete there. A long prime, measured in fights, says a lot. A short one does too.

The last factor for me is really intangible. I want to see the man tested, how he responds to great adversity. That means daring matchmaking and a vibrant struggle in the face of what seems to be a losing battle.

Three things for me count little, if at all. Fighting style, alphabet stuff and early or late losses.

FWIW

---

I'd rather just cop out ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

My take on ATG's is almost entirely resume driven. I think there are basically two paths

1) Take on great fighters, fight them repeatedly, and beat them more than they beat you. That's how men like Greb and Robinson and Ali and Gans and Ray and Benny Leonard earned it.

2) But if there is a dearth of great fighters in or around your division? You find every conceivable challenge, take it on and lose very, very rarely. That's how Joe Louis, Marvin Hagler, Miguel Canto and Ricardo Lopez earned it.

Things that I think add weight to a given fighter's case are long, high quality, title reigns as THE MAN, multiple title reigns as THE MAN, overall number of wins and activity level and limited bad losses.

Now I almost always only consider a fighter's extended prime. From when he faced his first contender until when he could no longer compete there. A long prime, measured in fights, says a lot. A short one does too.

The last factor for me is really intangible. I want to see the man tested, how he responds to great adversity. That means daring matchmaking and a vibrant struggle in the face of what seems to be a losing battle.

Three things for me count little, if at all. Fighting style, alphabet stuff and early or late losses.

FWIW

---

I'd rather just cop out ;)

---

It is certainly as persuasive...and takes a lot less time :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

My take on ATG's is almost entirely resume driven. I think there are basically two paths

1) Take on great fighters, fight them repeatedly, and beat them more than they beat you. That's how men like Greb and Robinson and Ali and Gans and Ray and Benny Leonard earned it.

2) But if there is a dearth of great fighters in or around your division? You find every conceivable challenge, take it on and lose very, very rarely. That's how Joe Louis, Marvin Hagler, Miguel Canto and Ricardo Lopez earned it.

Things that I think add weight to a given fighter's case are long, high quality, title reigns as THE MAN, multiple title reigns as THE MAN, overall number of wins and activity level and limited bad losses.

Now I almost always only consider a fighter's extended prime. From when he faced his first contender until when he could no longer compete there. A long prime, measured in fights, says a lot. A short one does too.

The last factor for me is really intangible. I want to see the man tested, how he responds to great adversity. That means daring matchmaking and a vibrant struggle in the face of what seems to be a losing battle.

Three things for me count little, if at all. Fighting style, alphabet stuff and early or late losses.

FWIW

---

I'd rather just cop out ;)

---

It is certainly as persuasive...and takes a lot less time :)

---

It's an interesting exercise and it's at least worth seeing what people value in prize fighters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Great topic and great question.

The criteria I use and it’s by no means a fixed one is,

Actual performance in the squared circle.
Dominance
Outcomes and achievements
Historic comparison or how they would match up with others.

Post John L all time greats; well I suppose you will get more of my feelings on all time greats and what makes one from my list. Quite subjective as someone already mentioned. I’m going to forget some to be sure.

Since Sullivan and in somewhat chronological order and again this topic is about as
subjective as subjective can be. Others may differ and thats cool.

The man in your Av Jeffries even though he never had that many fights.
Dixon
Dempsey
Leonard
Walker
Greb
Gans
Langford
Villa
Wilde
Tunney
Carpentier
Firpo
Lynch
Levinsky
Kid Lewis
Britton
Tendler
Loughran
Wolgast
Rosenbloom
Kid Chocolate
Kid Berg
Armstrong
Conn
Pep
Ortiz
Ross
Baer
Zale
Arizmendi
Louis
Ambers
Escobar
Robinson
Walcott
Charles
Cerdan
Saddler
Gavilan
Maxim
Moore
Burley
Basilio
Elorde
Jofre
Patterson
Griffith
Ortiz C
Liston
Harada
Saldivar
Locche
Olivares
Buchanan
Monzon
Napoles
Foster
Duran
Cervantes
Benitez
Foreman
Ali
Gomez
Arguello
Hagler
Hearns
Leonard
Tyson
Rosario
Chavez
Spinks M
Fenech
Jones Jr. How he looks today is not relevant
Tito
Lewis
Calzaghe
Hopkins Still fighting but he’s an ATG.
Oscar
Mab? Still fighting
Morales? Ditto
Calderon Ditto he was pretty dominant but was stuck in the wrong weight class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Cervantes I think is borderline ATG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Great topic and great question.

The criteria I use and it’s by no means a fixed one is,

Actual performance in the squared circle.
Dominance
Outcomes and achievements
Historic comparison or how they would match up with others.

Post John L all time greats; well I suppose you will get more of my feelings on all time greats and what makes one from my list. Quite subjective as someone already mentioned. I’m going to forget some to be sure.

Since Sullivan and in somewhat chronological order and again this topic is about as
subjective as subjective can be. Others may differ and thats cool.

The man in your Av Jeffries even though he never had that many fights.
Dixon
Dempsey
Leonard
Walker
Greb
Gans
Langford
Villa
Wilde
Tunney
Carpentier
Firpo
Lynch
Levinsky
Kid Lewis
Britton
Tendler
Loughran
Wolgast
Rosenbloom
Kid Chocolate
Kid Berg
Armstrong
Conn
Pep
Ortiz
Ross
Baer
Zale
Arizmendi
Louis
Ambers
Escobar
Robinson
Walcott
Charles
Cerdan
Saddler
Gavilan
Maxim
Moore
Burley
Basilio
Elorde
Jofre
Patterson
Griffith
Ortiz C
Liston
Harada
Saldivar
Locche
Olivares
Buchanan
Monzon
Napoles
Foster
Duran
Cervantes
Benitez
Foreman
Ali
Gomez
Arguello
Hagler
Hearns
Leonard
Tyson
Rosario
Chavez
Spinks M
Fenech
Jones Jr. How he looks today is not relevant
Tito
Lewis
Calzaghe
Hopkins Still fighting but he’s an ATG.
Oscar
Mab? Still fighting
Morales? Ditto
Calderon Ditto he was pretty dominant but was stuck in the wrong weight class.

---

Your out of your mind if you consider them guys ATG's. I'm a huge Rosario fan. But I can't bring myself to call or consider him an ATG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Great topic and great question.

The criteria I use and it’s by no means a fixed one is,

Actual performance in the squared circle.
Dominance
Outcomes and achievements
Historic comparison or how they would match up with others.

Post John L all time greats; well I suppose you will get more of my feelings on all time greats and what makes one from my list. Quite subjective as someone already mentioned. I’m going to forget some to be sure.

Since Sullivan and in somewhat chronological order and again this topic is about as
subjective as subjective can be. Others may differ and thats cool.

The man in your Av Jeffries even though he never had that many fights.
Dixon
Dempsey
Leonard
Walker
Greb
Gans
Langford
Villa
Wilde
Tunney
Carpentier
Firpo
Lynch
Levinsky
Kid Lewis
Britton
Tendler
Loughran
Wolgast
Rosenbloom
Kid Chocolate
Kid Berg
Armstrong
Conn
Pep
Ortiz
Ross
Baer
Zale
Arizmendi
Louis
Ambers
Escobar
Robinson
Walcott
Charles
Cerdan
Saddler
Gavilan
Maxim
Moore
Burley
Basilio
Elorde
Jofre
Patterson
Griffith
Ortiz C
Liston
Harada
Saldivar
Locche
Olivares
Buchanan
Monzon
Napoles
Foster
Duran
Cervantes
Benitez
Foreman
Ali
Gomez
Arguello
Hagler
Hearns
Leonard
Tyson
Rosario
Chavez
Spinks M
Fenech
Jones Jr. How he looks today is not relevant
Tito
Lewis
Calzaghe
Hopkins Still fighting but he’s an ATG.
Oscar
Mab? Still fighting
Morales? Ditto
Calderon Ditto he was pretty dominant but was stuck in the wrong weight class.

---

Your out of your mind if you consider them guys ATG's. I'm a huge Rosario fan. But I can't bring myself to call or consider him an ATG.

---

Thats your opinion and you are welcome to it. I guess I'm out of my mind. Brilliant response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

My take on ATG's is almost entirely resume driven. I think there are basically two paths

1) Take on great fighters, fight them repeatedly, and beat them more than they beat you. That's how men like Greb and Robinson and Ali and Gans and Ray and Benny Leonard earned it.

2) But if there is a dearth of great fighters in or around your division? You find every conceivable challenge, take it on and lose very, very rarely. That's how Joe Louis, Marvin Hagler, Miguel Canto and Ricardo Lopez earned it.

Things that I think add weight to a given fighter's case are long, high quality, title reigns as THE MAN, multiple title reigns as THE MAN, overall number of wins and activity level and limited bad losses.

Now I almost always only consider a fighter's extended prime. From when he faced his first contender until when he could no longer compete there. A long prime, measured in fights, says a lot. A short one does too.

The last factor for me is really intangible. I want to see the man tested, how he responds to great adversity. That means daring matchmaking and a vibrant struggle in the face of what seems to be a losing battle.

Three things for me count little, if at all. Fighting style, alphabet stuff and early or late losses.

FWIW

---

I'm guessing by your criteria a fighter like Mike Tyson does not qualify for atg? Because many hardcore boxing fans considers him one of the greats. So what's your take on him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

My take on ATG's is almost entirely resume driven. I think there are basically two paths

1) Take on great fighters, fight them repeatedly, and beat them more than they beat you. That's how men like Greb and Robinson and Ali and Gans and Ray and Benny Leonard earned it.

2) But if there is a dearth of great fighters in or around your division? You find every conceivable challenge, take it on and lose very, very rarely. That's how Joe Louis, Marvin Hagler, Miguel Canto and Ricardo Lopez earned it.

Things that I think add weight to a given fighter's case are long, high quality, title reigns as THE MAN, multiple title reigns as THE MAN, overall number of wins and activity level and limited bad losses.

Now I almost always only consider a fighter's extended prime. From when he faced his first contender until when he could no longer compete there. A long prime, measured in fights, says a lot. A short one does too.

The last factor for me is really intangible. I want to see the man tested, how he responds to great adversity. That means daring matchmaking and a vibrant struggle in the face of what seems to be a losing battle.

Three things for me count little, if at all. Fighting style, alphabet stuff and early or late losses.

FWIW

---

I'm guessing by your criteria a fighter like Mike Tyson does not qualify for atg? Because many hardcore boxing fans considers him one of the greats. So what's your take on him?

---

Tyson was youngest champion, 9 defences and had world wide appeal for his speed and brutal punching. Yes probably does not qualitfy for ATG but neither does Holmes and I would consider him to be an ATG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Thats your opinion and you are welcome to it. I guess I'm out of my mind. Brilliant response.

---

Some of them have been discussed in countless debates. I don't need to go over them again. So how about you be kind enough and tell what makes Jeff Fenech an ATG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Thats your opinion and you are welcome to it. I guess I'm out of my mind. Brilliant response.

---

Some of them have been discussed in countless debates. I don't need to go over them again. So how about you be kind enough and tell what makes Jeff Fenech an ATG

---

I said from the the start that this topic is subjective and people might disagree. So I'll just leave it at that. He's in the hall of fame and is a three division champion. Again like I said I made my list and never expected it to be perfect.

So who are the other ATG's since Sullivan iyo? Run down your list since 1879.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Great topic and great question.

The criteria I use and it’s by no means a fixed one is,

Actual performance in the squared circle.
Dominance
Outcomes and achievements
Historic comparison or how they would match up with others.

Post John L all time greats; well I suppose you will get more of my feelings on all time greats and what makes one from my list. Quite subjective as someone already mentioned. I’m going to forget some to be sure.

Since Sullivan and in somewhat chronological order and again this topic is about as
subjective as subjective can be. Others may differ and thats cool.

The man in your Av Jeffries even though he never had that many fights.
Dixon
Dempsey
Leonard
Walker
Greb
Gans
Langford
Villa
Wilde
Tunney
Carpentier
Firpo
Lynch
Levinsky
Kid Lewis
Britton
Tendler
Loughran
Wolgast
Rosenbloom
Kid Chocolate
Kid Berg
Armstrong
Conn
Pep
Ortiz
Ross
Baer
Zale
Arizmendi
Louis
Ambers
Escobar
Robinson
Walcott
Charles
Cerdan
Saddler
Gavilan
Maxim
Moore
Burley
Basilio
Elorde
Jofre
Patterson
Griffith
Ortiz C
Liston
Harada
Saldivar
Locche
Olivares
Buchanan
Monzon
Napoles
Foster
Duran
Cervantes
Benitez
Foreman
Ali
Gomez
Arguello
Hagler
Hearns
Leonard
Tyson
Rosario
Chavez
Spinks M
Fenech
Jones Jr. How he looks today is not relevant
Tito
Lewis
Calzaghe
Hopkins Still fighting but he’s an ATG.
Oscar
Mab? Still fighting
Morales? Ditto
Calderon Ditto he was pretty dominant but was stuck in the wrong weight class.

---

Nicely done! I'd quibble with Carpentier, Calderon, Calzaghe, Fenech, Rosario, Maxim, Levinksy and Firpo and I wonder if you didn't overlook Canzoneri, Attell, the other Dempsey, McGovern and a few others. But that was one impressive effort!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Great topic and great question.

The criteria I use and it’s by no means a fixed one is,

Actual performance in the squared circle.
Dominance
Outcomes and achievements
Historic comparison or how they would match up with others.

Post John L all time greats; well I suppose you will get more of my feelings on all time greats and what makes one from my list. Quite subjective as someone already mentioned. I’m going to forget some to be sure.

Since Sullivan and in somewhat chronological order and again this topic is about as
subjective as subjective can be. Others may differ and thats cool.

The man in your Av Jeffries even though he never had that many fights.
Dixon
Dempsey
Leonard
Walker
Greb
Gans
Langford
Villa
Wilde
Tunney
Carpentier
Firpo
Lynch
Levinsky
Kid Lewis
Britton
Tendler
Loughran
Wolgast
Rosenbloom
Kid Chocolate
Kid Berg
Armstrong
Conn
Pep
Ortiz
Ross
Baer
Zale
Arizmendi
Louis
Ambers
Escobar
Robinson
Walcott
Charles
Cerdan
Saddler
Gavilan
Maxim
Moore
Burley
Basilio
Elorde
Jofre
Patterson
Griffith
Ortiz C
Liston
Harada
Saldivar
Locche
Olivares
Buchanan
Monzon
Napoles
Foster
Duran
Cervantes
Benitez
Foreman
Ali
Gomez
Arguello
Hagler
Hearns
Leonard
Tyson
Rosario
Chavez
Spinks M
Fenech
Jones Jr. How he looks today is not relevant
Tito
Lewis
Calzaghe
Hopkins Still fighting but he’s an ATG.
Oscar
Mab? Still fighting
Morales? Ditto
Calderon Ditto he was pretty dominant but was stuck in the wrong weight class.

---

Nicely done! I'd quibble with Carpentier, Calderon, Calzaghe, Fenech, Rosario, Maxim, Levinksy and Firpo and I wonder if you didn't overlook Canzoneri, Attell, the other Dempsey, McGovern and a few others. But that was one impressive effort!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

Thats cool and I did overlook them and like I said its really subjective. I second guessed myself several times while compiling the list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Thats your opinion and you are welcome to it. I guess I'm out of my mind. Brilliant response.

---

Some of them have been discussed in countless debates. I don't need to go over them again. So how about you be kind enough and tell what makes Jeff Fenech an ATG

---

I said from the the start that this topic is subjective and people might disagree. So I'll just leave it at that. He's in the hall of fame and is a three division champion. Again like I said I made my list and never expected it to be perfect.

So who are the other ATG's since Sullivan iyo? Run down your list since 1879.

---

You got most of them them. So there's no need to repeat them. I already stated I would exclude Patterson, Buchanan, Rosario, Fenech, Calzaghe and Calderon from your list. And it really that's not hard to do. While they may be HOF I can't for the life of me make a case for any of them being ATG's. And that bothers me saying that about Rosario. But it is what it is. A couple of fighters absent from your list that I feel are without a doubt ATG's are Pernell Whitaker, Ricardo Lopez, Juan Manuel Marquez, Ike Williams, Eusebio Pedroza, Carlos Zarate and Bob Foster. I understand Boxings had many great fighters. And there's always gonna be some left out of some lists. But really I'm always shocked when I see Whitaker and Lopez left off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Thats your opinion and you are welcome to it. I guess I'm out of my mind. Brilliant response.

---

Some of them have been discussed in countless debates. I don't need to go over them again. So how about you be kind enough and tell what makes Jeff Fenech an ATG

---

I said from the the start that this topic is subjective and people might disagree. So I'll just leave it at that. He's in the hall of fame and is a three division champion. Again like I said I made my list and never expected it to be perfect.

So who are the other ATG's since Sullivan iyo? Run down your list since 1879.

---

You got most of them them. So there's no need to repeat them. I already stated I would exclude Patterson, Buchanan, Rosario, Fenech, Calzaghe and Calderon from your list. And it really that's not hard to do. While they may be HOF I can't for the life of me make a case for any of them being ATG's. And that bothers me saying that about Rosario. But it is what it is. A couple of fighters absent from your list that I feel are without a doubt ATG's are Pernell Whitaker, Ricardo Lopez, Juan Manuel Marquez, Ike Williams, Eusebio Pedroza, Carlos Zarate and Bob Foster. I understand Boxings had many great fighters. And there's always gonna be some left out of some lists. But really I'm always shocked when I see Whitaker and Lopez left off.

---

Fair enough.

Atg list are hard I mean to me Ali should be rated above Robinson. I said this before and say it again if you are heavyweight champion of the world means he could beat pretty much anybody. Since Ali is probably rated best heavyweight in the history of sport then I think he is greatest not Robinson. I have few other things i look at when trying to figure who i consider a atg but i will have to get back to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjj tszyu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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...

---

I didn't know that. No wonder the fight never happened then, Roy hit Hill that hard it sounded like a shot gun had gone off and if I remember correctly I think that shot broke 2 of Hills ribs! Awesome power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjj tszyu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjj tszyu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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...

---

I didn't know that. No wonder the fight never happened then, Roy hit Hill that hard it sounded like a shot gun had gone off and if I remember correctly I think that shot broke 2 of Hills ribs! Awesome power.

---

Roy said "He came to see me stop Virgil Hill, why couldn't he come to fight me? He saw that body shot then hauled ass back over there".....

I remember the broadcast when they showed DM in the crowd before the fight. Which is why I don't give any credit to the "roy dodged DM" argument. In fact, i think what DM saw is the same thing Eubank, JC, Collins, Benn, all saw. The only one i think was truly willing to face Jones was Benn and he would have been game but obliterated by RJJ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr140

Atg list are hard I mean to me Ali should be rated above Robinson. I said this before and say it again if you are heavyweight champion of the world means he could beat pretty much anybody. Since Ali is probably rated best heavyweight in the history of sport then I think he is greatest not Robinson. I have few other things i look at when trying to figure who i consider a atg but i will have to get back to you.

---

Yeah but if we do it that way? Robinson isn't second, he's more like 100th. I mean does Ray beat Wladimir Klitschko? Well maybe he does but is THAT the comparisons we want to make? Where size is everything?

Boxing has been broken into divisions for 150 years for a reason hasn't it?

Yea i not saying every heavyweight but i mean the elite Heavys to me i would rank higher then other weight classes. I mean thats why pound for pound for me is kinda stupid thing to do as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr140

Yea i not saying every heavyweight but i mean the elite Heavys to me i would rank higher then other weight classes. I mean thats why pound for pound for me is kinda stupid thing to do as well.

---

No that's exactly why p4p makes any sense at all. Because otherwise size alone (or nearly) governs.

Let me try it another way. Who is stronger? 340 pound Hossein Reza Zadeh who can put 1.8x his bodyweight over his head or 132 pound Naseem Souleymanolou who can put 3x his weight over his head?

Doesn't that latter deserve at some kind of recognition?