What makes an All Time Great?

[Primo Carnera]

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.

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.

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.

Hey , I have no problem with Hopkins and I think he would be in for the achievement of being a World Champ at his age. He lost to guys like Jermain Taylor so wasn't the no.1 in the division or dominant. No doubt he had some fantastic results as well. As for the Klits, where do you put them in the all time HW's ? Are they above Ali,Frazier,Marciano, Louis, Holmes, Foreman, Tyson (for that period where he put fear in any boxer) and Lewis? If there above any of them, they are ATG's but that is 8 guys in one division alone and I haven't mentioned any HW's pre 50's out of sheer lack of knowledge. Multiply that by the amount of divisions and even though a lot are Multi weight champions , you still start getting to 100 odd people. I wouldn't include any more than that. Marquez? No doubt he's a great champion, but an ATG? Whatever happened in their last fight, Pac had the better of the series. Would he beat Barrera and Morales in their peak? Maybe, I'm not against JMM being an ATG. Somebody else mentioned Roy Jones Jr. For the period where he dominated the MW's he definitely would be in. The reason I never mentioned him is because I don't class him as a current fighter. The Roy Jones of now is NOT the Roy Jones in his prime.
I don't class many as ATG, because to me it should be ultra elite. There should only be 50, 100 maximum ever.

[Silkeyjoe]

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.

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.

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.

Hey , I have no problem with Hopkins and I think he would be in for the achievement of being a World Champ at his age. He lost to guys like Jermain Taylor so wasn't the no.1 in the division or dominant. No doubt he had some fantastic results as well. As for the Klits, where do you put them in the all time HW's ? Are they above Ali,Frazier,Marciano, Louis, Holmes, Foreman, Tyson (for that period where he put fear in any boxer) and Lewis? If there above any of them, they are ATG's but that is 8 guys in one division alone and I haven't mentioned any HW's pre 50's out of sheer lack of knowledge. Multiply that by the amount of divisions and even though a lot are Multi weight champions , you still start getting to 100 odd people. I wouldn't include any more than that. Marquez? No doubt he's a great champion, but an ATG? Whatever happened in their last fight, Pac had the better of the series. Would he beat Barrera and Morales in their peak? Maybe, I'm not against JMM being an ATG. Somebody else mentioned Roy Jones Jr. For the period where he dominated the MW's he definitely would be in. The reason I never mentioned him is because I don't class him as a current fighter. The Roy Jones of now is NOT the Roy Jones in his prime.
I don't class many as ATG, because to me it should be ultra elite. There should only be 50, 100 maximum ever.

Both Klits are ATGs. They were dominant for so long. Hopkins is clearly an ATG. Besides what he did in his later years, he won the IBF Middleweight title in 1995 and defended it until 2005.

Tommy Hearns lost to Leonard at light middle and Hagler at middle other ATG. Losing to an ATG doesnt rule out your chance to be an ATG.

[Primo Carnera]

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.

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.

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.

Hey , I have no problem with Hopkins and I think he would be in for the achievement of being a World Champ at his age. He lost to guys like Jermain Taylor so wasn't the no.1 in the division or dominant. No doubt he had some fantastic results as well. As for the Klits, where do you put them in the all time HW's ? Are they above Ali,Frazier,Marciano, Louis, Holmes, Foreman, Tyson (for that period where he put fear in any boxer) and Lewis? If there above any of them, they are ATG's but that is 8 guys in one division alone and I haven't mentioned any HW's pre 50's out of sheer lack of knowledge. Multiply that by the amount of divisions and even though a lot are Multi weight champions , you still start getting to 100 odd people. I wouldn't include any more than that. Marquez? No doubt he's a great champion, but an ATG? Whatever happened in their last fight, Pac had the better of the series. Would he beat Barrera and Morales in their peak? Maybe, I'm not against JMM being an ATG. Somebody else mentioned Roy Jones Jr. For the period where he dominated the MW's he definitely would be in. The reason I never mentioned him is because I don't class him as a current fighter. The Roy Jones of now is NOT the Roy Jones in his prime.
I don't class many as ATG, because to me it should be ultra elite. There should only be 50, 100 maximum ever.

Both Klits are ATGs. They were dominant for so long. Hopkins is clearly an ATG. Besides what he did in his later years, he won the IBF Middleweight title in 1995 and defended it until 2005.

Tommy Hearns lost to Leonard at light middle and Hagler at middle other ATG. Losing to an ATG doesnt rule out your chance to be an ATG.

Ok, so if both Klits are ATG's , who do they take out of my list? ATG is what it is , so there has to be a cut off point and it has to be elite.
I've said from the outset that Hopkins is in. I said "not necessarily for his boxing prowess", meaning that for large periods of his career , he wasn't "the man" in his division , albeit one of them, but he is an ATG.
I totally agree with you example of Hearns and that losing to an ATG doesn't necessarily rule you out, but I do think it is important to beat either ATG's or HOF's.
For the record, I think Hearns, Hagler, Duran and Hearns are all ATG's (as everybody else probably does.) they all did exceptional things at a particular point of their careers in certain divisions . I don't think it has to be for every division you've fought in or for the whole of your career, that's why Roy Jones Jr. is also definitely in.

[Beanflicker]

Hey , I have no problem with Hopkins and I think he would be in for the achievement of being a World Champ at his age. He lost to guys like Jermain Taylor so wasn't the no.1 in the division or dominant.

....you do realize that before he lost to Jermain Taylor (which was a controversial result, btw), he was THE man at MW for about 10 years prior, with 17 or 18 title defenses?

Are we talking about the same guy?

[Silkeyjoe]

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.

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.

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.

Hey , I have no problem with Hopkins and I think he would be in for the achievement of being a World Champ at his age. He lost to guys like Jermain Taylor so wasn't the no.1 in the division or dominant. No doubt he had some fantastic results as well. As for the Klits, where do you put them in the all time HW's ? Are they above Ali,Frazier,Marciano, Louis, Holmes, Foreman, Tyson (for that period where he put fear in any boxer) and Lewis? If there above any of them, they are ATG's but that is 8 guys in one division alone and I haven't mentioned any HW's pre 50's out of sheer lack of knowledge. Multiply that by the amount of divisions and even though a lot are Multi weight champions , you still start getting to 100 odd people. I wouldn't include any more than that. Marquez? No doubt he's a great champion, but an ATG? Whatever happened in their last fight, Pac had the better of the series. Would he beat Barrera and Morales in their peak? Maybe, I'm not against JMM being an ATG. Somebody else mentioned Roy Jones Jr. For the period where he dominated the MW's he definitely would be in. The reason I never mentioned him is because I don't class him as a current fighter. The Roy Jones of now is NOT the Roy Jones in his prime.
I don't class many as ATG, because to me it should be ultra elite. There should only be 50, 100 maximum ever.

Both Klits are ATGs. They were dominant for so long. Hopkins is clearly an ATG. Besides what he did in his later years, he won the IBF Middleweight title in 1995 and defended it until 2005.

Tommy Hearns lost to Leonard at light middle and Hagler at middle other ATG. Losing to an ATG doesnt rule out your chance to be an ATG.

Ok, so if both Klits are ATG's , who do they take out of my list? ATG is what it is , so there has to be a cut off point and it has to be elite.
I've said from the outset that Hopkins is in. I said "not necessarily for his boxing prowess", meaning that for large periods of his career , he wasn't "the man" in his division , albeit one of them, but he is an ATG.
I totally agree with you example of Hearns and that losing to an ATG doesn't necessarily rule you out, but I do think it is important to beat either ATG's or HOF's.
For the record, I think Hearns, Hagler, Duran and Hearns are all ATG's (as everybody else probably does.) they all did exceptional things at a particular point of their careers in certain divisions . I don't think it has to be for every division you've fought in or for the whole of your career, that's why Roy Jones Jr. is also definitely in.

No there is no cut off point it gets bigger and bigger every year. Once you are on the list you do not get removed. You can speculate how they may do against the other ATGs from different generation but in general it should be determined on what they achieved in their generation.

[Primo Carnera]

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.

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.

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.

Hey , I have no problem with Hopkins and I think he would be in for the achievement of being a World Champ at his age. He lost to guys like Jermain Taylor so wasn't the no.1 in the division or dominant. No doubt he had some fantastic results as well. As for the Klits, where do you put them in the all time HW's ? Are they above Ali,Frazier,Marciano, Louis, Holmes, Foreman, Tyson (for that period where he put fear in any boxer) and Lewis? If there above any of them, they are ATG's but that is 8 guys in one division alone and I haven't mentioned any HW's pre 50's out of sheer lack of knowledge. Multiply that by the amount of divisions and even though a lot are Multi weight champions , you still start getting to 100 odd people. I wouldn't include any more than that. Marquez? No doubt he's a great champion, but an ATG? Whatever happened in their last fight, Pac had the better of the series. Would he beat Barrera and Morales in their peak? Maybe, I'm not against JMM being an ATG. Somebody else mentioned Roy Jones Jr. For the period where he dominated the MW's he definitely would be in. The reason I never mentioned him is because I don't class him as a current fighter. The Roy Jones of now is NOT the Roy Jones in his prime.
I don't class many as ATG, because to me it should be ultra elite. There should only be 50, 100 maximum ever.

Both Klits are ATGs. They were dominant for so long. Hopkins is clearly an ATG. Besides what he did in his later years, he won the IBF Middleweight title in 1995 and defended it until 2005.

Tommy Hearns lost to Leonard at light middle and Hagler at middle other ATG. Losing to an ATG doesnt rule out your chance to be an ATG.

Ok, so if both Klits are ATG's , who do they take out of my list? ATG is what it is , so there has to be a cut off point and it has to be elite.
I've said from the outset that Hopkins is in. I said "not necessarily for his boxing prowess", meaning that for large periods of his career , he wasn't "the man" in his division , albeit one of them, but he is an ATG.
I totally agree with you example of Hearns and that losing to an ATG doesn't necessarily rule you out, but I do think it is important to beat either ATG's or HOF's.
For the record, I think Hearns, Hagler, Duran and Hearns are all ATG's (as everybody else probably does.) they all did exceptional things at a particular point of their careers in certain divisions . I don't think it has to be for every division you've fought in or for the whole of your career, that's why Roy Jones Jr. is also definitely in.

No there is no cut off point it gets bigger and bigger every year. Once you are on the list you do not get removed. You can speculate how they may do against the other ATGs from different generation but in general it should be determined on what they achieved in their generation.

Well , it's all about opinions, but as far as I'm concerned as long as you keep adding to it , they'll be THOUSANDS of ATG's and that just dilutes the word "Great."
What is great to one person in one generation, is not so great to another person in another generation. We are talking about "THE GREATS OF ALL TIME," not the really good!
if Ali for example is "the Greatest", does that mean he will ALWAYS be the Greatest? What if a great looking fast talking super stylish, super popular HW comes along and becomes champion at 18 , retires when he's 40 and has a record of 100-0 with 100 Knockouts , is there not a chance that he may become the Greatest?

[Silkeyjoe]

The greatest was given to Ali by Ali. If course the greatest can change as new come along.

[beenKOed]

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.

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.

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.

Hey , I have no problem with Hopkins and I think he would be in for the achievement of being a World Champ at his age. He lost to guys like Jermain Taylor so wasn't the no.1 in the division or dominant. No doubt he had some fantastic results as well. As for the Klits, where do you put them in the all time HW's ? Are they above Ali,Frazier,Marciano, Louis, Holmes, Foreman, Tyson (for that period where he put fear in any boxer) and Lewis? If there above any of them, they are ATG's but that is 8 guys in one division alone and I haven't mentioned any HW's pre 50's out of sheer lack of knowledge. Multiply that by the amount of divisions and even though a lot are Multi weight champions , you still start getting to 100 odd people. I wouldn't include any more than that. Marquez? No doubt he's a great champion, but an ATG? Whatever happened in their last fight, Pac had the better of the series. Would he beat Barrera and Morales in their peak? Maybe, I'm not against JMM being an ATG. Somebody else mentioned Roy Jones Jr. For the period where he dominated the MW's he definitely would be in. The reason I never mentioned him is because I don't class him as a current fighter. The Roy Jones of now is NOT the Roy Jones in his prime.
I don't class many as ATG, because to me it should be ultra elite. There should only be 50, 100 maximum ever.

Both Klits are ATGs. They were dominant for so long. Hopkins is clearly an ATG. Besides what he did in his later years, he won the IBF Middleweight title in 1995 and defended it until 2005.

Tommy Hearns lost to Leonard at light middle and Hagler at middle other ATG. Losing to an ATG doesnt rule out your chance to be an ATG.

Ok, so if both Klits are ATG's , who do they take out of my list? ATG is what it is , so there has to be a cut off point and it has to be elite.
I've said from the outset that Hopkins is in. I said "not necessarily for his boxing prowess", meaning that for large periods of his career , he wasn't "the man" in his division , albeit one of them, but he is an ATG.
I totally agree with you example of Hearns and that losing to an ATG doesn't necessarily rule you out, but I do think it is important to beat either ATG's or HOF's.
For the record, I think Hearns, Hagler, Duran and Hearns are all ATG's (as everybody else probably does.) they all did exceptional things at a particular point of their careers in certain divisions . I don't think it has to be for every division you've fought in or for the whole of your career, that's why Roy Jones Jr. is also definitely in.

No there is no cut off point it gets bigger and bigger every year. Once you are on the list you do not get removed. You can speculate how they may do against the other ATGs from different generation but in general it should be determined on what they achieved in their generation.

Well , it's all about opinions, but as far as I'm concerned as long as you keep adding to it , they'll be THOUSANDS of ATG's and that just dilutes the word "Great."
What is great to one person in one generation, is not so great to another person in another generation. We are talking about "THE GREATS OF ALL TIME," not the really good!
if Ali for example is "the Greatest", does that mean he will ALWAYS be the Greatest? What if a great looking fast talking super stylish, super popular HW comes along and becomes champion at 18 , retires when he's 40 and has a record of 100-0 with 100 Knockouts , is there not a chance that he may become the Greatest?

Ali is a poor example as he is the one who continually called himself The Greatest.
Once you are an ATG you are always an ATG. You earned that title for a certain era.
I'm sorry, you are just going to have to try to remember all those names. LOL

[beenKOed]

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.

I don't think you can call Mike Tyson an ATG either, but if there was an award for bringing pure excitement and revitalizing boxing interest, Mike Tyson would have to be at the top. The man was fun to watch!!

[Beanflicker]

I don't see why Tyson isn't an ATG. Youngest ever HW champion, routinely shows up on top 10 HW of all time lists.

[Master]

The greatest was given to Ali by Ali. If course the greatest can change as new come along.

Ali also proved he was the greatest heavyweight ever, looks the the great fighters he beat, the events he was involved in boxing, the heart and determination he showed.

[Primo Carnera]

Hey , I have no problem with Hopkins and I think he would be in for the achievement of being a World Champ at his age. He lost to guys like Jermain Taylor so wasn't the no.1 in the division or dominant.

....you do realize that before he lost to Jermain Taylor (which was a controversial result, btw), he was THE man at MW for about 10 years prior, with 17 or 18 title defenses?

Are we talking about the same guy?

Although he always was on my list, I'm quite happy to bow to your greater knowledge on that.

[Master]

I have to disagree with the Klit brothers being ATG. Vitali was good but did not have the longevity because of injury and he was very cumbersome. A quality fighter like Lennox showed me the difference between a graet fighter and a good fighter.

Wlad has longevity now after a shaky start which makes me not rate him because deep down if a decent fighter came like Tyson, Lennox or Holmes I feel he would wilt and lose in dramatic fashion.

[mikeeod]

Hey , I have no problem with Hopkins and I think he would be in for the achievement of being a World Champ at his age. He lost to guys like Jermain Taylor so wasn't the no.1 in the division or dominant.

....you do realize that before he lost to Jermain Taylor (which was a controversial result, btw), he was THE man at MW for about 10 years prior, with 17 or 18 title defenses?

Are we talking about the same guy?

I was thinking the same thing. Hop was the man at middle from around 1998/99 (maybe even as early as 1994 when Roy moved up and G-Man moved up) until 2005 when he was ripped off vs. Taylor. After that, he spent the rest of his time at 175 and as lineal champ was considered "the man" at that weight 3 separate times. Guys just hate Hop because he transitioned to a more cerebral fighter from a seek and destroy guy. I can see a case for Hop, Floyd, or Manny to be considered greatest fighter of their generation. Everyone else is easily a level below and out of the discussion.

[Bo-Bo24]

I think there is a difference in level between a hall of famer and all time great. For example I would have a fighter like Carl Froch down as hall of famer's but not an all time great due to him not being top dog in his weight division in this era. On the flip side I wouldn't consider Andre Ward an all time great because he hasn't had an interesting challenge or been in huge fights.