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.

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.