Two Questions

[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]

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.

[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

[killersheep]

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

[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

[generalbulldog]

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?

[Master]

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.

[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

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