Two Questions

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

[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.

[killersheep]

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.

[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

[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

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.

[IamInuit]

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.

[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

[Violent Demise]

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.

[IamInuit]

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.

[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]

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

[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.