Two Questions

[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.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

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.

Mike is definitely an ATG Heavyweight, but I'm not sure if he is an ATG boxer... I mean, if I had to make a list of 100 boxers, he probably wouldn't make my list.

But Mike did some great things for Heavyweight boxing man. I mean, he was a Saviour in a way that no one has/ had ever been before.