Criteria for ATG

[J Dubb II 330]

IMO its so hard to compare boxers and their resume from a different era, you can watch tape after tape of Leonard and Roy Jones, and you could speculate the match and advantages, but we can.never truly know unless they got in the ring. same with resumes, when comparing boxer a from an early era to boxer b from this era, you gotta see how their comp stacks up to each other.

[KnockUTheFukOut]

people are saying Resume to effect someones like Mayweather Rankings lol

to me...HOW YOU WOULD HAVE MATCHED UP AGAINST OTHER LEGENDS IN TERMS OF STYLE! That to me is HUGE, not saying I put that over Resume or what ever but to me, guys like Ali, Robinson, Armstrong...when people talk about them they talk about more then just "WHO THEY BEAT" and Resume

most current boxing fans never heard of most of the people on Ray Robinson or Henry Armstrong RESUME...does that mean they wasn't any good? NO! It is EXTREMELY hard to go by RESUME, sure you can do it now for current fights because it is convenient, but how do you do it for PAST FIGHTERS?

when you start to put Mayweather and Pacquiao up at the top, your are disrespecting so many legends and so many ERA's of boxing and it shows how many people are just absolutely CLUELESS when it comes to the HISTORY OF BOXING I can understand casual fans saying all that stuff but when "SO CALLED EXPERTS" do it, that makes me sick to my stomach

the words "GREAT" and "GREATNESS" is thrown around way too much...EVERYBODY IS NOT GREAT!

[jrosales13]

You can't rate a fighter on reume alone, how many bad decisions have there been in boxing that you have seen alone? At what point were the opponents in there careers, performance. Need to be taken into consideration too.

Even today, I know posters here who has said they have yet to seen Jo Jo Dan vs Aydin. But, they know by all reports from credible sources that it was a bad decision.

If people stop being so damn lazy, and actually do some research and their homework on said subject and take every opinion on what was said into account. And, you can also go by what they accomplished afterwards do know were at the time of said fights. You can actually come up with a pretty good argument on where it said fighter should be rank.

If you just read one opinion about a fight or a fighter. There is no way, you can have a clear understanding on what really happened. But, again if you take time and do research and just read different opinion about a fight and fighter. You can actually know WTF you're talking about.

Yes you can go mainly with 90% of resume and accomplishments. Really that should be the main and perhaps only factor on doing a P4P ATG ranking.

[J Dubb II 330]

So just out of curiosity where do you have guys rank like Greb, Mclarnin, Babados Joe Walcott, Charles Burley, Bob Fitzsimmons? Guys who there are just a little if any type of video footage?

Do you just skip them and put guys that you have seen more so ahead. Just because, you seen their skillset more?

you can't skip them, just really hard to rate them, I have never seen any of them fight, I have payed a majority of my attention to boxers of my era, fights that happened when I'm alive, plus I really can't stand black and white lol

[$Bullsfam$]

I think it's 70% resume, 20% skill, 10% legacy.

Legacy meaning the mark they left on the sport. Like I'd have Morales as an all time great because he had an overall great career, pretty good resume, damn good skills, and he left a damn good legacy with the wars he fought with Pac & Barrera. They are legendary fights that the boxing world will remember forever. Not to mention 9 Super feather weight title defenses, and 5 featherweight title defenses.

Another example is Hopkins. 20 Middleweight title defenses, 2 of them against 2 of the best fighters of the last 15 years in Tito & Oscar, not to mention he destroyed prime Glenn Johnson not to mention dtrashing a world class champion in Antonio Tarver and arguably having his best wins come after the retirement. Winky Wright, Pavlik, revenging against Jones Jr, 50/50 close call fight agaisnt Calzaghe, and then just completely putting on a real life Rocky Movie against Pascal. In his mid 40's still doing work better then Holyfield! That leaves a huge legacy, and as far as his skills go, ONE OF THE BEST EXAMPLES OF PURE TEXTBOOK SSTYLE SMART DEFENSIVE BOXING IN BOXING HISTORY!

[Spray_resistant]

I don't see how natural talent or ability has anything to do with it, I am sure there are some guys who never boxed before and are better athletes than some very good fighters who had great careers.

[J Dubb II 330]

so take out talent, throw in legacy. so we have resume, boxing ability, legacy and how they stack up to the past present and future of their divisions

[Spray_resistant]

so take out talent, throw in legacy. so we have resume, boxing ability, legacy and how they stack up to the past present and future of their divisions

I think that sounds pretty good, I would put a strong emphasis on quality wins they had.

[Heeb]

Who they beat, how they beat them, longevity and dominance.

[The Gambler1981]

I don't see how natural talent or ability has anything to do with it, I am sure there are some guys who never boxed before and are better athletes than some very good fighters who had great careers.

Why would they be pertinent to discussing people who actually boxed~