Top 100 ATG's

This has probably been answered, but why are some of the fighters names in bold?

Youre delusional. And you've just ducked the bet like you ducked making that list all night. :fing02:

yeah i'd favour spinks, longer bodied and more durable.

agreed, michael spinks was great. spinks vs charles, who you got? Tough to say, there's such a lack of footage of prime Charles. The only fight I've seen of him before he killed Baroudi is Marshall, and that footage is pretty grainy. One thing about Charles is that his chin wasn't the best, so maybe Spinks is able to take him out.

I'd put Mayweather probably in the high 200 range. wow you seem like a guy who doesnt let feelings get in the way of judging a boxers ability, double thumbs up :fing02::fing02:

Who knows more about boxing period? Between you and I? Me. Lets bet first and than make a poll and find out! What do you want to bet, sigs, e-points, 2 week self exiled ban, what?

I'd put Mayweather probably in the high 200 range.

Kessler Eubank Lacy Hopkins Bika Sheika Reid Mitchell In no particular order Hopkins and Eubank are the only great fighters on there and they were done. Calzaghe is not an ATG.

This I agree with 100%! Nice to see a person keep an open mind on this board...green k! appreciated, nice to be in a thread without idiots.

As much of a boxing nerd as I am, I haven't even tried to come up with a top 100 list. Too much info and too hard to separate certain fighters. I'm often a bit indecisive about certain fighters and whom is greater. For instance, Michael Spinks and Marvin Hagler. Hagler had a lot more fights, and more quality wins. However, Spinks fought in one of the best LHW eras ever and never lost there, and moved up to win the legitimate HW title. Against a much naturally bigger fighter, who had made 20 straight title defenses of the HW crown. And despite the rematch, the first verdict was fair. I wish the newbies/casual fans would understand what a great fighter Spinks was, rather than the guy whom Mike Tyson demolished. How many other natural light heavyweights would do well against a 21 year old Mike Tyson? I would imagine though that I'd have Ezzard Charles pretty high. His resume is amazing. Perhaps the #1 LHW ever, and then he wins the HW title and makes like 8 defenses of that. And keep in mind the guy basically lost three years of his career, in his early twenties, due to World War II. agreed, michael spinks was great. spinks vs charles, who you got?

yeah i do, i should of put it better i just meant that its very difficult to compare fighters when you have different forms of data on them. This I agree with 100%! Nice to see a person keep an open mind on this board...green k!

Didnt say Id make one tonight/this morning. Keep reading your press clippings. Who knows more boxing history, me or you? By the way, you'll never make that list.

Im not trying to argue with you here, I respect your opinion even though I disagree with some of it. I just want you to be open minded and look at this from another perspective. Film today of fighters is fantastic. Do you think that it could possibly also make you (not you in particular) somewhat biased when you compare it to the crappy film of fighters back when? yeah i do, i should of put it better i just meant that its very difficult to compare fighters when you have different forms of data on them.

Exactly.... Still no list huh? Lol....pffft.

As much of a boxing nerd as I am, I haven't even tried to come up with a top 100 list. Too much info and too hard to separate certain fighters. I'm often a bit indecisive about certain fighters and whom is greater. For instance, Michael Spinks and Marvin Hagler. Hagler had a lot more fights, and more quality wins. However, Spinks fought in one of the best LHW eras ever and never lost there, and moved up to win the legitimate HW title. Against a much naturally bigger fighter, who had made 20 straight title defenses of the HW crown. And despite the rematch, the first verdict was fair. I wish the newbies/casual fans would understand what a great fighter Spinks was, rather than the guy whom Mike Tyson demolished. How many other natural light heavyweights would do well against a 21 year old Mike Tyson? I would imagine though that I'd have Ezzard Charles pretty high. His resume is amazing. Perhaps the #1 LHW ever, and then he wins the HW title and makes like 8 defenses of that. And keep in mind the guy basically lost three years of his career, in his early twenties, due to World War II.

yeah but you can watch all fighters now is what im saying. if i were to compose a list i would definately not take into account any of the rings writings on fighters now. ive only really read stuff by doug fischer and michael rosenthal but they both strike me as incredibly biased particularly doug fischer. Im not trying to argue with you here, I respect your opinion even though I disagree with some of it. I just want you to be open minded and look at this from another perspective. Film today of fighters is fantastic. Do you think that it could possibly also make you (not you in particular) somewhat biased when you compare it to the crappy film of fighters back when?

If you insist. Off the top of my head, Joe Gans, Sam Langford, Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong, Willie Pep, Roberto Duran, Ray Leonard, Eder Jofre, Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, Bob Fitzsimmons, Jimmy Wilde, Mickey Walker, Archie Moore, Jack Johnson, Gene Tunney, Ezzard Charles.............. Any one of the fighters I just listed can claim superiority over Ross and Leonard. It is not set in stone that Barney Ross and Leonard are soo much greater than these fighters. Allow me to pick holes in some of your choices. We can exclude Greb, Armstrong, and Langford since I have them rated above both Leonard and Ross. And we can excuse Charles, Pep, Ray Leonard and Duran who I have ranked above Ross. First a little history on Leonard and Ross. Leonard fought in the toughest era of lightweight boxing. Had multiple fight with guys such as Tendler, Kansas, Britton, Dundee, Cline. Lewis, Kilbane and Welsh. His era was like Ali's only with lightweights who threw more punches and had more talent than a lot of Ali's foes. Barney Ross was the first triple crown champ in history and beat such names as Fuller, Garcia, Canzoneri, McLarnin, Klick and Petrolle. He also beat bot Canzoneri and McLarnin when both were prime and considered the best fighter in the world. You can exclude Johnson, Tunney, Wilde and Jofre as their resumes simply don't stack up to that of Leonard or Ross. That Leaves you Moore, Louis, Fitz, Walker and Ali to argue over. All worthy of being argued for and points can be made to go in their direction depending on how you want to look at it. I'll be happy to argue if you want, but I think its more interesting that you said you could name MANY fighters. I just figured you would have excluded the ones I already named for you and come up with a lot more names. Lets take this one at a time. We've already gone round and round with Ali so lets pick a new name. Why do you think Mickey Walker should rank higher than both Leonard and Ross?

Finito, Morales, RJJ, Mayweather Jnr and Tyson should be higher.

Kessler Eubank Lacy Hopkins Bika Sheika Reid Mitchell In no particular order do you really rate them better than the four i stated? how many of those guys are elite and how many on them are in your list? notice that all the ones i mentioned are in your list.

With all due respect my friend, whats the difference from reading newspaper accounts of the day about past fighters and say reading "The ring" today about fighters now? Mind you, most people that dig into boxing history read many different newspaper accounts of the same fight to make a determination. There are some cases like that of Joe Gans where he might have even been unappreciated by the press in his era, but was so good it didn't matter. yeah but you can watch all fighters now is what im saying. if i were to compose a list i would definately not take into account any of the rings writings on fighters now. ive only really read stuff by doug fischer and michael rosenthal but they both strike me as incredibly biased particularly doug fischer.