Does anyone here have an ATG list?

i consider the "ATG" the top 100 fighters in history based on accomplishments and ability. what's most important is figuring out a way to evaluate, give value to, and compare "who was beaten, and when." Yes, but for me is always the issue of 'who beat who'. How do we establish in what way past opponents of the champs were greater than today's contenders? This is where it, IMO, just comes down to favoritism and subjectivity in the end. There is no real point to this debate, really.

Here's my most recent attempt at a list: 1. Sugar Ray Robinson 2. Henry Armstrong 3. Harry Greb 4. Ezzard Charles 5. Joe Gans 6. Muhammad Ali 7. Willie Pep 8. Sam Langford 9. Benny Leonard 10. Archie Moore 11. Joe Louis 12. Roberto Duran 13. Carlos Monzon 14. Eder Jofre 15. Jimmy Wilde 16. Sugar Ray Leonard 17. Tony Canzoneri 18. Bob Fitzsimmons 19. Pernell Whitaker 20. Gene Tunney 21. Wilfredo Gomez 22. Larry Holmes 23. Jimmy McLarnin 24. Marvin Hagler 25. D1ck Tiger

:lol1: i don't know if you're trying to joke, but this was extremely funny either way. good sh#T. yeah I'm joking around but I still don't know much about boxing pre-80's. There's Ali of course but Ali has biographies and moves made about him every year or so,everyone knows a little about Ali. I also watched a biography on Jack Johnson,he was impressive. Sort of like the Klitschko of the early 1900's, nobody matched him in size. Watching his bio , I was surprised he wasn't assassinated,lynched , or just out right murdered. He carried around the largest set of balls.

I wish I could post one but I am not educated on any fighters pre-1980's. I have seen the movie Cinderella Man and I watched Ali-Frazier 1. That's about the extent of my boxing knowledge pre-1980's so for me I can't even try to put together an ATG list yet. :lol1: i don't know if you're trying to joke, but this was extremely funny either way. good sh#T.

How do you measure ATG for starters? i consider the "ATG" the top 100 fighters in history based on accomplishments and ability. what's most important is figuring out a way to evaluate, give value to, and compare "who was beaten, and when."

Too many people here go on about who is a great fighter and who isnt and who should be ranked higher but I never see any lists from anyone, just 100 page threads of BS and criticism. So let's have it, post a list then. I wish I could post one but I am not educated on any fighters pre-1980's. I have seen the movie Cinderella Man and I watched Ali-Frazier 1. That's about the extent of my boxing knowledge pre-1980's so for me I can't even try to put together an ATG list yet.

How do you measure ATG for starters?

I seen people put Pacquaio higher than Floyd, also many are saying Carl Froch deserves to be in the list and exclude the man that beat him pretty easily. Anyway I do not have an ATG list but I watch Robinson, Lomatta, Greb, pep, Armstrong and a couple guys fights and I see why skill wise they are at the top. Also their stamina and will to fight for 15 or sometimes more rounds is pretty much something note. I thought longevity was also apart that was meant to be took into these fictitious P4P list that people go so mad about? I also thought it was subjective... No need to go crying about what someone else has picked :crying::crying::crying:

BUMP! :smashfrea :grouphug: :cop: :boxing:

I been actually working on one for a month now, but instead of the obvious and what usually is the general consensus of who's the best, i'm researching heavy and trying to find old articles, magazines and books, fight tape, old rankings of each division to see what the great fighter fought who and at what time to accurately make the best list without being biased for one fighter or another. Also i saw this video of a panel discussing who there pound for pound best all time were, found it interesting about how they rank fighter, resume or resume and skillset, or if they fought a fighter in his prime. good video and great points! post your list when ur done You can create your own list based on the fighters you have seen. There's no way to see footage of a top 100 best boxers of all time. #1 reason is that some don't even have footage on their fights, or don't have enough. Also it could be someone's opinion that Wlad can beat Louis/Ali/Johnson on sheer size/height in relation to style, or that Mayweather can beat Armstrong/Duran/Benitez, or Hopkins would beat Hagler/Hearns/Leonard @ 160. In the end it's all opinionated and there's no reason to agree on some historian's list, make your own based on your knowledge of boxing and who you have actually seen enough of that you could judge their careers. I do have a list, and I totally agree that some part of a list can be based on subjectivity b ut at the end of the day, there are some n ames that are set in stone and although it's ideal to see guys fight, there are some names and what they've achieved that they deserved to be placed in a top 50. personally, h2h is never a great way of making a list, its a good category but far below other points such as resume, best wins, number of title wins and title reign. So what's yours TS? here's mine : http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=608842 It's not easy to make a list when I haven't seen 95% of the guys on it fight. At-least I have a summer to watch up on old Boxing Clips. do it!

Used to enjoy making lists but as I learned more about the sport that **** just becomes a chore, far too much work too go into making a legitimate list and I can't just throw a quick one together because I'd be constantly criticizing it and get frustrated that I can't make my mind up on where to put who. A lot of work and the only reward would be a debate that goes nowhere. **** Em.

No list per se, but these are the fighters I'd definitely include If I were ever to compile a List: Sugar Ray Robinson Henry Armstrong Harry Greb Willie Pep Joe Gans Benny Leonard Ezzard Charles Roberto Duran Muhammad Ali Bob Fitzsimmons Mickey Walker Archie Moore Kid Gavilan Barney Ross Tony Canzoneri Jimmy McLarnin Ray Leonard Marvin Hagler Joe Louis Jose Napoles Joe Walcott Carlos Ortiz Pernell Whitaker Ike Williams Abe Attell Sandy Saddler Salvador Sanchez Julio Ceasar Chavez Kid Chocolate Jimmy Wilde Pancho Villa Bob Foster Michael Spinks Gene Tunney Manny Pacquiao Tommy Hearns Ricardo Lopez Carlos Monzon Wilfredo Benitez Marco Antonio Barrera Erik Morales Dick Tiger Stanley Ketchell Tiger Flowers Jake LaMotta Alexis Arguello Eusebio Pedroza Fighting Harada Carmen Basillio Ruben Olivares Panama Al Brown Manuel Ortiz Carlos Zarate Eder Jofre George Foreman Oscar De La Hoya Aaron Pryor Evander Holyfield "Jersey" Joe Walcott Larry Holmes Matthew Saad Muhammad Lennox Lewis Benny Lynch Marcel Cerdan Jack Dempsey Joe Frazier Niccolino Locche Bernard Hopkins Floyd Mayweather Mike Tyson Juan Manuel Marquez Freddie Steele Ted "Kid" Lewis Emile Griffith Billy Conn Terry McGovern Jack Johnson Michael Carbajal Jack "Nonpareil" Dempsey George Dixon Beau Jack Floyd Patterson Azumah Nelson Khaosai Galaxy Mike McCallum Sonny Liston Wilfredo Gomez "Panama" Al Brown Humberto Gonzales These and the dozens of other names that are alluding me at the moment. Would be extremely difficult to study ( Not to mention time-consuming ). And then go about ranking each individual.

ATG of this generation manny floyd roy whitaker hopkins lewis oscar wlad

Greb @ #13? Potentially best resume of all times? Can't see it. That's the ESPN list. Like I said you can play around with the positions as you see fit but all these guys deserve to be in the top 50.

So in other words you are talking about things you really don't know anything about and are accepting word of mouth as fact. It's supposed to be an 'all time greatest' list not just your time or what 'you' know about the sport. If you ask most people on here who's ATG number 1 they will most likely say SRR even though there's hardly any footage of him in his prime. Does that mean we should just forget his accomplishments because he didn't fight in our era? Like I said there's plenty of ATG lists out there and if you don't know about a certain fighter you can always read up on their career or watch whatever footage is available otherwise you get people with Floyd and Klitschko in their top 5.

Unless there are any posters who are like 85-100 years old on here, no one should have a top 100 ATG list.......but plenty of people like to pretend so if you like then have at it and make lists about fighters you have never even seen fight before.:dunno: True lol, you can only watch so many of the old fights and even at that some of the footage is so terrible that its hard to get a proper just say on things... I think a lot of these ratings are biased and in favour of guys simply because it was in the past and we're no longer ever going to get to see them compete again live. Personally even think the historians are biased in that retrospect they don't necessarily say why a past great fighter would beat a modern great, perhaps it could be true but its a subjective manner which could be turned around the only problem I have is the nostalgiatards having a fit when you say a modern great would beat someone like Muhammad Ali. So in other words you are talking about things you really don't know anything about and are accepting word of mouth as fact. :lol1: I've said this before about people and I've been guilty of it in the past, sometimes people will need to investigate into things themselves to get their own opinion totally agree with you. Green K sent.

This is what I keep coming back to. These pretenders can make all the lists they want, who gives a shit at the end of the day. We all know more or less who should be in the top ten from a historical, statistical whatever perspective, why keep going on about it. It gets tedious and yeah, literally old. Yeah for you: 1: Klitschko 2: Klitschko 3.... Don't know anyone else - So I'll just criticize people who do.

I deleted that list it was outdated. I think Manny and JMM deserve to be in the top 50. Maybe Chavez is ranked a little high but I think you can make a case for him being a 6 time world champion in 3 different weight classes. Here's the updated list but like I said it's subjective, just depends what you fancy but I believe those fighters deserve to be in the top 50. 1. Sugar Ray Robinson 2. Muhammad Ali 3. Henry Armstrong 4. Joe Louis 5. Willie Pep 6. Roberto Duran 7. Benny Leonard 8. Jack Johnson 9. Jack Dempsey 10. Sam Langford 11. Joe Gans 12. Sugar Ray Leonard 13. Harry Greb 14. Rocky Marciano 15. Jimmy Wilde 16. Gene Tunney 17. Mickey Walker 18. Archie Moore 19. Stanley Ketchel 20. George Foreman 21. Tony Canzoneri 22. Barney Ross 23. Jimmy McLarnin 24. Joe Frazier 25. Marcel Cerdan 26. Ezzard Charles 27. Jake LaMotta 28. Julio Cesar Chavez 29. Sandy Saddler 30. Terry McGovern 31. Billy Conn 32. Jose Napoles 33. Ruben Olivares 34. Emile Griffith 35. Marvin Hagler 36. Eder Jofre 37. Thomas Hearns 38. Larry Holmes 39. Oscar De La Hoya 40. Evander Holyfield 41. Ted "Kid" Lewis 42. Alexis Arguello 43. Carlos Monzon 44. Pernell Whitaker 45. Manny Pacquiao 46. Roy Jones Jr. 47. Bernard Hopkins 48. Floyd Mayweather Jr. 49. Erik Morales 50. Juan Manuel Marquez Greb @ #13? Potentially best resume of all times? Can't see it.

Unless there are any posters who are like 85-100 years old on here, no one should have a top 100 ATG list.......but plenty of people like to pretend so if you like then have at it and make lists about fighters you have never even seen fight before.:dunno: This is what I keep coming back to. These pretenders can make all the lists they want, who gives a shit at the end of the day. We all know more or less who should be in the top ten from a historical, statistical whatever perspective, why keep going on about it. It gets tedious and yeah, literally old.

p4p - all things being equal - nobody touches Ivan Calderon He floated like a butterfly; stung like bee w/o a stinger Still so smooth like butter and so underrated because of his size