If you have no list and no history of the sport, how can you determine a ATG?

Agree, personally I think the main benefit of modern training has been longevity, I don't think it has made a significant impact in developing better fighters in their prime, but having said that I don't just think every HOFer from the 80s and earlier can't be defeated, or be surpassed legacy wise, by some of our modern fighters. It's really on a case by case basis, and I think context is important in evaluating fighters' abilities to understand at what level they were really effective and where they normally fell short, what success was mostly based on style match up, and which fighters actually overcame stylistic disadvantages in significant fights. It also helps us appreciate fighters who are susceptible to being underrated due to their styles i.e. Winky Wright. Just a few thoughts on the topic. I did say in my first post here that it's safe to make ball park estimations without having all the history or an ATG list. I think some quick film study on fighters like you suggested would definitely be enough for that and it's actually what I normally do. Got ya good post man...I just know that, without naming names, I've watched footage of some past greats and been very unimpressed with the level. But hey it is just my opinion...I have been wrong before...also these guys used to go 15 rounds or even until one dropped...so that would be a feather in their cap relative to today's fighters.

It's all good man, overall I feel the same way...I like a good debate and with it being online I don't really take anything at all serious anyway...too many trolls to do that. Agree, personally I think the main benefit of modern training has been longevity, I don't think it has made a significant impact in developing better fighters in their prime, but having said that I don't just think every HOFer from the 80s and earlier can't be defeated, or be surpassed legacy wise, by some of our modern fighters. It's really on a case by case basis, and I think context is important in evaluating fighters' abilities to understand at what level they were really effective and where they normally fell short, what success was mostly based on style match up, and which fighters actually overcame stylistic disadvantages in significant fights. It also helps us appreciate fighters who are susceptible to being underrated due to their styles i.e. Winky Wright. Just a few thoughts on the topic. I did say in my first post here that it's safe to make ball park estimations without having all the history or an ATG list. I think some quick film study on fighters like you suggested would definitely be enough for that and it's actually what I normally do.

Lol, I just come here to read and chat a little boxing. Learned a while ago it's pretty pointless to get drawn in to silly arguments in forums like this one. I disagree with you, but this is a topic I would really prefer to discuss in, person not here. It's all good man, overall I feel the same way...I like a good debate and with it being online I don't really take anything at all serious anyway...too many trolls to do that.

I mean I wouldn't really try to refute what I said either, no worries Lol, I just come here to read and chat a little boxing. Learned a while ago it's pretty pointless to get drawn in to silly arguments in forums like this one. I disagree with you, but this is a topic I would really prefer to discuss in, person not here.

Historian Larry been pushing this "You need a list" talk since 2009. Keep it up Larry. I don't think you particularly NEED an ATG list to identify an ATG, but it does help your case though.

Atg 1. Logan paul 2.ksi 3.canelo 4. Ryan garcia

Yeah, this is the response I expected based on your previous post. I mean I wouldn't really try to refute what I said either, no worries

Yeah I hear ya man...I mean I confess I don't really know enough about most of these guys, even what exactly they did in their eras, to really say where I think they should be pfp all-time. Some greats performing great in one fight seems to stick out to me and kind of cements their legacy in a way, for me...Duran over Leonard in fight 1...SRL over Hagler...Ali over Foreman...maybe I rate those types of performances too much...but those types of big risk, great performance type stuff really impresses me, and I tend to hold those guys up to a higher level than most other greats. I agree it is a bit easier sometimes to compare greats within one weight class...I feel a little more comfortable doing that usually..but if I said I had a real opinion on any fighter who fought before 1950 I would be lying...I just don't know enough about them and what they did in their eras...I don't know how to really rate their wins or losses. Exactly....U would have to literally be Bert Sugar(RIP)

I disagree...I think in that few minute period you should see either 1) something that makes you take notice or 2) something that makes you realize this past great could not really compete in the modern era. Of course watching more tape is always helpful, but in my experience it usually is the same story with more film...have to make sure you are watching the best version of that fighter though. I think the belief that past greats could compete with great modern fighters is a bit misguided...not only are they bigger, stronger, faster, better trained/conditioned etc...but a guy fighting at 160 today would have really fought at 175 years ago. To say the smaller, worse trained, slower, weaker, etc fighter would be by far the better fighter compared to today's greats is, I mean I just don't really see how people can really make that point...I don't think most past greats could beat modern great fighters a weight class or 2 down...I certainly don't see how it is possible for them to do it the other way around. Yeah, this is the response I expected based on your previous post.

Yeah now once we start comparing these guys p4p. We have to take EVERYTHING into account. That being said if we dissect SRL resume and the same way we would with the names this forum have have been throwing around.... Or the best fighters in the past 20 years. Its very hard to get close to top 10/20 ATG. I feel like its almost impossible for anyone to crack the top 10. ATG P4P. Now specific weight classes ( why i brought up Benitez) is diffrent. As great as Floyd was no way he makes the top 10 list. Its too many other guys who did more. Now at a specific weight class of course. Yeah I hear ya man...I mean I confess I don't really know enough about most of these guys, even what exactly they did in their eras, to really say where I think they should be pfp all-time. Some greats performing great in one fight seems to stick out to me and kind of cements their legacy in a way, for me...Duran over Leonard in fight 1...SRL over Hagler...Ali over Foreman...maybe I rate those types of performances too much...but those types of big risk, great performance type stuff really impresses me, and I tend to hold those guys up to a higher level than most other greats. I agree it is a bit easier sometimes to compare greats within one weight class...I feel a little more comfortable doing that usually..but if I said I had a real opinion on any fighter who fought before 1950 I would be lying...I just don't know enough about them and what they did in their eras...I don't know how to really rate their wins or losses.

can you list all the best schools in your area without researching them? can you say what the best job is without looking at the pay of every job and the benefits?? do you just choose random insurances or do you look at them all and list the best ones? The point is that the criteria used when judging anything is selected based on preferences and personal bias, so no one has to list **** for you.

I'm not hating on Benitez (and I will get to my point about Duran later too)..but that is kind of my point, that to start getting to 3 or 4 or 5 wins vs ATGs, you have to expand the definition a little bit to include guys like Wilfred(or a past prime/over prime weight Duran)...he was definitely great, but a lot of guys are/were great...he beat Duran, and most of his losses were post WW where he was great, and when he was a bit older...but I can't say his list of wins really blows me away. And for SRL, as great as he was...he had a clear win vs Hagler imo...2 wins vs Duran, 1 loss to Duran, and then those 2 fights with Hearns, which I confess I've never seen both in their entirety...but I think even SRL said he should have lost the 2nd one, and I think most agree Tommy was winning the first until he got stopped. My point with that is just to say that in his fights vs other ATGs - SRL, one of the best imo to ever do it, was not 10-0...I wouldn't even count that last fight vs Duran as being an ATG win tbh...and he got Hagler at the right time, but at the same time he dominated him imo and was moving up 2 weight classes and 3 years off!! So of course I give him full credit for that one. But yeah if I had to rate SRL in his fights vs other ATGs - I would say it was basically 1-0 vs Hagler, 1-1 vs Duran, and 1-1 vs Hearns...I would say Hearns was a bit more formidable at that time/weight than Duran was....so that's 3-2, and SRL is one of the best to ever do it...and was in a golden era there with other ATGs in his weight classes. I personally would call that version of Benitez that SRL beat an ATG, since he was prime and it was at WW...so I would put Ray 4-2 vs other ATGs...but again he was a rare bird and it wasn't like he was 6-0 there...he got about as good as he gave. Yeah now once we start comparing these guys p4p. We have to take EVERYTHING into account. That being said if we dissect SRL resume and the same way we would with the names this forum have have been throwing around.... Or the best fighters in the past 20 years. Its very hard to get close to top 10/20 ATG. I feel like its almost impossible for anyone to crack the top 10. ATG P4P. Now specific weight classes ( why i brought up Benitez) is diffrent. As great as Floyd was no way he makes the top 10 list. Its too many other guys who did more. Now at a specific weight class of course.

Hang on, is there a limit on the number of All Time Greats? If I make a top 100 is it only the top 10% that qualify?I By definition, to add one I then have to drop one. Which means there's no such thing as an ALL TIME Great. Would really like some guidance from whoever is responsible for making the rules. Thanks in advance, Larry, and congratulations on your role in boxing. I would say top 100 would be a great start as you can't have a shorter list without breaking down a larger list..even a top 100 would be hard to make as you have to eliminate boxers just to get to a top 100..

Who the **** are you to dictate what criteria others need to use in determining an ATG? OP acting like he's some boxing authority for whom we must all qualify our opinions for his judgment. **** off :fing26: can you list all the best schools in your area without researching them? can you say what the best job is without looking at the pay of every job and the benefits?? do you just choose random insurances or do you look at them all and list the best ones?

How many ATGs SRL beat? Duran, Hagler, Hearns, Bonitez Im wasnt saying every ATG has to beat another ATG. Im saying u shudnt even be mentioned with a guy with type of pedigree. Why i think that top 10 of all time list should be reserved for guys like that. I'm not hating on Benitez (and I will get to my point about Duran later too)..but that is kind of my point, that to start getting to 3 or 4 or 5 wins vs ATGs, you have to expand the definition a little bit to include guys like Wilfred(or a past prime/over prime weight Duran)...he was definitely great, but a lot of guys are/were great...he beat Duran, and most of his losses were post WW where he was great, and when he was a bit older...but I can't say his list of wins really blows me away. And for SRL, as great as he was...he had a clear win vs Hagler imo...2 wins vs Duran, 1 loss to Duran, and then those 2 fights with Hearns, which I confess I've never seen both in their entirety...but I think even SRL said he should have lost the 2nd one, and I think most agree Tommy was winning the first until he got stopped. My point with that is just to say that in his fights vs other ATGs - SRL, one of the best imo to ever do it, was not 10-0...I wouldn't even count that last fight vs Duran as being an ATG win tbh...and he got Hagler at the right time, but at the same time he dominated him imo and was moving up 2 weight classes and 3 years off!! So of course I give him full credit for that one. But yeah if I had to rate SRL in his fights vs other ATGs - I would say it was basically 1-0 vs Hagler, 1-1 vs Duran, and 1-1 vs Hearns...I would say Hearns was a bit more formidable at that time/weight than Duran was....so that's 3-2, and SRL is one of the best to ever do it...and was in a golden era there with other ATGs in his weight classes. I personally would call that version of Benitez that SRL beat an ATG, since he was prime and it was at WW...so I would put Ray 4-2 vs other ATGs...but again he was a rare bird and it wasn't like he was 6-0 there...he got about as good as he gave.

Hang on, is there a limit on the number of All Time Greats? If I make a top 100 is it only the top 10% that qualify? By definition, to add one I then have to drop one. Which means there's no such thing as an ALL TIME Great. Would really like some guidance from whoever is responsible for making the rules. Thanks in advance, Larry, and congratulations on your role in boxing.

The sport of boxing has been around for centuries but under the Queebsbury rules it has been around over 100, before it was the London prize rules, so if you are not a student of the game how can you come close to saying who is and who isnt an ATG?? You HAVE TO HAVE A LIST WITH KNOWLEDGE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS, - -U have a lisp with no fudge marinate U clams? See History Forum:

Idk man...I don't think many real ATGs even had that many fights against other ATGs...and usually when that happens, they win as many as they lose...I've researched a lot of that stuff before, and rarely have I found that any ATG, or any fighter, has actually fought more than 3 or 4 ATGs/had that many fights with ATGs...it just rarely happens that 2 prime ATGs are around at the same time and same division...and then on top of that they have to actually fight. I think you would have to expand the definition of ATG a bit to get to the point where any fighter has fought a lot of ATGs...and then to have beaten a lot of them on top of that...I mean I can't really recall one off the top of my head who has like 5 wins over guys like that. And by that I mean a prime, ATG, at his natural weight. How many ATGs SRL beat? Duran, Hagler, Hearns, Bonitez Im wasnt saying every ATG has to beat another ATG. Im saying u shudnt even be mentioned with a guy with type of pedigree. Why i think that top 10 of all time list should be reserved for guys like that.

Well, it doesn't have to be your life, but you would be missing a lot of context by just watching a few minutes of film. I think that's how a lot of people come to the conclusion that modern fighters are better than legitimate ATGs. I disagree...I think in that few minute period you should see either 1) something that makes you take notice or 2) something that makes you realize this past great could not really compete in the modern era. Of course watching more tape is always helpful, but in my experience it usually is the same story with more film...have to make sure you are watching the best version of that fighter though. I think the belief that past greats could compete with great modern fighters is a bit misguided...not only are they bigger, stronger, faster, better trained/conditioned etc...but a guy fighting at 160 today would have really fought at 175 years ago. To say the smaller, worse trained, slower, weaker, etc fighter would be by far the better fighter compared to today's greats is, I mean I just don't really see how people can really make that point...I don't think most past greats could beat modern great fighters a weight class or 2 down...I certainly don't see how it is possible for them to do it the other way around.

Honestly I think all it takes is a few minutes watching film on a guy to know what you think about him...I think you can be informed without making it your life. Well, it doesn't have to be your life, but you would be missing a lot of context by just watching a few minutes of film. I think that's how a lot of people come to the conclusion that modern fighters are better than legitimate ATGs.