What Is The Minimum Number Of Fights To Be Considered An ATG?

[BKM-]

I don't disagree with anything you have said,I just don't believe you can put a ball park figure on it nor on the definition of all time greatness.Each will have their own idea.I'm pretty sparing with the word great to start with, others may well be more generous.

Ah the old fetish for the word great. Is 'great' synonymous with 'all-time great'? I believe you can be a great fighter and not be an all time great at the same time.

[Ivich]

Let's try it another way, for grins. Literally you are saying there is no lower limit; you cannot give such a number because it is different for everyone. That literally means a boxer could be considered an ATG after one fight.

As for ill-defined terms--we should not suddenly quit using boxing jargon because a lot of it is loosely defined. We got used to it. We do it all the time. All of us. Don't suddenly become a lawyer on me. Each person on here knows what they themselves mean by ATG. I am not asking for an answer derived from a consistent statute we all agree on to the minute detail.

I have complete confidence that collectively our definitions are close enough to make things sensible and statistically group like data on a Bell curve towards the center. I am curious how the answers themselves would group.

So you see, there is an answer--your answer, my answer, his answer, Ted's answer...

There is an answer because you already know what the ill-defined concepts mean to you. That is all you need. Your answer exists already. What is it? Is it just one fight?

Since you are determined to pin me down in our good humored wrangle,I shall give some examples of fighters I consider all time greats,and some I don't.
Middles.
Mickey Walker
Ray Robinson
Harry Greb
Carlos Monzon
Marvin Hagler
Stanley Ketchel


Middles
Great but not ATG's
Joey Giardello
**** Tiger
Jake Lamotta
Tony Zale
Freddie Steele
Roy Jones

How many fights qualify a fighter?
If you have 50 against dross and win them all and then one against a quality fighter and beat him,you don't qualify.

If you have 30 wins against variable opposition, some fair ,some good ,some very good, then beat one or 2 greats,you are perhaps entitled to consideration.as a great fighter?

If you have 40 wins with a preponderance of ranked men amongst them and say 2 great wins over recognized great fighters you possibly qualify as an ATG.

For me it all hinges on who you are fighting,and having said that I'm contradicting myself some what with Lomachenko whose resume is not extensive but filled with excellent scalps,and he is at 35, fighting men in their prime whilst above his natural division.

An Example Of Non Greats.imo
Norton
Young
Kovalev
J Torres
Graziano
Hamed

Your original question is intruiging and very welcome among quite a lot of dross,but I find myself unable to articulate a sensible answer that would satisfy you,which is no doubt on me.
I expect you will have better luck with other replies.

[Eff Pandas]

In theory I think its like 3ish. But obviously it'd have to be the right 3ish guys.

For an easy example lets say a guy beat JMM, than Manny & then Floyd back when all 3 were p4p caliber guys. You could argue one was a fluke, but all 3 is a much harder argument to navigate & it'd be hard not to put this guy into the atg discussion with wins over 3 legends & actively p4p caliber guys.

Obviously its not very likely a guy would get those fights in a row let alone as a debuting boxer, but in theory I don't think its as high a number as people are suggesting.

In reality I think its probably 30ish fights assuming a more normal progression of a boxers career. Those 5-15 ez fights. 5-10 step up to the world class level fights. Then either having several yrs of belt fights where you get a respectable reign in or move up to grab more belts. I think 25-35 fights is around the range, these days, to reach that atg discussion level.

[Hustle]

- - Loma is an all time great fighter, but he's got some 300 fights. He's old and aging out of fighting in a corrupt era where he has been robbed a couple of times in professional ranks because he embarrasses modern fighters much like Francis embarrassed Blubber.

He loss to a fighter with 12 losses at age 25.....he's not all time at any weight.

[Ivich]

Ah the old fetish for the word great. Is 'great' synonymous with 'all-time great'? I believe you can be a great fighter and not be an all time great at the same time.

Agreed.

[Slugfester]

In theory I think its like 3ish. But obviously it'd have to be the right 3ish guys.

For an easy example lets say a guy beat JMM, than Manny & then Floyd back when all 3 were p4p caliber guys. You could argue one was a fluke, but all 3 is a much harder argument to navigate & it'd be hard not to put this guy into the atg discussion with wins over 3 legends & actively p4p caliber guys.

Obviously its not very likely a guy would get those fights in a row let alone as a debuting boxer, but in theory I don't think its as high a number as people are suggesting.

In reality I think its probably 30ish fights assuming a more normal progression of a boxers career. Those 5-15 ez fights. 5-10 step up to the world class level fights. Then either having several yrs of belt fights where you get a respectable reign in or move up to grab more belts. I think 25-35 fights is around the range, these days, to reach that atg discussion level.

Excellent. I was going to say most of that myself. In a practical sense, it is not very probable that it would ever happen, but not impossible either. In your view then if Ngannou had beaten Fury and then Wilder and Usyk in succession, he might very well be an ATG. I like your idea and its reasoning. Probably the shortest career of anyone I would consider an ATG was Leonard's at an even 40. So for a practical number, you are close to what then might be considered "the record," so to speak, and record's are not usually broken by much.

The bad thing about those 3ish numbers is the small range of testing. A lot of guys started out looking like potential ATG material, but then something happened. They meet up with someone whose style and rhythm were flat out wrong and difficult for them to deal with. Seen that a lot of times. Some call it being exposed.

[Ivich]

Excellent. I was going to say most of that myself. In a practical sense, it is not very probable that it would ever happen, but not impossible either. In your view then if Ngannou had beaten Fury and then Wilder and Usyk in succession, he might very well be an ATG. I like your idea and its reasoning. Probably the shortest career of anyone I would consider an ATG was Leonard's at an even 40. So for a practical number, you are close to what then might be considered "the record," so to speak, and record's are not usually broken by much.

The bad thing about those 3ish numbers is the small range of testing. A lot of guys started out looking like potential ATG material, but then something happened. They meet up with someone whose style and rhythm were flat out wrong and difficult for them to deal with. Seen that a lot of times. Some call it being exposed.

Ideally you would want them to be successful against all styles.Old time trainer manager Jack Hurley said he put Harry Mathews in with guys whose styles made him look good,because his end game was a title shot at Marciano.
Slightly different the Whacko Twins put Cooney in with past it names,that he would look impressive demolishing,but that did not allow him to learn his trade,or realise his full potential, and when he had to step up he was out of his depth.
The fixation with an undefeated record has a lot to answer for in this .

[mrbig1]

What Is The Minimum Number Of Fights To Be Considered An ATG?

I always give my own opinion later, but I do assume the number is greater than 10. How many fights are required to reach this highest rank (ATG) that exists?

That is a great question. I can only speak to fighters of my era. That's just my thing. Monzon had 100 fights unbeaten in his last 81 fights. When he retired, he has cleaned out the MW division. What about Salvador Sanchez. He only had 46 fights. He has beat many HOF fighters. He did all that by age 23. In my mind he was a ATG Featherweight. So, I don't know if there is a cutoff point.

[Bundana]

He loss to a fighter with 12 losses at age 25.....he's not all time at any weight.

In his 32nd pro fight Jack Dempsey was ko'd in the first round, by someone with 34 losses on his record. Does this mean, that Dempsey is also not an ATG?

[QueensburyRules]

He might have deserved the win against Salido ,but Haney and Lopez beat him clearly imo.he stayed amateur too long ,but that's on him.I don't give plaudits for what might have been.

- - Loma clowned Heinie, and yes Lopez marginally beat a clearly one armed Loma and ducked the rematch. He don't fight for French Snail Snarfers but for his country and family.

Salido was an unholy alliance with the equally greasy ref Laurence Cole who had to save Salido from the sure KO Loma put on him the last round.