Teddy Atlas top10 greatest fighters

[JAB5239]

Rating fighters all time is very subjective. And while I don't agree with his list entirely, it's not as bad as I thought it was going to be. What's your take?

https://www.si.com/fannation/boxing/...rs-of-all-time

[Willie Pep 229]

My first reaction to his list was that it is a safe list.

Of course he is not a casual, but it comes across like a list you would expect from someone who knows the key players and listed them.

There isn't a name to dispute; there isn't a name that excites the imagination.

[Anomalocaris]

Not too bad.

Fitz deserves a mention and Greb is too low.

[QueensburyRules]

Rating fighters all time is very subjective. And while I don't agree with his list entirely, it's not as bad as I thought it was going to be. What's your take?

https://www.si.com/fannation/boxing/...rs-of-all-time

- - U and Looney Teddy sitting in a tree still searching for Teddy email proving Manny was drug cheat a classic.

Where the 3 Stooges ratings?

[JAB5239]

- - U and Looney Teddy sitting in a tree still searching for Teddy email proving Manny was drug cheat a classic.

Where the 3 Stooges ratings?

Why don't you post your top 10 all time p4p fighters and we can talk. Other than that you're just a know nothing big mouth hiding behind a keyboard.

[DeeMoney]

Its a solid list, and probably a lot of similar names as I'd have in mine. Heres the thing I always struggle with, with lists like these (and critique mine the same way).

A couple weeks ago there was an interesting post here that split the history of modern boxing in half, 1894-1959 and then 1960-2025, and we were asked to rate which era had more great boxers (I think it was which era produces a greater top 25). For the most part, the consensus was the latter era had more depth to it and was better. However, whenever we look at lists like these they skew so heavily towards the earlier era (7-3 in the top 10 over all and 7 of the top 8), and no fighter whos prime was in the past 40 years makes the top 10 at all. Even if we figure that the past decade is too recent for him to make an honest assessment, and we redraw the lines back 10 years to allow for that changing it to 1894-1954 & 1955-2015 respectively, you still get the same thing- though SRR and Willie Pep now straddle those lines. So why is it that we get these results?
I have some thoughts, wondering which of these you feel to be true (if any?)

- Boxers 70+ years ago were superior to those now.
- The great boxers of 70+ year ago were on par with the greats now, but appeared better due to the competition
- The boxers themselves aren't better or worse, but their accomplishments seem better due to the sports landscape (fighting more often, etc)
- The greats of yesteryear are on par with those today, but we've constantly been told of the older's greatness so we rank them higher, but truthfully Pacquiao, RJJ, Mayweather, Spinks, etc should be interspersed within that group (at least if evaluating on ability)
- Its all purple prose (buying into the media hype of the older generation heroes) or pretentious know-it-allism (claiming olders are better to seem suprior to the casual fan)

What are your thoughts on this?

[billeau2]

Rating fighters all time is very subjective. And while I don't agree with his list entirely, it's not as bad as I thought it was going to be. What's your take?

https://www.si.com/fannation/boxing/...rs-of-all-time

I like it. I like his choice of Armstrong. Many neglect Hank and he was incredible.

[billeau2]

My first reaction to his list was that it is a safe list.

Of course he is not a casual, but it comes across like a list you would expect from someone who knows the key players and listed them.

There isn't a name to dispute; there isn't a name that excites the imagination.

Really? I disagree. A lot of the list yes, but putting Homicidal Hank in there? That is the equivalent of the guy at the ****tail boxing mentioning McCallum the body snatcher as a great fighter... It has that "appeal."

[JAB5239]

Its a solid list, and probably a lot of similar names as I'd have in mine. Heres the thing I always struggle with, with lists like these (and critique mine the same way).

A couple weeks ago there was an interesting post here that split the history of modern boxing in half, 1894-1959 and then 1960-2025, and we were asked to rate which era had more great boxers (I think it was which era produces a greater top 25). For the most part, the consensus was the latter era had more depth to it and was better. However, whenever we look at lists like these they skew so heavily towards the earlier era (7-3 in the top 10 over all and 7 of the top 8), and no fighter whos prime was in the past 40 years makes the top 10 at all. Even if we figure that the past decade is too recent for him to make an honest assessment, and we redraw the lines back 10 years to allow for that changing it to 1894-1954 & 1955-2015 respectively, you still get the same thing- though SRR and Willie Pep now straddle those lines. So why is it that we get these results?
I have some thoughts, wondering which of these you feel to be true (if any?)

- Boxers 70+ years ago were superior to those now.
- The great boxers of 70+ year ago were on par with the greats now, but appeared better due to the competition
- The boxers themselves aren't better or worse, but their accomplishments seem better due to the sports landscape (fighting more often, etc)
- The greats of yesteryear are on par with those today, but we've constantly been told of the older's greatness so we rank them higher, but truthfully Pacquiao, RJJ, Mayweather, Spinks, etc should be interspersed within that group (at least if evaluating on ability)
- Its all purple prose (buying into the media hype of the older generation heroes) or pretentious know-it-allism (claiming olders are better to seem suprior to the casual fan)

What are your thoughts on this?

I think the greats of today can compete with the greats of the past and vice versa. What the modern greats cannot compare in is resume. They fight less often, and with so many ABC orgs the talent pool has been watered down. One title and one top 10 made it much more difficult to not only get ranked in the Top 10, but to stay there. So the old timers in my opinion will always have the advantage in resume because of that. Could today's fighters adapt to that kind of schedule? I'd imagine they could. A tough guy is a tough guy for a reason, especially when pitted under the same circumstances. The greats will always adapt while the rest are weeded out.

[The D3vil]

Great list.

Glad he wasn't a prisoner of the moment & put Floyd or Manny on there to satisfy the younger generations.