Poll: ATGs From Batch #2

[JAB5239]

Tszyu boarderline? I’m still shocked he was voted into the HOF let alone borderline ATG material.

Agree on Tunney. Liston, difficult as I find HW’s difficult to rank.

What about Burley? Would have thought he’d be an obvious choice to an ATG list.

140 is so shallow i think Tszyu has an argument. Burley? Yes definitely ATG.

[IronDanHamza]

140 is so shallow i think Tszyu has an argument. Burley? Yes definitely ATG.

Oh, I get you, you mean for an ATG Jr Welter?

I can agree with that, I thought you meant in general.

[JAB5239]

Oh, I get you, you mean for an ATG Jr Welter?

I can agree with that, I thought you meant in general.

Im not sure any of these guys would make the list if it was an ATG top 20 list. Maybe tunney...maybe. I'd have to look at my own past lists to make sure.

[DeeMoney]

Im not sure any of these guys would make the list if it was an ATG top 20 list. Maybe tunney...maybe. I'd have to look at my own past lists to make sure.

Agree about Tunney, but this all comes down to the subjectivity of where each individual draws their All Time line. Top 20, 50, 100?

I think very few have it as limitted as 20, many people would leave out a lot of names they feel are atg if they actually listed out just 20

[Willie Pep 229]

What fights makes Charley Burley an ATG?

Fritzie Zivic? (2-1-0)

Holman Williams? (Lost more than won)

Oakland Billy Smith? (Defeated handily, twice)

Lost to Charles twice, and Bivins once.

(Has one big win: Archie Moore.)

Do you have to beat ATGs to be an ATG?

Are the above three names ATGs? Or is 'Ole Mongoose his only win over one?

Sometimes I think 'knowing who Charley Burley is, and claiming he is great' is a boxing fan's brag.

"See how much I know about boxing."

Anyway . . . He probably is, but look at his resumé first.

[Bronson66]

What fights makes Charley Burley an ATG?

Fritzie Zivic? (2-1-0)

Holman Williams? (Lost more than won)

Oakland Billy Smith? (Defeated handily, twice)

Lost to Charles twice, and Bivins once.

(Has one big win: Archie Moore.)

Do you have to beat ATGs to be an ATG?

Are the above three names ATGs? Or is 'Ole Mongoose his only win over one?

Sometimes I think 'knowing who Charley Burley is, and claiming he is great' is a boxing fan's brag.

"See how much I know about boxing."

Anyway . . . He probably is, but look at his resumé first.

If he is .isn't Holman Williams?

[DeeMoney]

What fights makes Charley Burley an ATG?

Fritzie Zivic? (2-1-0)

Holman Williams? (Lost more than won)

Oakland Billy Smith? (Defeated handily, twice)

Lost to Charles twice, and Bivins once.

(Has one big win: Archie Moore.)

Do you have to beat ATGs to be an ATG?

Are the above three names ATGs? Or is 'Ole Mongoose his only win over one?

Sometimes I think 'knowing who Charley Burley is, and claiming he is great' is a boxing fan's brag.

"See how much I know about boxing."

Anyway . . . He probably is, but look at his resumé first.

I don't believe so (refercening the bold) though I guess it depends on what you are measuring in regards to greatness- is greatness the totality of a resume or is it how good you feel the fighter to have been in the ring.

In either case, I think the bold really works better for pre 1960s boxing, and definitely more to pre 90s, back when everyone fought each other multiple times. Although, I think it also leads to some circular logic. Example: Fighter A is an All Time Great, Fighter B is a good low level HOFer type. They fight each other six times and A wins five of them, but due to mean regression and things of that nature B gets one win. Now we deem B an ATG too, because he beat A; and A's resume goes up in totality because he has multiple wins against B- Spiraling upwards.

As for an ATG who never beat and ATG, did JCC ever beat an ATG in their prime? Beat some very good, but any ATGs?

[Willie Pep 229]

I don't believe so (refercening the bold) though I guess it depends on what you are measuring in regards to greatness- is greatness the totality of a resume or is it how good you feel the fighter to have been in the ring.

In either case, I think the bold really works better for pre 1960s boxing, and definitely more to pre 90s, back when everyone fought each other multiple times. Although, I think it also leads to some circular logic. Example: Fighter A is an All Time Great, Fighter B is a good low level HOFer type. They fight each other six times and A wins five of them, but due to mean regression and things of that nature B gets one win. Now we deem B an ATG too, because he beat A; and A's resume goes up in totality because he has multiple wins against B- Spiraling upwards.

As for an ATG who never beat and ATG, did JCC ever beat an ATG in their prime? Beat some very good, but any ATGs?

Yeah I get it. That's why I think Burley is an ATG I just don't see it as automatic with him, you got to think about him.

Where you deliberately referencing . . .

Fighter A --> SRR
Fighter B --> Jake LaMotta

The only part that doesn't fit you analogy is that Jake won their second fight, not because of 'regression.' Otherwise it is their story.

But in a strange way, one of LaMotta's best claim to greatness (among others) is his five loses to SRR.

[DeeMoney]

Yeah I get it. That's why I think Burley is an ATG I just don't see it as automatic with him, you got to think about him.

Where you deliberately referencing . . .

Fighter A --> SRR
Fighter B --> Jake LaMotta

The only part that doesn't fit you analogy is that Jake won their second fight, not because of 'regression.' Otherwise it is their story.

But in a strange way, one of LaMotta's best claim to greatness (among others) is his five loses to SRR.

I thought about Lamotta v SRR with that fighter a vs b, but it was supposed to just reference fighters of that era as a whole. There are other instances of good fighters getting a win or two against a great fighter who they lost to multiple times. But the premise is still the same- even if they won the first fight, over a large enough sample size a few upsets will eventually happen

[IronDanHamza]

If he is .isn't Holman Williams?

Yes…..