Is ______ an ATG?

[TBear]

I always hear it asked if this fighter or that fighter is an ATG. What are the rules for ATG? Top 50 in their weight class, top 20, top 10? Or does it refer to the lb4lb rankings, and if so top 100?, top 50? and so on.......

Or does it just mean they will be considered great for all time in spite of how they might place in rankings.

I mean we all have opinions and ideas who is and isn't but there isn't really criteria or rule so could almost everybody that becomes champion be included.

[frankenfrank]

I thought you tried to mock those spamming threads that bomb this board.

I feel as if the posters that post them don't know and don't care about their own criteria and I really wonder if they care about the answers they get let alone the criteria behind those answers.

[sonnyboyx2]

I always hear it asked if this fighter or that fighter is an ATG. What are the rules for ATG? Top 50 in their weight class, top 20, top 10? Or does it refer to the lb4lb rankings, and if so top 100?, top 50? and so on.......

Or does it just mean they will be considered great for all time in spite of how they might place in rankings.

I mean we all have opinions and ideas who is and isn't but there isn't really criteria or rule so could almost everybody that becomes champion be included.

very good topic... 99% of the time fighters considered as ATGs are nowhere near good enough to be classified as such... IMO longevity and quality of opponents over a long career are of the utmost importance in determining if a fighter is an ATG.. i would not class Salvador Sanchez as an ATG due to his short period at the top and unfortunate death at such a young age... Thomas Heans is an ATG, yet over the last 10yrs i see only Manny Pacquiao as being worth of the accolade .

[Toney616]

I always hear it asked if this fighter or that fighter is an ATG. What are the rules for ATG? Top 50 in their weight class, top 20, top 10? Or does it refer to the lb4lb rankings, and if so top 100?, top 50? and so on.......

Or does it just mean they will be considered great for all time in spite of how they might place in rankings.

I mean we all have opinions and ideas who is and isn't but there isn't really criteria or rule so could almost everybody that becomes champion be included.

My criteria:
Best Wins
Accomplishemnts
Missed competition
Consistency
Reaction to adversity

[bojangles1987]

For me, it's all about how important a fighter was based on what they did in a ring. What did they do in their career and how does it compare with everyone else? If what they did is something special, then they are an ATG. Also, can you imagine that many fighters who are definitely better?

Unlike most people I don't consider it based on top 50, top 100, or anything like that. I don't have a list of fighters ranked all time, I personally feel it is damn near impossible to have a factual ATG list, too many fighters are disagreeable, and too many of them were never seen at their best by any of us.

[StarshipTrooper]

I can see where the confusion comes in as people mean different things when they say ATG. The latest trend is to mean p4p when talking about ATGs and disregard the weight classes.

My own use of the term is based on weight classes: When I say Fighter A is an ATG I mean he is an ATG in his primary weight class. Who I rate as an ATG is based on their abilities in their prime tempered by who they fought. I also don't think you can have a set number of ATGs since some weight classes don't have even 10 fighters historically who can legitmately be called ATGs while others (such as Welter and Middle) have over 20. Having a fixed number also makes for some ridiculous scenarios where a fighter is rated an ATG for years then someone comes along who's a bit better than him and he gets dropped. So all of a sudden he isn't an ATG anymore? That simply doesn't make sense.

Poet

[NChristo]

I thought you tried to mock those spamming threads that bomb this board.

I feel as if the posters that post them don't know and don't care about their own criteria and I really wonder if they care about the answers they get let alone the criteria behind those answers.

Wouldn't say that they were spam threads, they sort of bring more conversation to the History section and spark up some interesting debates.

[Southpaw Stinger]

I always hear - Is (fighter's name) a atg. Because ****s here have terrible grammar.

[Joeyzagz]

Win/Loss record
Avenged losses
Names on a Resume'
Performance Past age 32
Title Defenses
Recognition to the casual fan

[$Bullsfam$]

I think it definitely depends.

I think you can have more then a few losses and be an all-time great of course that was the case way back in the day with guys like Sugar Ray Robinson. I can't really explain my criteria but I'll explain by fighters who I think are all time greats. Sugar Ray Leonard, Duran, Hagler, and Hearns are ATG's because they had each other IMO. Elite fighters(skillwise) who became ATG's off fighting each other in ATG fights. Sugar Ray Robinson is an all time great because of his skills, the hard opposition he always fought, his long winning streak, and going up in weight class constantly to try and take another champ's title. He might have won the LHW title if not for the heat.

I think Bernard Hopkins is an all time great even before avenging the loss to Jones Jr because even that win wasn't too spectacular and I'm sure many would agreed. But he cleaned out and dominated his division, he fought close to their Primes Trinidad & De La Hoya, KO'd them both. And bumped up to Light Heavyweight and dominated Antonio Tarver who was the man at 205 after taking Roy Jones out of his prime. He dominated his primary division, beat 3 primed elite fighters, and moved up 2 divisions to beat the other one and be at the top of another weight class. This I compare to Joe Calzaghe who I don't think is an all time great because although he ruled SMW, he never beat an elite primed fighter. His biggest win IMO are against Lacey(one dimensional) and Kessler who isn't as great as we thought he was schooled by Ward, and had a hard time with Froch. Now if he would come back and beat the winner of the super six or Chad Dawson which is unlikely, then I'd consider it.

Floyd I think would solidify all time great status by beating Pacman. I mean he's won titles in 5 different divisions. Ended Oscar's prime in an ATG showdown(which I think that & the Mosley fight will be viewed as in the future in a couple years if Floyd beats Pacman to solidify his ATG status), beat the #1 WW Mosley who has had a great career but not all time great sadly since he didn't beat Winky or Floyd which I think would have put him up there. If he doesn't beat pacman, I think he's going to have to bring Cotto down to 147 or fight Margarito at WW to try solidify his ATG status by beating another solid WW. Or even beat Martinez at 154 which I think he can do.

I just have a hard time myself saying Pacman is an ATG just for the fact he made Cotto drain himself to 145, and then the next fight agrees to take on just as Big Clottey at the right 147 weight class. His resume is ATG worthy IMO. But a win over Floyd would leave NO QUESTION whatsoever. But like Floyd, beating Margarito would be questionable because of how legit Margarito really is. I think to have a meaningful victory over Margarito, Antonio needs to prove himself first by getting some good wins with us knowing for sure not cheating with wraps, and them beat him.

Floyd & Pac I think need each other for an ATG showdown to prove to EVERYBODY they are ATG's. Even though Pac's resume coming up from such a small weight class is already good enough to a enlightened real boxing fans eye.

Barrera & Morales I think are both all time greats for having titles in 4-5 divisions, pretty stiff opposition faced but I think more importantly, with the wars they had with each other and Pacman. They had all time great fights(not showdowns or match ups whatever you call it) with each other. I mean they were ATG match up's but more importantly I think the fights were so good if could have made them both ATG's. Morales even beat Pacman once which catapults him up there IMO. Barrera might be slightly harder to prove an ATG, I think he's close though.

I don't think their is ONE definite criteria, it all depends on your own personal beliefs I guess.