How do you define ATG,, criteria??

[Welsh Jon]

Really? ...

I have Michael Spinks ranked number 4 at light-heavy that plus his brief heavyweight title run is enough for a top 100 p4p ranking surely?

[IronDanHamza]

Related questions: how many heavyweights would you consider atgs?

I think only Ali and Louid have ATG heavyweight resumes. There are other heavyweight champions who are among the top 100 greatest ever, but all the rest are there more because of achievments at lower weights eg Ezzard Charles, Fitzsimmons, RJJ.

Are there any other heavyweights that can be considered atgs based only on their heavyweight resumes?

No I'm with you on that.

Ali, Louis, Roy Jones, Charles, Fitzsimmons and Spinks are the only fighters who held HW titles I consider ATG's.

[IronDanHamza]

I have Michael Spinks ranked number 4 at light-heavy that plus his brief heavyweight title run is enough for a top 100 p4p ranking surely?

No question at all for Spinks being an ATG.

[LacedUp]

I have Michael Spinks ranked number 4 at light-heavy that plus his brief heavyweight title run is enough for a top 100 p4p ranking surely?

No question at all for Spinks being an ATG.

Sorry mate, didn't read it through.

Read it as if you had him down as an ATG heavyweight.

I don't know if he's one of the greatest 100 fighters of all times. He might be.

[IronDanHamza]

Great posts guys..

I would just like to add that yes resume is a huge part, but sometimes a guy gets stuck in a bad era and sometimes they get stuck in a good one.. Look at Larry Holmes or Marciano.. Great fighters but their eras kinda ****** compared to 70s or 90s.. That doesn't mean they aren't as great... Look at wlad, who could he possibly beat in this era that could compare to Frazier beating Ali, or Ali beating foreman, etc. there is just no way possible for him to land a huge win like... Same thing with vitali... But h2h they clearly would be tough outs for anyone at heavy... Sometimes you r a victim of your era... Like rigo or Mickey Garcia have no big challenges but if they were around in 2000 they could fight Jim, manny, mab, em,
Prince, etc and they would be more highly rated..
One of the best rules of thumb I used when determining atg or not is just ask yourself "could this fighter be a champ or highly successful in any era?" Take jmm or Tito Trinidad, both great fighters but I don't think they would have been as successful in other eras.. Trinidad would not fair well vs 80s welters and jmm would have been as successful in the 30s n 40s or 80s,,, but a guy like Duran or Chavez or Floyd would be successful no matter the era

It does in my eyes.

If your era being weak is a reason for your resume being weak then that's sadly just their problem.

Hopkins dominated a weak era and resume at 160 pales in comparison to others so I'm not going to bump him up because he fought in a weak era. If your resumes worse it's worse.

You get props and respect for fighting the best contenders available in a weak division even if it's weak like Foster, Hopkins etc but neither of those are on my Top 5 at their weight because in both cases there's plenty who did more at the weight.

[IronDanHamza]

Sorry mate, didn't read it through.

Read it as if you had him down as an ATG heavyweight.

I don't know if he's one of the greatest 100 fighters of all times. He might be.

He is. Certainly.

[LacedUp]

He is. Certainly.

I know he had a great run at Light heavy, and that in itself should probably be enough. There's just something about him I don't really find attractive, for example I think Holmes beat him if not in both, then certainly in the second fight and was really a victim of circumstance at the time.

I would have also liked to see him fight on after Tyson.

[IronDanHamza]

There's no way everybody can agree on a specific cutoff and criterias.

It could be fun however, as some sort of consensus, to make a top 10 of the original 8 divisions, a top 3-5 for the newer divisions and 10 wildcards to exceptional fighters who didn't make the cut either because their division is extremely deep or because the fighter didn't make the top 10 in any division, but had significant impact on multiple divisions.

That will give about 130 fighters to tag ATG.

I feel that wouldn't work because it would have fighters like Calzaghe listed as an ATG and the likes of Manny Pacquaio not on the list.

Which of course is ridiculous.

[IronDanHamza]

I know he had a great run at Light heavy, and that in itself should probably be enough. There's just something about him I don't really find attractive, for example I think Holmes beat him if not in both, then certainly in the second fight and was really a victim of circumstance at the time.

I would have also liked to see him fight on after Tyson.

It's definitely enough. His LHW resume alone is worthy of an ATG let alone what he did after which was way out of his comfort zone.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Spinks is def an ATG, no doubt in my mind, I think he ruled over arguable the best lhw division plus his run in the olympics and heavy.....