How do you define ATG,, criteria??

[GeneralZod]

Whether or not they wear Camacho trunks, that's the only real test.

[Humean]

I basically have two lists, a narrow list and a wide list.

The narrow list is basically 90% ability, who was the best fighter plus about 10% in regards to achievements, who they beat, reign as champion, multi-divisional champion, longevity. This list is largely skewed in favour of post war fighters.

My wide list includes more about how good they were in their own era, their cultural impact, importance in development of the skills of boxing and the sport itself plus all the other 'achievements' that I have in my narrow list. This list is largely skewed in favour of the older fighters.

I use the narrow list when considering the fantasy match ups.

To take an example Jack Dempsey wouldn't be in the top 100 of my narrow list but he would be very high on my wide list because amongst other things his cultural impact was enormous. The wide list would have many heavyweights in the top 20 whereas my narrow list would probably only have Ali.

One problem with the cultural impact element is knowing quite the impact fighters have had from other parts of the world than I am not routinely aware of. Too often these lists are skewed in favour of fighters who made the biggest impact in America.

[BattlingNelson]

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.

Pacquiao (and Mayweather), would make it through the wildcard cathegory though. That was made for these kind of fighters.

[IronDanHamza]

Pacquiao (and Mayweather), would make it through the wildcard cathegory though. That was made for these kind of fighters.

Mayweather would make it for 130.

Lots of worthies fighters wouldn't make it whilst Ottke, Calzaghe, Terry Norris etc would make it.

[killerbunny88]

I like your criteria and the cases in point you presented.

Same here...

[Sugar Adam Ali]

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.

I sorta agree and disagree,, I agree with your preference for resume when ranking guys as ATG, but strictly determining if a guy is ATG or not regardless of how high or low ranked, I dont think you can hold it against a guy if he fought in a weak era. Like you pointed out with foster and hopkins-they were in weak eras which will affect their ATG rankings but not necessarily means they arent ATG,,,

Strictly speaking about whether a guy is ATG or not, i think you have to watch their skills and talent regardless of era, once you have determined they are an ATG, then resume becomes the dominating factor when determining rank position

[ShoulderRoll]

The narrow list is basically 90% ability........To take an example Jack Dempsey wouldn't be in the top 100 of my narrow list but he would be very high on my wide list because amongst other things his cultural impact was enormous.

You don't think Dempsey rates high in ability? Or are you penalizing him for the other 10%

[IronDanHamza]

I sorta agree and disagree,, I agree with your preference for resume when ranking guys as ATG, but strictly determining if a guy is ATG or not regardless of how high or low ranked, I dont think you can hold it against a guy if he fought in a weak era. Like you pointed out with foster and hopkins-they were in weak eras which will affect their ATG rankings but not necessarily means they arent ATG,,,

Strictly speaking about whether a guy is ATG or not, i think you have to watch their skills and talent regardless of era, once you have determined they are an ATG, then resume becomes the dominating factor when determining rank position

I'm not saying they aren't ATG's, they are.

But I'm not going to rank them above a guy with a better resume because their era was weak.

[Humean]

You don't think Dempsey rates high in ability? Or are you penalizing him for the other 10%

I don't rate him that high on ability. The other 10% doesn't amount to a great deal either.

[billeau2]

That is a great question.

I reckon that ranking should be based on these criterias (in ranked order):

1: Resume

2: Resume

3: Resume

4: Dominance of division

5: H2h fantasy match up

6: Social impact.

So most weight (by a mile) on resume.

After this the real issue comes. Where is the cut off? Personally I'd reserve the ATG tag to the very best of a division. Some of you have the cutoff at top 100 p4p which on the average means that significantly less than 10 fighters Per division deserves the tag.

That seems a little harsh doesn't it? ... or?

I think more along these lines. Its particularly good you mentioned #6.

There is also a connection. Its hard for a talented fighter to become a social champion known by all if he does not fight all comers.

There is an urban legend circulating that certain popular heavy weight champions were so popular that when an English Bobby asked an American to step back for the procession of the Queen and the American rudely said "screw the Queen!" The Bobby was said to say (depending on the variation) "oh yeah!? well screw (Dempsey, Louis, Ali, etc)."

Tyson had that kind of name, but since then.....My point being social recognition is important and ties into skill and this is gained often enough, by undisputed ownership of the championship.