How do you define ATG,, criteria??

[Sugar Adam Ali]

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.

how did you come to the conclusion that foster and hopkins are ATGs,,, what was your logic or criteria,, I agree totally just wondering what you use.. Their resumes arent great compared to other ATG, so what was your determining factor/criteria for them to be considered ATGs

[billeau2]

I admire you guys I can't make an ATG list. It is too much of a social construct that changes and cannot consider things like the black fighters who never got a chance, the bad decisions, the different contexts that changed the skill sets, etc.

I think many fighters are great when considering different criteria.

[IronDanHamza]

how did you come to the conclusion that foster and hopkins are ATGs,,, what was your logic or criteria,, I agree totally just wondering what you use.. Their resumes arent great compared to other ATG, so what was your determining factor/criteria for them to be considered ATGs

I think their resumes, H2H ability and skills are ATG calibur.

[StarshipTrooper]

I admire you guys I can't make an ATG list. It is too much of a social construct that changes and cannot consider things like the black fighters who never got a chance, the bad decisions, the different contexts that changed the skill sets, etc.

I think many fighters are great when considering different criteria.

Here's the thing though: Don't consider things like belt counting and title reigns as "resume". If you consider resume to be who a fighter beats and when they beat them it becomes a whole lot easier to rank fighters from segregated eras since while they may not have gotten title shots they usually fought each other multiple times. Given the number of fights that they had with each other getting a title shot becomes less important in the grand scheme of things.

[ShoulderRoll]

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

If you ever read his book Championship Fighting you can't help but come away impressed. He understood boxing mechanics and tactics at a level that most people have no clue about.

And it wasn't just an intellectual knowledge. He put those theories into action physically, with speed and power and a ferocious mentality.

He's as intelligent a brawler as there has ever been in the sport.

[billeau2]

Here's the thing though: Don't consider things like belt counting and title reigns as "resume". If you consider resume to be who a fighter beats and when they beat them it becomes a whole lot easier to rank fighters from segregated eras since while they may not have gotten title shots they usually fought each other multiple times. Given the number of fights that they had with each other getting a title shot becomes less important in the grand scheme of things.

That makes sense. it really is who they were fighting. A guy like Burley never won a championship, and then we have these guys who are belt collectors who get belts in a weak division to actually avoid a good opponent.


Reign is an interesting stat: A measure of consistancy does wonders for a guy like Louis, even with the sometime Bum of the Month group. I think the reign of a champ was affected by the shift from 15 to 12 rounds though. Those last three rounds are a real gut check....Louis versus Conn, Holmes versus Shavers, Ali versus Frazier, to name a few etc etc.

[billeau2]

If you ever read his book Championship Fighting you can't help but come away impressed. He understood boxing mechanics and tactics at a level that most people have no clue about.

And it wasn't just an intellectual knowledge. He put those theories into action physically, with speed and power and a ferocious mentality.

He's as intelligent a brawler as there has ever been in the sport.

That was a great book!! Dempsey was a very smart guy and wrote a couple of books, this being his best.

[Japanese Boxing]

For me, there is no special number. If you have a great resume, displayed impeccable skills, or were clearly a cut above the rest in your era you're an ATG. Right now, we don't have a lot of these in the higher weight classes. But we still have some.

[soul_survivor]

I can't disagree with Dan.

stop being a ***** ffs

I rank ATGs by the following criteria:

Who they fought and who they beat
Did they fight the best available?
How many world champions/titlists were beaten
How many fighters, considered a legitimate threat, were beaten
Skill level
How they compare H2H with other fighters in their era and throughout history
Impact on the sport

[LacedUp]

stop being a ***** ffs

I rank ATGs by the following criteria:

Who they fought and who they beat
Did they fight the best available?
How many world champions/titlists were beaten
How many fighters, considered a legitimate threat, were beaten
Skill level
How they compare H2H with other fighters in their era and throughout history
Impact on the sport

What? Are you serious? The criteria he posted were in accordance to my own, should I write something else to fulfill your childish obsession?