How do you define ATG,, criteria??

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I know this has probably been brought up before, but im not very good with the search engine,,,

How i rank ATGs is h2h and then resume to clearly define a rank,, I usually ask myself who this fighter could beat at the absolute peak like tyson 86-88, manny 08-09, etc

point in case, i rank hearns higher than mcclarin because no doubt in my mind hearns would beat mcclarin,,, but mcclarin and oscar are close, but i give the edge to mcclarin due to his resume

Roy jones, tyson, and floyd have weak resumes compared to other ATGs but h2h they are nightmares for alot of people, same with the klitchkos,,,

So basically i use "who could beat who" and when its close i use resume and career achievements



what do you guys use to gauge ATG rankings

[IronDanHamza]

I consider the Top 100 (or so) fighters to be ATG. Of course that consistently grows because more ATG's emerge but it's around that number. Hard to gauge really because I don't have a list of 100 (or so) definitive ATG's so it's hard to say especially for the boarderline guys. I just go with the rough estimate usually of where I'd rank a guy.

As for how I rank them, I go by resume first, who they beat and more importantly when. Added to their skills and overall ability.

[LacedUp]

I consider the Top 100 (or so) fighters to be ATG. Of course that consistently grows because more ATG's emerge but it's around that number. Hard to gauge really because I don't have a list of 100 (or so) definitive ATG's so it's hard to say especially for the boarderline guys. I just go with the rough estimate usually of where I'd rank a guy.

As for how I rank them, I go by resume first, who they beat and more importantly when. Added to their skills and overall ability.

I can't disagree with Dan.

[New England]

i said this earlier in the history thread today:

the top 100 fighters of all time based on accomplishments and ability.

[Ben Bolt]

what do you guys use to gauge ATG rankings

Basically, who's an ATG or not is defined only by our own subjective opinion.
Some choices seem to be obvious, such as SRR and Ali, but whoever you or I exemplify as an ATG, it's still based on our personal opinion.

And very dependant on which time we grew up in. For ex., young boxing fans of today, who have lived through an era when Klitschkos ruled the heavies, will always claim the bros are ATGs.

Who is right or who is wrong when selecting an ATG will probably always be a cause for discussion.

[joseph5620]

I consider the Top 100 (or so) fighters to be ATG. Of course that consistently grows because more ATG's emerge but it's around that number. Hard to gauge really because I don't have a list of 100 (or so) definitive ATG's so it's hard to say especially for the boarderline guys. I just go with the rough estimate usually of where I'd rank a guy.

As for how I rank them, I go by resume first, who they beat and more importantly when. Added to their skills and overall ability.

I really can't think of anything else to add here. Over the last few days I have seen some people trying to rewrite what an ATG is. It can't be based on fantasy fights. It should be based on what they actually have done.

[JAB5239]

I really can't think of anything else to add here. Over the last few days I have seen some people trying to rewrite what an ATG is. It can't be based on fantasy fights. It should be based on what they actually have done.

Those same people will claim ABC top 10 fighters have meaning and should be counted as true world title defenses in comparison to fighters who fought the best of the best when there was only one title. Everyone wants their era to stand out and fighters the grew up with to be the best. No objective person holds paper title defenses above a singular champions defenses. Unify a title or be the single best fighter in your division and you can make. Other than that its absurd in my opinion.

[BattlingNelson]

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?

[JAB5239]

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?

Maybe, but we have to take into consideration the levels of depth and skill are deeper in some divisions than others.

[BattlingNelson]

Maybe, but we have to take into consideration the levels of depth and skill are deeper in some divisions than others.

Absolutely. That is why I wrote on the average. The newer divisions should have a lot fewer making the cut than the original 8,