Tweet
A remark about 'skill': I find that pretty hard to rank or rather understand how to rank. I mean you can have a boxer with limited footwork, few combinations etc. but an enourmous amount of say punching power. What can be done here? Here we have one attribute that if it comes in a large proportion it is clearly an equalizer.
-
-
Divisions have more depth than others like Jab said. And sometimes just because you're a Top 10 at a weight doesn't necessarily make you an ATG and vice versa.
I have Lewis #12 at HW but I wouldn't consider him an ATG in general.
On the flipside I had Hopkins as a Top 10 MW, a division with great depth but I didn't consider him an ATG in general after his MW reign.
It all depends on what you do as a fighter just because you're ranked in the top 10 of a division doesn't make you an ATG or vice versa.
People have different standards on ATG's. Mine are quite high.Comment
-
There's no way everybody can agree on a specific cutoff and criterias.Originally posted by IronDanHamza View Post
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.Comment
-
What did they accomplish? Against whom? What were their abilities?
Basically what New England said.Comment
-
It's all subjective, really. In the past year or so I've put a big emphasis on making sure I rate fighters on their resumes vastly more than anything else. It's the only fair judgement, IMO. A fighter 80 years ago probably wouldn't be a force now due to progression of sports science and in-ring techniques, etc. Also, we don't have the luxury to view some of the older guys such as Greb, Langford, Jeanette, Wills and so on; another reason why I feel a mainly resume-based ranking system works best. Of course, that's not to say you should completely disregard skill (whenever you can see it).
I don't agree with Dan saying the top 100 guys, or whatever, are ATGs. I don't think there is a set number or a cut off point, per se. If a guy has enough great wins, he is worthy. If he doesn't, he isn't. Simple. I already knew that mine and Dan's definition and method of ranking ATGs differed, though, as we had a debate over **** Tiger several months ago. Possibly one over Jake LaMotta, too.Comment
-
It isn't you. The search engine blows and anything anybody finds with it is purely accidental.Originally posted by Sugar Adam Ali View PostComment
-
For the record, as far as ATGs go I only rank within divisions not p4p. No set quota or limits on number. I try to achieve a synthesis between the resume school of thought and the ability school of thought.Comment
-
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?Comment
-
ATG is a term like "Solid State technology". It sounds great but has no definition. Like "State of the Art". The is no rule to define it. Probably used too much.Comment
-
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 eraComment
Comment