How many fighters of the last 15-20 years can be considered ATG's/legends

[BennyST]

I would imagine the toppest boxers for that duration of time would be considered so in more or less the same proportions that they always have been.

The notions of ATG and HOF can basically be defined as achievements against the criteria of the era.

In this case Lennox, Wlad, Vitali, PAc and Mayweather are ATG's along with Roy Jones, Oscar etc, w/o even a second thought.

There'd be a multitude of HOFers obviously.

I love that in that list of Lennox, Pac, Mayweather and Wlad you try to sneak Vitali in as if he belongs with those guys. Even Wlad is a step below those guys, despite being a HW ATG. Vitali doesn't belong in the same sentence though.

Vitali might be a HOFer, but he is no ATG on the level that you are making him out to be, and certainly not on the level of the rest of those guys.

[Elroy1]

I love that in that list of Lennox, Pac, Mayweather and Wlad you try to sneak Vitali in as if he belongs with those guys. Even Wlad is a step below those guys, despite being a HW ATG. Vitali doesn't belong in the same sentence though.

Vitali might be a HOFer, but he is no ATG on the level that you are making him out to be, and certainly not on the level of the rest of those guys.

There are extremely strong cases for Vitali being the GOAT HW of all time, and Wladimir also.

In fact in an achievement sense, Wladimir is simply the best of all time, likely not going to be toppled for around 100 years now either the bar has been raised so high this time.

As for Vitali, the guy has broken numerous records, having barely even lost a round of boxing, or ever being knocked down!

Both are immediate and unquestionable ATG's whether you like it or not, blind hatred is all you bring.

[Ray Corso]

........"ATG lists by most boxing fans are based off of what others said & little actual opinions of their own from what they've been able to witness themselves. I don't think that makes for a meaningful consensus".

One of the brightests post I've read on this forum.

The thought of Wlad & Vitali is laughable, just watch them perform they do NOTHING exceptional, they fought no one of value during their prime.
Its a joke to think of actually and only "fanboys" would dare elevate them to an ATG status.

Bernard to me is not an ATG,. most fans put him there but my opinion of his
performances for the greater percentage of his career isn't appreciated.

Tyson and Whitaker are alright with me because at their best they compete with ATG's. Barerra, Mosley, Moralas are at the edge and probably don't get there.

Pacman is the most interesting because I need to be place him in a weight class. He is NOT a welterweight, he would be brutal KO'd by greats because his defense or lack of would be exposed, quickly. I don't acknowledge the "junior" weight classes so Pac needs to at 135 or 126 and in those classes when he competed at those weights he doesn't rate!
I look at him as a great competitor and great entertainer but not an ATG fighter. He simply is to one dimentional for me.
Mayweather will be excepted as one and should be one but his matchmaking of himself and complete dictatorship over his career makes his worthyness a sham. He had the talent to be a great however where does he belong?
Welterweight? He gets destroyed by the greats, 135 possibbly a top 15 talent? Possibly! Does his skill level qualify him, Yes! Did he fight like an ATG, No!
So for me No!
Marquez, really? Solid competitor and a tactical fighter but a GREAT boxer, not to me.

I hold the expression GREAT in boxing very high and don't use it often. To me a solid competitor is a huge compliment especially with the current scene.
Great fighters are just about the "top Five" in each weight division and a few like Pacman who most feel needs to be mentioned honorably.

There doesn't need to be an ATG ever 10 years or during some fans era or their favorite.
Mayweather & Wlad are two huge names and champions and I understand their popularity. I also understand the over all skill level and how they reached their success. Mayweathert is an ATG matchmaker and an ATG promoter using the role of a "heel" from pro wrestling. Except Ali did many years ago and Jack Johnson long before him.

Dinner Time, roast chicken with dumplings and carrots with a tiny bit of molasses. Then a nap!

Ray Corso

[billeau2]

........"ATG lists by most boxing fans are based off of what others said & little actual opinions of their own from what they've been able to witness themselves. I don't think that makes for a meaningful consensus".

One of the brightests post I've read on this forum.

The thought of Wlad & Vitali is laughable, just watch them perform they do NOTHING exceptional, they fought no one of value during their prime.
Its a joke to think of actually and only "fanboys" would dare elevate them to an ATG status.

Bernard to me is not an ATG,. most fans put him there but my opinion of his
performances for the greater percentage of his career isn't appreciated.

Tyson and Whitaker are alright with me because at their best they compete with ATG's. Barerra, Mosley, Moralas are at the edge and probably don't get there.

Pacman is the most interesting because I need to be place him in a weight class. He is NOT a welterweight, he would be brutal KO'd by greats because his defense or lack of would be exposed, quickly. I don't acknowledge the "junior" weight classes so Pac needs to at 135 or 126 and in those classes when he competed at those weights he doesn't rate!
I look at him as a great competitor and great entertainer but not an ATG fighter. He simply is to one dimentional for me.
Mayweather will be excepted as one and should be one but his matchmaking of himself and complete dictatorship over his career makes his worthyness a sham. He had the talent to be a great however where does he belong?
Welterweight? He gets destroyed by the greats, 135 possibbly a top 15 talent? Possibly! Does his skill level qualify him, Yes! Did he fight like an ATG, No!
So for me No!
Marquez, really? Solid competitor and a tactical fighter but a GREAT boxer, not to me.

I hold the expression GREAT in boxing very high and don't use it often. To me a solid competitor is a huge compliment especially with the current scene.
Great fighters are just about the "top Five" in each weight division and a few like Pacman who most feel needs to be mentioned honorably.

There doesn't need to be an ATG ever 10 years or during some fans era or their favorite.
Mayweather & Wlad are two huge names and champions and I understand their popularity. I also understand the over all skill level and how they reached their success. Mayweathert is an ATG matchmaker and an ATG promoter using the role of a "heel" from pro wrestling. Except Ali did many years ago and Jack Johnson long before him.

Dinner Time, roast chicken with dumplings and carrots with a tiny bit of molasses. Then a nap!

Ray Corso

I hear you Ray. Inflation. back when I was coming up you worked your butt off and a black belt meant something. If you got to be a fifth dan or so, you were on the proverbial short list. I see guys now walking around with ten, twelve dans! Their skills, often enough are marginal at best.

There should be a level reserved for great fighters that does not compromise. There should also be a rank system in the arts based on experience.

[soul_survivor]

I pretty much agree with you and soul survivor on this. Not sure if Whitaker would qualify. Maybe if it was the last 25 years. How about Chavez? Was kind of the tail end of his career then too. I might even throw in Wlad and Vitali, for being dominant in their era. Could make a better case for Wlad if he retires as champ and beats Wilder to unify.

I'd definitely have Whitaker and Chavez as ATGs but not sure if they make it in to a list looking at careers specifically in the last 15-20 years. Their best work was in the 80s and the early 90s but hey, they fought in that time span so could easily be included in an ATG list.

Now, this may come as a bit left field but how about someone like Froch? Dies he qualify as an ATG? He id definitely HOF worthy but how about being regarded as a great fighter? He most definitely has the best smw resume of all time, trumping Joe, Eubank and Jones (who only really has the Toney win). Resume is a prime criteria.

What else? Skill - well Froch was quite basic but he had a terrific, low, fast jab and put together combinations as good as anybody. Popularity - one of the most popular fighters on the planet by the end of his career, impacting the sport, especially in the UK in a big way. Championships won, title reigns, lengths of reign(s) etc etc, he features highly in all those criteria. Beating Ward or fighting of the top light heavies would have put the argument beyond doubt.

What do you think?

[Ray Corso]

In all seriousness Froch? The WORST jab in the history of a well known pro fighter. Heres a guy with 33 fights? ATG's like Robinson fought 33 times in 3 months!!!!

Which ATG greats did he fight? How many times did he leave the safety of England 3 times?

How was his form, style, balance, combination punching, activity!

He fought middleweights who couldn't make weight anymore and were played out. Why didn't he move up to challenge the light heavyweight champs?
He is 6'+ its not like he's a short guy giving away size.
Please stop this garbage, Carl Froch is a club fighter who got matched accordingly and was a "home cooking" hero. He was willing and showed heart I'll give him that but to be an ATG you need to "great" not pretty good with heart. Froch is a C+ opponent for an ATG fighter nothing more.
Ray

[BKM-2010]

In all seriousness Froch? The WORST jab in the history of a well known pro fighter. Heres a guy with 33 fights? ATG's like Robinson fought 33 times in 3 months!!!!

Which ATG greats did he fight? How many times did he leave the safety of England 3 times?

How was his form, style, balance, combination punching, activity!

He fought middleweights who couldn't make weight anymore and were played out. Why didn't he move up to challenge the light heavyweight champs?
He is 6'+ its not like he's a short guy giving away size.
Please stop this garbage, Carl Froch is a club fighter who got matched accordingly and was a "home cooking" hero. He was willing and showed heart I'll give him that but to be an ATG you need to "great" not pretty good with heart. Froch is a C+ opponent for an ATG fighter nothing more.
Ray

So how many ATG's do you recall for the last 20 years Ray? Do you reckon that they can be counted on one hand?

[Ray Corso]

Yes! One hand -

A few overlap the 20 years with their best prior but everyone fades in the end. I do think theres young men right now that have a shot.
If Rigo can get off his azz and get going his talent is extreme but he will fade
from idleness too!
Roman Gonzales is a tremendous fighter but he will fade as most of the mini weights do. He needs to continue to box atleast 3 times a year and hopefully have quality to up against.
I like Crawford all though he remains raw he has instincts that might carry him through some rough goings until he gains more experience. He doesn't need to fight trial competition anymore. Their talking about fighting Pacman and I think Pac may need someone else to finish out his career with.
Lomo is another talent but like Rigo the guys stuck in mud!
For now GGG & Koval can help carry the sport but neither of them are ATG please no one go there. Their doing well because the competition level isn't strong at all.

ATG means that a man can compete on a high level with the greats that fought over a 125 year span. Being a top twenty guy is a huge accomplishment. Actually being in the top fifty means you were a very good fighter. Top one hundred are quality contenders when you think about how many men competed. Less than 1% are ATG's. ATG....means.....All Time GREATS not All Time GOODS
nite boys Ray

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I think the only true ATGs of the past decade or so are floyd, manny, roy, toney, with hopkins n marquez very close

[BKM-2010]

Hopkins seems to be getting the stick in this thread.