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

[LacedUp]

Adamek beating Moorer?

I've heard it all.

[billeau2]

I used to think he worked at being ******, now I think its a natural thing!

I would be willing to bet a lot of money that Elroy knows virtually nothing abot Michael Moorer...including his skills, his reputationat the Konk gym, and how some consider him on the short list of great light heavies.

[Elroy1]

Adamek beating Moorer?

I've heard it all.

Er, Moorer has very few notable wins compared to Adamek.

In fact completely objectively without any "opinion" we can safely say Adamek has a resume approximately 20x as good as Moorer.

In fact the only win of Moorers that is even relevant to speak of here happens to be his Holyfield one!!

Fancy that!

Could it be you NEED Moorer to be greater than Adamek, because by admitting Adamek crushes Moorer, what you OBVIOUSLY know is true beyond any doubt, you are FORCED to question Holyfield!!



You and your OTNB mates have just been cornered.

You know what I would say right...

I'd say.. "case closed!"

[billeau2]

Adamek beating Moorer?

I've heard it all.

Dont ya see? Adamek is a modern fighter...brought from the ravages of a place where no American marketing can distort...Moorer on the other hand is a vapid production out of that boxing bollywood known as the Konk gym. Those fellows, like Hearns are nothng compared to the upright olmpic champions like lazlo pap!!!!!

[Bundana]

........"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 agree that the term GREAT should be used with caution and only be bestoved upon truly exceptional boxers, who have earned that label through their accomplishments in the ring... though I can't say, that I share your reluctance to name Manny and Floyd ATGs. In the years to come, I find it hard to believe, that they will not be seen as such!

But then again, I suppose it depends on how few we want to restrict this to. Guys like Greb, Louis, Robinson, Armstrong, Ali (plus many more) are of course locks in anybody's book (I would think!)... but then we have "borderline" cases, where people may disagree. A prime example is Wladimir, who some feel is a future ATG - while others feel he's not even close to that!

Out of curiosity (and to get a better idea of where you stand on this) I wonder, if there are any of the 6 HOFers below you wouldn't call an ATG?

Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
Barney Ross
Freddie Steele
Pascual Perez
Emile Griffith
Oscar De La Hoya

[billeau2]

Er, Moorer has very few notable wins compared to Adamek.

In fact completely objectively without any "opinion" we can safely say Adamek has a resume approximately 20x as good as Moorer.

In fact the only win of Moorers that is even relevant to speak of here happens to be his Holyfield one!!

Fancy that!

Could it be you NEED Moorer to be greater than Adamek, because by admitting Adamek crushes Moorer, what you OBVIOUSLY know is true beyond any doubt, you are FORCED to question Holyfield!!



You and your OTNB mates have just been cornered.

You know what I would say right...

I'd say.. "case closed!"

case closed indeed you show how you will **********...at a meager exchange I may add...any line of fantasy you call reasoning...to edge for something even so trivial as triangle theory.

Moorer does have a weak resume. So does Vitali. So do other fighters, including Vlad to many. You just painted yourself into a corner in a desperate attempt to appear "right" even on a trivial matter.

[LacedUp]

Er, Moorer has very few notable wins compared to Adamek.

In fact completely objectively without any "opinion" we can safely say Adamek has a resume approximately 20x as good as Moorer.

In fact the only win of Moorers that is even relevant to speak of here happens to be his Holyfield one!!

Fancy that!

Could it be you NEED Moorer to be greater than Adamek, because by admitting Adamek crushes Moorer, what you OBVIOUSLY know is true beyond any doubt, you are FORCED to question Holyfield!!



You and your OTNB mates have just been cornered.

You know what I would say right...

I'd say.. "case closed!"

Moorer beat Bonecrusher Smith, Bert Cooper, Axel Shultz, Vaughn Bean and Frans Botha all at very good guys at heavyweight - Not to mention Evander Holyfield of course.

Adamek might have gotten decisions against Chambers, Cunningham and guys like that but really he lost. Not sure if you've seen those fights. Even against someone as basic as chad dawson he lost.

At heavyweight his best win is 250 lbs Arreola - I mean, good fighter and all, but not impressive at all. Then he's fought the McBrides and Michael Grants of the world, guys who were at least 10 years past their prime.

All of that, as well as Michael Moorer is simply a much much better fighter than Adamek, a southpaw with power in both hands and a lot of skill.

I respect Adamek, good fighter. but he does not beat Moorer.

And you are talking about other posters being racist. Don't go there Elroy. You know why.

[Elroy1]

Moorer beat Bonecrusher Smith, Bert Cooper, Axel Shultz, Vaughn Bean and Frans Botha all at very good guys at heavyweight - Not to mention Evander Holyfield of course.

I never said Moorer never beat any good opponents, those were good opponents. But they are also all of them ones Adamek would have beaten easily, or in the case of Botha, he would have atleast been able to beat him.

Adamek might have gotten decisions against Chambers, Cunningham and guys like that but really he lost. Not sure if you've seen those fights. Even against someone as basic as chad dawson he lost.

Chad Dawson was a very good LHW, it's pretty lowly of you to diss that loss, especially considering it wasn't even a heavy loss.

And to even question the quality of Chambers opens another can of worms for OTNB to have to wade through, so I doubt you'd really wanna go there.

At heavyweight his best win is 250 lbs Arreola - I mean, good fighter and all, but not impressive at all. Then he's fought the McBrides and Michael Grants of the world, guys who were at least 10 years past their prime.

Past prime Grant? Haha! Spin! Grant was bloodhy Grant as he ALWAYS was you fool! If not better! Adamek's resume is comparable to Holyfields and approximately 20x better than Moorers. How can you spin it otherwise!

All of that, as well as Michael Moorer is simply a much much better fighter than Adamek, a southpaw with power in both hands and a lot of skill.

Moorer was a squared up slugger at LHW who was featherfisted at HW. He was basically a similarly skilled and styled fighter to Adamek and Holyfield was to be fair, except without the chin!

In terms of HW, all 3 guys are featherfists but only Adamek have the heart, toughness to perservere.

Moorer was basically a freebie knockout for any major HW with power, which is why he never really fought any if he could help it.

Adamek took on giants and flogged the crap out of them!

I respect Adamek, good fighter. but he does not beat Moorer.

It is utterly disrespectful to posit that Adamek does not beat Moorer, and insane.

And you are talking about other posters being racist. Don't go there Elroy. You know why.

Racism is one of the fuels of the OTNB terror cell it as no place in my objective assessments free of any bias.

As for comments from that "Bill" bloke, all are simply handwavable.

[LacedUp]

I never said Moorer never beat any good opponents, those were good opponents. But they are also all of them ones Adamek would have beaten easily, or in the case of Botha, he would have atleast been able to beat him.

Chad Dawson was a very good LHW, it's pretty lowly of you to diss that loss, especially considering it wasn't even a heavy loss.

And to even question the quality of Chambers opens another can of worms for OTNB to have to wade through, so I doubt you'd really wanna go there.


Past prime Grant? Haha! Spin! Grant was bloodhy Grant as he ALWAYS was you fool! If not better! Adamek's resume is comparable to Holyfields and approximately 20x better than Moorers. How can you spin it otherwise!

Moorer was a squared up slugger at LHW who was featherfisted at HW. He was basically a similarly skilled and styled fighter to Adamek and Holyfield was to be fair, except without the chin!

In terms of HW, all 3 guys are featherfists but only Adamek have the heart, toughness to perservere.

Moorer was basically a freebie knockout for any major HW with power, which is why he never really fought any if he could help it.

Adamek took on giants and flogged the crap out of them!

It is utterly disrespectful to posit that Adamek does not beat Moorer, and insane.

Racism is one of the fuels of the OTNB terror cell it as no place in my objective assessments free of any bias.

As for comments from that "Bill" bloke, all are simply handwavable.

"would have" - How would he have beaten those guys, say Bert Cooper, easily when he struggled heavily and should have taken a loss against a one-armed eddie chambers? How? Bert Cooper was quick, powerful and vicious. He threw punches from every angle. Adamek wouldn't have gotten past him, nevermind Moorer.

He was an OK LHW, and he was never as good as Moorer who would have flattened Dawson in a couple of rounds if they ever fought. Yet, Dawson beat Adamek.

I like Eddie Chambers a lot. but he's no damn Michael Moorer, that's for sure.

How is it spin? At his best, he was beating Andrew Golota, who was a good fighter. By the time he came around to Adamek, his days on HBO were a decade away and so was his last recognizable win.

Featherfist Oh dear. In comparison to who exactly? The KO machine that was Tomasz Adamek or? Moorer had infinitely more skills than Adamek who was a very basic fighter. Tough, but basic.

"giants" oh dear. yeah giant bums.

[boxingnut712]

I never said Moorer never beat any good opponents, those were good opponents. But they are also all of them ones Adamek would have beaten easily, or in the case of Botha, he would have atleast been able to beat him.



Chad Dawson was a very good LHW, it's pretty lowly of you to diss that loss, especially considering it wasn't even a heavy loss.

And to even question the quality of Chambers opens another can of worms for OTNB to have to wade through, so I doubt you'd really wanna go there.




Past prime Grant? Haha! Spin! Grant was bloodhy Grant as he ALWAYS was you fool! If not better! Adamek's resume is comparable to Holyfields and approximately 20x better than Moorers. How can you spin it otherwise!



Moorer was a squared up slugger at LHW who was featherfisted at HW. He was basically a similarly skilled and styled fighter to Adamek and Holyfield was to be fair, except without the chin!

In terms of HW, all 3 guys are featherfists but only Adamek have the heart, toughness to perservere.

Moorer was basically a freebie knockout for any major HW with power, which is why he never really fought any if he could help it.

Adamek took on giants and flogged the crap out of them!



It is utterly disrespectful to posit that Adamek does not beat Moorer, and insane.



Racism is one of the fuels of the OTNB terror cell it as no place in my objective assessments free of any bias.

As for comments from that "Bill" bloke, all are simply handwavable.

Wow just wow. This chap is either drunk, or needs a drug test.