What criteria makes an "ATG"? Specific as possible

[aboutfkntime]

FACT: good historians deserve WAAAAAY more credit than they get

[Bundana]

FACT: good historians deserve WAAAAAY more credit than they get

You mean, we should respect people like Mike Silver, Tracy Callis, Nat Fleischer - and be thankful for the insight they bring/brought to the table?

[Eff Pandas]

Wow. I am finding out that there is actually quite a bit of pushback on the very nature of this category.

So Dempsey, Robinson, for example, they do not belong in a category with other fighters who we consider the best ever?

No. They, like Floyd, Manny, Hagler & SRL, are simply among of the best of their era. If you wanna throw them in that category fair play, but trying to put a # on the guys in that type of category is silly.

Think about this logically. The sport wasn't even the same sport back then. The time was very different. The opportunity was different. The money was different. You can't realistically compare boxers from different decades when so many of the variables in play varied greatly even the rules & regulations of the sport itself.

And this isn't even touching on how goofy it is to try to **** measure guys historically you've never see fight at all or only a handful of times. Imagine you try to judge a guy like Manny or Tito on their 5 best or 5 worst fights. You are likely to overestimate or underestimate them greatly. And that's the knowledge the overwhelming majority of folks who talk about this are operating under.

[aboutfkntime]

You mean, we should respect people like Mike Silver, Tracy Callis, Nat Fleischer - and be thankful for the insight they bring/brought to the table?

meaning that you know absolutely nothing about this sport, you little crybaby

why are you soooooo butthurt ?

go on... explain EXACTLY what I said, that ripped you another a55hole?






btw, I am sick of your ******ity

I guess you are aware of that fact at this point LMAO

[billeau2]

nope, just the majority

keep thinking that dumb kids on the internet know more than dedicated professionals LMAO

Your reading comprehension is horrible. Keep embarrassing yourself

[Bundana]

meaning that you know absolutely nothing about this sport, you little crybaby

why are you soooooo butthurt ?

go on... explain EXACTLY what I said, that ripped you another a55hole?






btw, I am sick of your ******ity

I guess you are aware of that fact at this point LMAO

Why the hostility?

I'm trying to have a civil discussion with you - and this is how you react?

[billeau2]

the guy I replied to in the post above... said exactly that

he is trolling... he has to date, not replied to one query. You had asked about why people are name calling, etc... Your witnessing the reason as we write.

Dude has no reason, but a bug up his rear to come into the thread and pull a Queen B.

[Bundana]

he is trolling... he has to date, not replied to one query. You had asked about why people are name calling, etc... Your witnessing the reason as we write.

Dude has no reason, but a bug up his rear to come into the thread and pull a Queen B.

The sad thing is, that there are actually people who post here, in the hope of a frank and sincere exchange of opinions.

Is it any wonder, that so many good posters have given up on this forum?

[billeau2]

No. They, like Floyd, Manny, Hagler & SRL, are simply among of the best of their era. If you wanna throw them in that category fair play, but trying to put a # on the guys in that type of category is silly.

Think about this logically. The sport wasn't even the same sport back then. The time was very different. The opportunity was different. The money was different. You can't realistically compare boxers from different decades when so many of the variables in play varied greatly even the rules & regulations of the sport itself.

And this isn't even touching on how goofy it is to try to **** measure guys historically you've never see fight at all or only a handful of times. Imagine you try to judge a guy like Manny or Tito on their 5 best or 5 worst fights. You are likely to overestimate or underestimate them greatly. And that's the knowledge the overwhelming majority of folks who talk about this are operating under.

Well... there is nothing wrong with determining that you cannot compare fighters across eras. Im actually rethinking this... I personally am undecided... I sure like the sound of "great in every era" but you make a good point.

Regarding your second point: I personally believe that as the rules changed, boxing became less about the "fight" and more abstract as a sport. The original fighters were grapplers, fought at all ranges, did more things and were more sociologically "fighters" than athletes.

On this third point... There is ignorance about how judging fighters works (Not on your part, please do not misunderstand my point here). The truth is that a lot of people like to be hip so they say things like "Charley Burley" and give you a look like they just solved the riddle of physics at a ****tail party while talking to Einstein and Bohr lol.

And then there are fighters we don't have tape on... thats a problem. Even fighter we do have tape on, there are whole stretches missing, like Robinson @ lightweight... BUT the truth is if you know your shizzle you can tell a lot about a fighter from tape. A real lot...

[billeau2]

The sad thing is, that there are actually people who post here, in the hope of a frank and sincere exchange of opinions.

Is it any wonder, that so many good posters have given up on this forum?

No sir, it certainly isn't a wonder. I just put him on ignore because of his last response to you... You happen to be one of the more knowlegable posters here... If he had any sense he would see that your knowledge of the sport... reflected in the trivia questions put fourth among other such things is exemplory.

Also, it went over his pin of a head, but I informed him that I am a "professional" lol because I have been paid money for articles published...And that technically is what a professional is lol.