What criteria makes an "ATG"? Specific as possible

[Anthony342]

No one believes internet ****heads are "better" than dedicated professionals.

But not all non-professionals are morons. There are lots of serious fans, who have not published books or written for magazines - but who have been following boxing for years and years. If I find, that they are truly into the history of the sport (rather than just pushing some silly agenda), I will listen with interest to what they have to say.

As will I and I will also learn about the sport from them. That's why I come to the history section and ask questions here, to learn about the sport of boxing and I usually quite enjoy it, when the trolls don't ruin it for everyone. You, for instance, are one of my favorite and knowledgeable posters here. You've been gone too long man. Good to see you back here.

[Anthony342]

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?

I take it that's why you don't come around as much either.

[Anthony342]

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...

I didn't even realize that's a real guy. I don't know if you ever watch The Simpsons, but you just reminded me of a reference they did when one of the kids is watching TV and an announcer says "coming up next, the boring world of Niels Bohr" And do you mean Robinson at welter?

[Bundana]

I take it that's why you don't come around as much either.

Exactly!

I'm in my late 60s, and have been passionately intersted in boxing for more than half a century. I'm too old to have some punk troller badmouthing me (like in this thread)... so no, I don't post here as often as I used to (though I follow everything that is being discussed!).

By the way... thanks for your kind words!

[billeau2]

I didn't even realize that's a real guy. I don't know if you ever watch The Simpsons, but you just reminded me of a reference they did when one of the kids is watching TV and an announcer says "coming up next, the boring world of Niels Bohr" And do you mean Robinson at welter?

Bohr was very real... some of us maintain he was a lot smarter than Einstein lol.

I thought it was at lightweight that we don't have good footage of Robinson, I could be mistaken, I will check later I promise... Just feeling lazy right now lol.

[Anthony342]

Exactly!

I'm in my late 60s, and have been passionately intersted in boxing for more than half a century. I'm too old to have some punk troller badmouthing me (like in this thread)... so no, I don't post here as often as I used to (though I follow everything that is being discussed!).

By the way... thanks for your kind words!

You got it. I tend to put them on ignore. Forums need to have a block feature, like social media does so posters also can't see your posts or respond to them. Otherwise, it kinds of makes the ignore feature pointless.

[thebrownbomber_]

Beating the best of your era during your championship reign (what the likes of Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson have done during their championship reigns, compared to wilder who has ducked the likes of AJ, Old klitchsko, etc)

[billeau2]

Beating the best of your era during your championship reign (what the likes of Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson have done during their championship reigns, compared to wilder who has ducked the likes of AJ, Old klitchsko, etc)

This seems to be the criteria most agreed upon. My problem is when we look closely at it we have to account for different divisons, there are differences in the level of competition. But it makes sense... For example, if we look at Lewis, he took on all commers, even forgoing a silly mandatory with Ruiz to do so...

[slicksouthpaw16]

I think it boils down to 3 things. Championships, Opposition and length of dominance, its just that simple to me. Even a fighter that dominated in a weak era, can be considered an ATG because of him clearing out his division and having a long reign, just like Wladimir. On the other hand, if a fighter didn't have a long, continuous reign but beat countless ATGs with Multiple titles, can also be considered. Think Ray Leonard. I believe that doing of these even individually, is enough to be considered.

[billeau2]

I think it boils down to 3 things. Championships, Opposition and length of dominance, its just that simple to me. Even a fighter that dominated in a weak era, can be considered an ATG because of him clearing out his division and having a long reign, just like Wladimir. On the other hand, if a fighter didn't have a long, continuous reign but beat countless ATGs with Multiple titles, can also be considered. Think Ray Leonard. I believe that doing of these even individually, is enough to be considered.

Nice post... Green K. How about along with the bolded considering degree of dominance? So, we have Roy Jones, and I would add Ward, both guys were dominant in their divison and beat the compettion up consistently. Jones easily beat Toney and Hopkins, among others... As opposed to guys who won but with no degree of dominance.