What criteria makes an "ATG"? Specific as possible

[JAB5239]

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.

Good post!

[Marchegiano]

Hmm, this became quite interesting.

I am not a big fan of popular opinion or academic authority, but I am pretty big on peer review.

I am an inventor, chemist, and engineer. I love science, and my second favorite subject has to be history. I became a boxing fan because of history actually and reading about the exploits of Yankee Sullivan, John Morrissey, and Bill Pool. I enjoy quite a lot of what academia has to offer and appreciate scholarly work but what is really frustrating in science or history is he with the biggest **** dictates academic consensus. Y'all notice as new generations of historians and scientists take over they change the way people think about the same old subjects with little to no new knowledge or discovery? That's my beef. Historians and scientists are both guilty of going against a fundamental aspect of the scholarship; they search for specifics to prove. Semantics and credentials controls academia, which Feyman quit for a while, and also why I am not big on academic authority.

As far as popular opinion goes, **** that ****. Popular opinion is dumb and uneducated. As a group we take some dumbass stances. Remember the atkins diet? Mother ****ers who do **** like that, fall for every marketing stunt, don't really ever have anything of worth or thought to say. People's whose posts are always just their opinions, people who only ever post surface level information like Marciano has his 0 or Louis reigned forever etc without ever saying anything that shows they did more than read a wiki; useless. I scroll right on.

Peer review is different. Here, in this small section of the forum where only a few post, we are mostly posters with some knowledge to us and that is, for me, the most impression I get out of any source. I like when I agree with a historian or author, I enjoy when the masses are parroting my words, but who or what will get me to change my mind is usually a fellow history poster. I can tell myself this author sucks and that author is good because I like that more than this. I can tell myself casuals don't know ****. Here it is more difficult to allow myself to believe the person I'm talking to doesn't know what they are talking about.

It is frustrating oh some of us know some stuff and act like small children all the same, but, at least they are knowledgeable....sometimes.

[BattlingNelson]

Resume is the major determinant. That may account for say 70%.

Second would be impact on society. An intangible that may be even more difficult to measure. Let’s say that accounts for 20%.

Third and final determination should be popularity or recognition factor. That would amount to the final 10%.

[slicksouthpaw16]

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.

Ward is a bit more complicated IMO, he didn't beat any ATGs but several very good, solid fighters/champions of this era, but he wasn't in the game long enough to warrant ATG status to me (just my opinion). I think had he gotten the Calzaghe fight, that would have made him a better case. I agree about Jones, his dominance was more comparable to Leonard's in a sense that he didn't stay at a single division for a very long time, but beat prime ATGs while getting titles in higher weight classes.

[billeau2]

Ward is a bit more complicated IMO, he didn't beat any ATGs but several very good, solid fighters/champions of this era, but he wasn't in the game long enough to warrant ATG status to me (just my opinion). I think had he gotten the Calzaghe fight, that would have made him a better case. I agree about Jones, his dominance was more comparable to Leonard's in a sense that he didn't stay at a single division for a very long time, but beat prime ATGs while getting titles in higher weight classes.

That is true about Ward... I held out for him based on Kovalev but it does not look like it is in the cards for Kovalev. The type of dominance displayed by Ward in primary weight class was exemplory... But Kovalev did not turn out to be such a dominant fighter that could have given Ward that fellow ATG fight.

[billeau2]

Resume is the major determinant. That may account for say 70%.

Second would be impact on society. An intangible that may be even more difficult to measure. Let’s say that accounts for 20%.

Third and final determination should be popularity or recognition factor. That would amount to the final 10%.

You covered youre Arse well with the percentages!

I say this because there are fighters like Gatti who have these two categories minus the first covered in spades.

Resume is indeed very very important... But that sort of brings us full circle. I truly wonder how we can judge resume universally.

[DeeMoney]

Hmm, this became quite interesting.

I am not a big fan of popular opinion or academic authority, but I am pretty big on peer review.

I am an inventor, chemist, and engineer. I love science, and my second favorite subject has to be history. I became a boxing fan because of history actually and reading about the exploits of Yankee Sullivan, John Morrissey, and Bill Pool. I enjoy quite a lot of what academia has to offer and appreciate scholarly work but what is really frustrating in science or history is he with the biggest **** dictates academic consensus. Y'all notice as new generations of historians and scientists take over they change the way people think about the same old subjects with little to no new knowledge or discovery? That's my beef. Historians and scientists are both guilty of going against a fundamental aspect of the scholarship; they search for specifics to prove. Semantics and credentials controls academia, which Feyman quit for a while, and also why I am not big on academic authority.

As far as popular opinion goes, **** that ****. Popular opinion is dumb and uneducated. As a group we take some dumbass stances. Remember the atkins diet? Mother ****ers who do **** like that, fall for every marketing stunt, don't really ever have anything of worth or thought to say. People's whose posts are always just their opinions, people who only ever post surface level information like Marciano has his 0 or Louis reigned forever etc without ever saying anything that shows they did more than read a wiki; useless. I scroll right on.

Peer review is different. Here, in this small section of the forum where only a few post, we are mostly posters with some knowledge to us and that is, for me, the most impression I get out of any source. I like when I agree with a historian or author, I enjoy when the masses are parroting my words, but who or what will get me to change my mind is usually a fellow history poster. I can tell myself this author sucks and that author is good because I like that more than this. I can tell myself casuals don't know ****. Here it is more difficult to allow myself to believe the person I'm talking to doesn't know what they are talking about.

It is frustrating oh some of us know some stuff and act like small children all the same, but, at least they are knowledgeable....sometimes.

As a long time history teacher, and one who has written a number of works on academia you got some karma from me, and I wanted to bold your whole opening paragraph as agreeing with it. I got into it with some at work the other day, to which I concluded with them saying "the path to mediocrity is paved with best practices" (which I think echoes the sentiment you are writing with).

Moreover, just because someone is deemed top in their field doesnt make them infallible; heck Bill Belichick has lost over 250 times as a head coach so I guess being the best doesnt make you right all the time.

[BattlingNelson]

You covered youre Arse well with the percentages!

I say this because there are fighters like Gatti who have these two categories minus the first covered in spades.

Resume is indeed very very important... But that sort of brings us full circle. I truly wonder how we can judge resume universally.

It's just my personal criterias. Percentages may vary a bit.

Regarding Gatti, you're clearly talking about IBHOF, which to me is a completely different thing than ATG. IMO it's far more easy to be a HOF'er than an ATG. The interesting here may be that the popularity parameter I stipulate, may also be used in the HOF selection and in the case of Gatti (and McGuigan and others), has weighed in with a massive part far more important than resume.

That's why IBHOF is watered down for me.

[billeau2]

It's just my personal criterias. Percentages may vary a bit.

Regarding Gatti, you're clearly talking about IBHOF, which to me is a completely different thing than ATG. IMO it's far more easy to be a HOF'er than an ATG. The interesting here may be that the popularity parameter I stipulate, may also be used in the HOF selection and in the case of Gatti (and McGuigan and others), has weighed in with a massive part far more important than resume.

That's why IBHOF is watered down for me.

I aware of the difference Batts, I was just yanking your chain lol. Irony is hard to convey sometimes. Your point is well taken. I mean My feeling is judging ATG takes experience and eventually we all do it correctly, at least essentially correctly. That is the power of consensus.

I don't personally have a problem giving the HOF to more watered down criteria, as long as people understand the difference you enunciated above.

[Dr. Z]

A lot of things.

Title defenses.
# of Ring Magazine top ten contenders beaten.
Few losses, and if they happen they should be to other top fighters.
Longevity
Fighters who took time off and returned year later to reclaim a championship.
Winning belts in different weight classes ( No jr or super divisions )