-
-
WTF....lol....................your fanboyism is out of control..........it was a fair question................................Originally posted by MmuhammadM View Post
leaves thread........Comment
-
To me an ATG is a fighter who could of been an elite great fighter in any era. Any era he would fight in from now to 100 years ago to 100 years from now. He would be great.
A HOF'er IMO is a great fight in his era and his era only. For example Fritzie Zivic is a HOF'er. I think he was a great fighter of his era but wouldn't be a great fighter in today's era. Shane and Oscar are great elite fighters of this era but wouldn't be great elite fighters in every era.
Corrales and Gatti IMO were not great elite fighters of their era. They were top very good fighters who were popular but not great elite on a consistent level. And, that is why I don't think they're HOF'ers.Comment
-
sorry, I went a bit out of control there. I think it is post rumble.Originally posted by STRUGG View Post
sorry forgive me.
Comment
-
NP.......yeah rumble was when the world doubted if Muhammad............can win against frazier destroyer foreman..............he dominated george.........i guess its when a fighter achieved something.......not deemed possible............when the whole world is watching...........what elevates an ATG further............ALi being one..............................Sugar ray (i disagree though/ i have marvin winning)Originally posted by MmuhammadM View Postsorry, I went a bit out of control there. I think it is post rumble.
sorry forgive me.Comment
-
Basically, the top ten boxers of each decade can be considered ATGs, but approximately the top 30 of each decade will eventually be inducted into the IBHOF.
I disagree with everyone putting Gatti and Corrales on the same level. Corrales was a much better fighter than Gatti with a much better resume. Corrales deserves to get in the hall of fame based on his accomplishments in the ring, Gatti does not.Comment
-
ATG's are the top HOF's..Comment
-
From Brian Wilbur.... (November 2008)
A "legend" is any one who has made an undeniable impact on boxing and will be remembered, but did not necessarily have to be "great". Legends are made by their fans and by the people who remember them. All of the great heavyweight champions like Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey are obviously legends. But a recent example is Naseem Hamed. Even though Hamed wasn't around long enough or accomplished enough to be great or a slam dunk hall of famer, his popularity was undeniable and his legend still grows.
A "hall of famer" is the easiest definition. It is anyone in the hall of fame. A future hall of famer is anyone who will surely be in the hall of fame when he is eligible. Not everyone in the hall of fame is a great or a legend though. You can go to http://www.ibhof.com for a list of hall of famers.
An "all time great" is the most exclusive club in my opinion. To be considered an all time great in my eyes you have to be considered one of the elite pound for pound fighters of all time. There are only about 10-15 heavyweights ever who I would consider an all time great. This generation, I would consider Oscar De La Hoya a legend and a future hall of famer but not an all time great. Floyd Mayweather had a chance for that exclusive status but he retired too early. Manny Pacquiao has a chance if he keeps up his current pace for a bit longer.Comment
-
A few more 'elitists', as you say, than just those three. Especially considering that some have greater or as great resumes as all three of them....yes, including Robinson.Originally posted by MmuhammadM View Postthen there's the elitists, so far only three qualify(arguably henry armstrong as well):
This position is impossible to achieve in the 21st century due to the erosion of boxing
Why is Greb not an 'elitist'? What about Pep, Duran, Charles, Benny Leonard?Comment
Tweet
Comment