Criteria for ATG

[The Gambler1981]

You can't put it into a points system or you would get ratings like boxrec. They've got Archie Moore as the GOAT.

Archie Moore is generally pretty under rated all time, you could make a case for him even if I don't really agree.

[MaD RoBoT]

on a serious note, I wanna know your Realistic criteria for ATG status, Can we do this in a civilized manner, I'm not trying and I'm sure other people aren't trying to read through condescending remarks. you can list your criteria in order of most important to least or just name some stuff.

1.)Resume, boxers that the fighter has beaten, regardless if you think they was prime or not, p4p top ten should get bonus points, and major belt champions (WBA, WBO,WBC and IBF )and not just who he fought but who be beat, if this was the case Augustus would be the greatest. 40% of ATG points
2.) Overall boxing skills, ( footwork, jab, power, power punches, body punches, defense, speed, stamina, combinations, ring presence, etc. 30% of ATG points
3.) How each boxers stack up to other top boxers in their division, past present and future. 20% of ATG points
4.) Natural talent and ability. 10% of ATG points.

Resume comes first, you have to had great names on your resume (all won in impressive fashion obviously)

[The Gambler1981]

It is an opinion based question~ so what opinion you have of guys plays a large role.

How can you quantify greatness, it ain't that simple.

[J Dubb II 330]

Let me ask you this should Pac get bonus points if he beats Martinez at 147?

I seen you ask this already, by the time I saw it the thread was at 17 pages, well IMO the fight would never happen at 147, it would have to be 154. Of course Pac gets points, any boxer right now who beats Martinez get mad bonus points. why do you ask

[jrosales13]

Harry Greb honestly could be argued as the GOAT. He has that type of resume. Only fighter at MW that can be said to have a better resume than SRR at MW. Really, the man beat like what? 12? 13 HOF'ers? That' is insane. did it with mostly one eye. However, there is no footage of him.

So since we really don't know about his skillset, even though there are footage of the HOF'ers he beat, skilled fighters like Tunney, and that he did it with just one eye, then you know he was a damn good fighter. And, even though by reports he had somewhat of a swarming fighter, pressure fighter, somewhat of a Duran style. But, still no footage that can show his skillset. But, still he's very easily a top 10 of all time. By most respectable and credible rankings he's in the top 3 with Langford and SRR.

But, if we going by the eye test, or skillset. Then he shouldn't even be ranked by some cuz' "all we have is resume"

[J Dubb II 330]

criteria 1. undefeated

criteria 2. ??????????

criteria 3. ??????????

floyd mayweather is my favorite fighter by the way. just a coincidence.

this thread has nothing to do with mayweather being my favorite fighter, don't be that guy

Resume comes first, you have to had great names on your resume (all won in impressive fashion obviously)

no doubt resume is the first key, but ATG is like p4p status, p4p is how your skills translate into other classes.

It is an opinion based question~ so what opinion you have of guys plays a large role.

How can you quantify greatness, it ain't that simple.

probably the best response this thread will see

[jrosales13]

I seen you ask this already, by the time I saw it the thread was at 17 pages, well IMO the fight would never happen at 147, it would have to be 154. Of course Pac gets points, any boxer right now who beats Martinez get mad bonus points. why do you ask

Never say never, at the end money talks, and Martinez might drain himself to fight him at 147. Or even at 150 where Martinez will still be weak.

And, I disagree Pac should not get credit for beating Martinez in those 2 weights.

Point is, is not about where one is rank on a mythical opinion based ranking. That ranking means shit, if you're not a top fighter at a division that you will fight in.

[The Gambler1981]

Also if you don't know a guy well enough to have an opinion on him beyond the numbers and names you should not really be commenting on their greatness.

Plus if you know more about current guys how can you judge them fairly against guys you barely know and have mythical sorts of numbers.

[Rick Grimes]

Harry Greb honestly could be argued as the GOAT. He has that type of resume. Only fighter at MW that can be said to have a better resume than SRR at MW. Really, the man beat like what? 12? 13 HOF'ers? That' is insane. did it with mostly one eye. However, there is no footage of him.

So since we really don't know about his skillset, even though there are footage of the HOF'ers he beat, skilled fighters like Tunney, and that he did it with just one eye, then you know he was a damn good fighter. And, even though by reports he had somewhat of a swarming fighter, pressure fighter, somewhat of a Duran style. But, still no footage that can show his skillset. But, still he's very easily a top 10 of all time. By most respectable and credible rankings he's in the top 3 with Langford and SRR.

But, if we going by the eye test, or skillset. Then he shouldn't even be ranked by some cuz' "all we have is resume"

You can't rate a fighter on reume alone, how many bad decisions have there been in boxing that you have seen alone? At what point were the opponents in their careers, performance. Need to be taken into consideration too.

[jrosales13]

no doubt resume is the first key, but ATG is like p4p status, p4p is how your skills translate into other classes.

So just out of curiosity where do you have guys rank like Greb, Mclarnin, Babados Joe Walcott, Charles Burley, Bob Fitzsimmons? Guys who there are just a little if any type of video footage?

Do you just skip them and put guys that you have seen more so ahead. Just because, you seen their skillset more?