Can you be considered an ATG when these are your 10 best wins?

[-EX-]

Their resumes may be weak on an All Time Great level but it would be a bit interesting to see how the K Brothers would do against better heavyweight opposition...I don't think Wlad would fare too well, especially if that chin gets touched good...

[JAB5239]

norton didnt dominate ali in the 1st and 3rd fights lol???you cant be serious.norton deserves arguably 3 wins over ali.how is that not domination lol.he kicked ali's ass.norton ali 3 is a top 5 robbery in this sport

Norton won the first fight after breaking Ali's jaw early. The second two fights were competitive, in no way did he dominate Ali. If it makes you feel better I thought Norton won the 3rd, but it was still a competitive fight. Just like Byrd Vittles. By your logic Byrd would have done better in a second fight. I notice you didn't reply back to that post.

[JAB5239]

Their resumes may be weak on an All Time Great level but it would be a bit interesting to see how the K Brothers would do against better heavyweight opposition...I don't think Wlad would fare too well, especially if that chin gets touched good...

For all my haters (not you) saying I have an agenda against Vits...

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=590528

[New England]

Walcott was champion and Charles was 32.

both were very clearly past their best.

[JAB5239]

both were very clearly past their best.

While I wouldn't argue to adamantly about Charles, I disagree about Walcott. His first fight with Marciano was an excellent showing till getting sparked in the 13th.

[BattlingNelson]

Of course it matters. Otherwise it wouldn't be reasonable to question and ridicule those posters saying Vitali is an ATG. I mean what if their defintion of ATG is top 100? Or maybe top 30. In both cases only bonafide haters or noobs wouldn't have him as an ATG.

Now concerning your list well it's not that bad. It's made several years ago so Wlad wold probably be higher today. How you ranked Vitali then and now is still a mystery, but he is likely far away from the top 20 given all the ridicule you have dished out.

The list might be close to some general historical consensus, but there's some points that should be made in the context of this being a Klitschko thread. Jack Dempsey, Jim Jeffries and other old timers never fought the best opposition due to the colour barrier. If they did it's quite possible their record would be different. That should detract from their standing.

Schmeling, while being the best of the pre Louis era is likely not top 20 but close. He has that magical Louis win, but there's also some losses that should detract.

Several other points could be made. As you know you can critisize any record by personal preference and so be it.

I dont have a clear cut top 20 myself, but there's fighters in the above list that I rate below Vitali, so hed make my list.

Whether that makes him an ATG in my book.... No. I reserve that distinction to the creme de la creme.

Yeah we still need to know Jab's ranking.

[BattlingNelson]

If you look at his quotes on my sigs, we can conclude that he doesn't see Klitimir and Lewis as ATG's. He says it's about body of work and dominance, yet he thinks it's debatable that Holmes is an ATG also???

The guy is completely inconsistent.

How about he gives a list of his top 20 instead of asking everyone else for theirs.

I'm perfectly consistent.

So are you by making ******ed posts on a daily basis.

[JAB5239]

Yeah we still need to know Jab's ranking.

Yeah, Im all over that. You show me your ranking and I'll show you mine.

[BattlingNelson]

Yeah, Im all over that. You show me your ranking and I'll show you mine.

I just told you he made my top 20.

[JAB5239]

I just told you he made my top 20.

That's not good enough. We need to see where you rank him exactly, who you have before and after him, why they're rated where they are and the criteria you use to come to these conclusions. I mean if you don't provide all this it could very well mean you have an agenda. Get crackin son!