Is Lennox Lewis considered an 'ATG Heavyweight'? This person says no.

[BattlingNelson]

Simple question: Define ATG.

[Simurgh]

Simple question: Define ATG.

I see ATG as TOP10 all time, and HOF as TOP20 all time. But this is just my personal definition.

[BattlingNelson]

I see ATG as TOP10 all time, and HOF as TOP20 all time. But this is just my personal definition.

That's fine, but factors included is also paramount. Is fantasy fights included? Social impact on his times? Or is it solely resume?

[WladsChin]

That's fine, but factors included is also paramount. Is fantasy fights included? Social impact on his times? Or is it solely resume?

ATG Heavyweight should be top 15 all time in the HW Division.

ATG Heavyweight should and IS a separate entity all together from the 'ATG' label overall.

Heavyweights don't have the luxury of dominating multiple weight classes and they don't have the luxury of P4P Lists... they are a different entity in itself.

ATG Heavyweight= One of the greats of that Division.

Most people generally have a 'ATG' Heavyweight as a top 10-15 fighter in the history of this Division. Some more lenient have top 20.

You should base this primarily on resume(as do most historians) but of course H2H abilities is also a bonus.

For instance.. Vitali Klitschko could very well be considered a borderline ATG Heavyweight... a lot of that had to do with his perceived H2H abilities/skill set and of course in his amazing losing effort against Old Lewis.

[Marvellous1]

That's fine, but factors included is also paramount. Is fantasy fights included? Social impact on his times? Or is it solely resume?

Social impact and fantasy fights are intangibles and more way too subjective.

Skill set, record, resume and achievements in respective eras are the safest way to go. Taking this account, I would say Lennox Lewis is a top 10 heavyweight in history to date.

[Simurgh]

That's fine, but factors included is also paramount. Is fantasy fights included? Social impact on his times? Or is it solely resume?

I don't rate only resumes. I do take into account my opinion on fighter's ability.

Also there is more than one way to rate someone's resume. For example some people rate only the best wins neglecting if the guy lost 5 or more fights along the way.

[bklynboy]

Simple question: Define ATG.

That's a good question. Some consider it to be a set number but I have problems with that. As time goes on there will be more and more great fighters. Should Ali or Joe Louis ever be taken off the ATG list even though in 100 years or 200 years arguments might be made that there are 10 fighters above them?


I think an ATG is several things. Best in an era is one of them. When one thinks of a time period, say 1900 to WWII there are iconic boxers for every division.

Middleweight: Fitsimmons, Ketchel, Greb, Flowers, Langford, Walker. At what point do they stop being ATGs?

Maybe including pre-WWI fighters complicates things too much as rules and referring has changed dramatically.

OK at what point do we cease to consider Marv Hagler an ATG? I would say never. As long as you're talking about 1980s boxing you think about Hagler.

Meh. This is getting too complicated. We'll let boxingscene people comment on this in the year 2113. They'll have a better take on the problem.

[BattlingNelson]

ATG Heavyweight should be top 15 all time in the HW Division.

ATG Heavyweight should and IS a separate entity all together from the 'ATG' label overall.

Heavyweights don't have the luxury of dominating multiple weight classes and they don't have the luxury of P4P Lists... they are a different entity in itself.

ATG Heavyweight= One of the greats of that Division.

Most people generally have a 'ATG' Heavyweight as a top 10-15 fighter in the history of this Division. Some more lenient have top 20.

You should base this primarily on resume(as do most historians) but of course H2H abilities is also a bonus.

For instance.. Vitali Klitschko could very well be considered a borderline ATG Heavyweight... a lot of that had to do with his perceived H2H abilities/skill set and of course in his amazing losing effort against Old Lewis.

I agree that when judging fighters through the years the all important parameter is resume.

If your criteria is top 15, then I think you will have a hard time excluding Lewis from your list. I would personally have him around no. 10.

[BattlingNelson]

Social impact and fantasy fights are intangibles and more way too subjective.

Skill set, record, resume and achievements in respective eras are the safest way to go. Taking this account, I would say Lennox Lewis is a top 10 heavyweight in history to date.

Skillset? That is IMO the most difficult thing to include.

Take Wlad for instance. He might not have the Best infighting Skillset, but he has a clinching technique that allows him to get away with it.

And what about Frazier. Even though his jab is somewhat underrated, he is certainly not among the great jabbers, but his pressure style would probably nullify several great jabbers and more technically Sound fighters.

So I think you should stick with resume only. Its hard enough to compare wins over different fighters in different eras as it is.

[beez721]

Lewis at his best beats any HW in history.

prime ali would have danced circles around him and foreman would have knocked him out but lewis is most def a top 10 atg. shouldnt be any doubt about that