lewis is a top 10 atg heavyweight

[ADP02]

How is Larry Holmes not a competitive fight or Lennox Lewis?

Holmes fought in an era where the opposition was relatively weaker. On resume alone, Lewis has the edge.

[Banderivets]

Well the thread starter asked you if Lewis was a top 10 ATG heavyweight.

So it's really pointless talking about fiction and fantasy as opposed to who actually did what in which era.

What is actually the agreed upon criteria for ATG lists? I'm asking this in a serious, respectful manner.

[LacedUp]

What is actually the agreed upon criteria for ATG lists? I'm asking this in a serious, respectful manner.

I don't think there's a set criteria as per se.

Most historians will go after what the fighter did in his era and how good that era was, quality of opposition and when they fought each other (were they prime? past prime? shot? etc), overall skills, who did he lose to? when did he lose? did he avenge those losses?

It's a finer blend of a fighters career altogether.

[Banderivets]

Holmes fought in an era where the opposition was relatively weaker. On resume alone, Lewis has the edge.

But in all honesty, how many GREAT eras have there been?

This is where I find a problem with most HW era talks. How many decades were there outside of 60s/70s that were SO much better than say the 80s, 90s or even the dreaded 2000s?

[LacedUp]

Holmes fought in an era where the opposition was relatively weaker. On resume alone, Lewis has the edge.

If Holmes' resume is weaker, only slightly.

I don't think there's too much difference.

[LacedUp]

But in all honesty, how many GREAT eras have there been?

This is where I find a problem with most HW era talks. How many decades were there outside of 60s/70s that were SO much better than say the 80s, 90s or even the dreaded 2000s?

there's been a few great eras of heavyweight boxing.

[jas]

What is actually the agreed upon criteria for ATG lists? I'm asking this in a serious, respectful manner.

i would say its the most important criteria is resume particularly wins over hall of famers that were in and around their prime.

but then again many think roy jones is top 20 atg because h2h he would have beaten a lot of fighters but his resume isn't the best . could be because of poor era, him or opposition ducking.

other less important criteria can include ability, excitement (pacquaio won fighter of decade over mayweather), longevity (bernard hopkins), pure domination of an era (wlad), exceptional contribution to raising profile of the sport (ali), exceptional contribution outside the ring (ali), etc.

[New England]

What is actually the agreed upon criteria for ATG lists? I'm asking this in a serious, respectful manner.

for the specific weight classes i usually use the top 10 based on accomplishment and ability.


basically, you're giving value to who a fighter beat and when.


the "ATG" p4p by my definition are the top 100 fighters of all time based on ability and accomplishments.

[ADP02]

But in all honesty, how many GREAT eras have there been?

This is where I find a problem with most HW era talks. How many decades were there outside of 60s/70s that were SO much better than say the 80s, 90s or even the dreaded 2000s?

Not blaming Holmes but it is what it is.

[ADP02]

If Holmes' resume is weaker, only slightly.

I don't think there's too much difference.

There is a difference and I'm not only going by that. Furthermore, all I'm saying is that Lewis should be higher than Holmes. Not saying that Holmes doesn't deserve to be ranked high.