Does anyone here have an ATG list?

[Weltschmerz]

Unless there are any posters who are like 85-100 years old on here, no one should have a top 100 ATG list.......but plenty of people like to pretend so if you like then have at it and make lists about fighters you have never even seen fight before.

This is what I keep coming back to. These pretenders can make all the lists they want, who gives a shit at the end of the day. We all know more or less who should be in the top ten from a historical, statistical whatever perspective, why keep going on about it. It gets tedious and yeah, literally old.

[Spray_resistant]

This is what I keep coming back to. These pretenders can make all the lists they want, who gives a shit at the end of the day. We all know more or less who should be in the top ten from a historical, statistical whatever perspective, why keep going on about it. It gets tedious and yeah, literally old.

Me? I admit I am not knowledgeable at all about boxing before the late 90's. I am 29 I started watching boxing in 1997 and am good on what happened in fights shortly before then and after until now. I don't pretend like so many here that I went back and watched thousands of fights to be informed enough to make top 100 ATG list which I doubt anyone here has done.

[LacedUp]

I deleted that list it was outdated. I think Manny and JMM deserve to be in the top 50.

Maybe Chavez is ranked a little high but I think you can make a case for him being a 6 time world champion in 3 different weight classes.

Here's the updated list but like I said it's subjective, just depends what you fancy but I believe those fighters deserve to be in the top 50.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Joe Louis
5. Willie Pep
6. Roberto Duran
7. Benny Leonard
8. Jack Johnson
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Sam Langford
11. Joe Gans
12. Sugar Ray Leonard
13. Harry Greb
14. Rocky Marciano
15. Jimmy Wilde
16. Gene Tunney
17. Mickey Walker
18. Archie Moore
19. Stanley Ketchel
20. George Foreman
21. Tony Canzoneri
22. Barney Ross
23. Jimmy McLarnin
24. Joe Frazier
25. Marcel Cerdan
26. Ezzard Charles
27. Jake LaMotta
28. Julio Cesar Chavez
29. Sandy Saddler
30. Terry McGovern
31. Billy Conn
32. Jose Napoles
33. Ruben Olivares
34. Emile Griffith
35. Marvin Hagler
36. Eder Jofre
37. Thomas Hearns
38. Larry Holmes
39. Oscar De La Hoya
40. Evander Holyfield
41. Ted "Kid" Lewis
42. Alexis Arguello
43. Carlos Monzon
44. Pernell Whitaker
45. Manny Pacquiao
46. Roy Jones Jr.
47. Bernard Hopkins
48. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
49. Erik Morales
50. Juan Manuel Marquez

Greb @ #13? Potentially best resume of all times? Can't see it.

[LacedUp]

This is what I keep coming back to. These pretenders can make all the lists they want, who gives a shit at the end of the day. We all know more or less who should be in the top ten from a historical, statistical whatever perspective, why keep going on about it. It gets tedious and yeah, literally old.

Yeah for you:

1: Klitschko
2: Klitschko
3.... Don't know anyone else - So I'll just criticize people who do.

[M Bison]

Unless there are any posters who are like 85-100 years old on here, no one should have a top 100 ATG list.......but plenty of people like to pretend so if you like then have at it and make lists about fighters you have never even seen fight before.

True lol, you can only watch so many of the old fights and even at that some of the footage is so terrible that its hard to get a proper just say on things...

I think a lot of these ratings are biased and in favour of guys simply because it was in the past and we're no longer ever going to get to see them compete again live.
Personally even think the historians are biased in that retrospect they don't necessarily say why a past great fighter would beat a modern great, perhaps it could be true but its a subjective manner which could be turned around the only problem I have is the nostalgiatards having a fit when you say a modern great would beat someone like Muhammad Ali.

So in other words you are talking about things you really don't know anything about and are accepting word of mouth as fact.

I've said this before about people and I've been guilty of it in the past, sometimes people will need to investigate into things themselves to get their own opinion totally agree with you.

Green K sent.

[komodo]

So in other words you are talking about things you really don't know anything about and are accepting word of mouth as fact.

It's supposed to be an 'all time greatest' list not just your time or what 'you' know about the sport. If you ask most people on here who's ATG number 1 they will most likely say SRR even though there's hardly any footage of him in his prime. Does that mean we should just forget his accomplishments because he didn't fight in our era?

Like I said there's plenty of ATG lists out there and if you don't know about a certain fighter you can always read up on their career or watch whatever footage is available otherwise you get people with Floyd and Klitschko in their top 5.

[komodo]

Greb @ #13? Potentially best resume of all times? Can't see it.

That's the ESPN list. Like I said you can play around with the positions as you see fit but all these guys deserve to be in the top 50.

[Spray_resistant]

It's supposed to be an 'all time greatest' list not just your time or what 'you' know about the sport. If you ask most people on here who's ATG number 1 they will most likely say SRR even though there's hardly any footage of him in his prime. Does that mean we should just forget his accomplishments because he didn't fight in our era?

Like I said there's plenty of ATG lists out there and if you don't know about a certain fighter you can always read up on their career or watch whatever footage is available otherwise you get people with Floyd and Klitschko in their top 5.

To make any kind of credible list you would have to watch thousands of fights and to surmise any fighters career how many fights would you have to see of just that one fighter? 10 at least I would say and we are talking about a top 100 you would have to watch at least more than that to compare.

Anything less than doing that is making things up and playing follow the leader, it is just easier to admit you are in no way qualified to make such a list.

As far as footage goes, no footage no rating, can't rate a fighter I have never seen fight and don't care what some news paper article written over 100 years ago says because in the modern era people do it on boxrec all of the time reading results about fights they have never seen.

[sugarsmosley]

ATG of this generation

manny
floyd
roy
whitaker
hopkins
lewis
oscar
wlad

[MrTambourineMan]

No list per se, but these are the fighters I'd definitely include If I were ever to compile a List:

Sugar Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong
Harry Greb
Willie Pep
Joe Gans
Benny Leonard
Ezzard Charles
Roberto Duran
Muhammad Ali
Bob Fitzsimmons
Mickey Walker
Archie Moore
Kid Gavilan
Barney Ross
Tony Canzoneri
Jimmy McLarnin
Ray Leonard
Marvin Hagler
Joe Louis
Jose Napoles
Joe Walcott
Carlos Ortiz
Pernell Whitaker
Ike Williams
Abe Attell
Sandy Saddler
Salvador Sanchez
Julio Ceasar Chavez
Kid Chocolate
Jimmy Wilde
Pancho Villa
Bob Foster
Michael Spinks
Gene Tunney
Manny Pacquiao
Tommy Hearns
Ricardo Lopez
Carlos Monzon
Wilfredo Benitez
Marco Antonio Barrera
Erik Morales
**** Tiger
Stanley Ketchell
Tiger Flowers
Jake LaMotta
Alexis Arguello
Eusebio Pedroza
Fighting Harada
Carmen Basillio
Ruben Olivares
Panama Al Brown
Manuel Ortiz
Carlos Zarate
Eder Jofre
George Foreman
Oscar De La Hoya
Aaron Pryor
Evander Holyfield
"Jersey" Joe Walcott
Larry Holmes
Matthew Saad Muhammad
Lennox Lewis
Benny Lynch
Marcel Cerdan
Jack Dempsey
Joe Frazier
Niccolino Locche
Bernard Hopkins
Floyd Mayweather
Mike Tyson
Juan Manuel Marquez
Freddie Steele
Ted "Kid" Lewis
Emile Griffith
Billy Conn
Terry McGovern
Jack Johnson
Michael Carbajal
Jack "Nonpareil" Dempsey
George Dixon
Beau Jack
Floyd Patterson
Azumah Nelson
Khaosai Galaxy
Mike McCallum
Sonny Liston
Wilfredo Gomez
"Panama" Al Brown
Humberto Gonzales

These and the dozens of other names that are alluding me at the moment.

Would be extremely difficult to study ( Not to mention time-consuming ).

And then go about ranking each individual.