Does anyone here have an ATG list?

[NChristo]

Used to enjoy making lists but as I learned more about the sport that **** just becomes a chore, far too much work too go into making a legitimate list and I can't just throw a quick one together because I'd be constantly criticizing it and get frustrated that I can't make my mind up on where to put who.


A lot of work and the only reward would be a debate that goes nowhere.
**** Em.

[Showtime..]

It's not easy to make a list when I haven't seen 95% of the guys on it fight. At-least I have a summer to watch up on old Boxing Clips.

[soul_survivor]

I been actually working on one for a month now, but instead of the obvious and what usually is the general consensus of who's the best, i'm researching heavy and trying to find old articles, magazines and books, fight tape, old rankings of each division to see what the great fighter fought who and at what time to accurately make the best list without being biased for one fighter or another.

Also i saw this video of a panel discussing who there pound for pound best all time were, found it interesting about how they rank fighter, resume or resume and skillset, or if they fought a fighter in his prime.

good video and great points! post your list when ur done

You can create your own list based on the fighters you have seen. There's no way to see footage of a top 100 best boxers of all time. #1 reason is that some don't even have footage on their fights, or don't have enough.

Also it could be someone's opinion that Wlad can beat Louis/Ali/Johnson on sheer size/height in relation to style, or that Mayweather can beat Armstrong/Duran/Benitez, or Hopkins would beat Hagler/Hearns/Leonard @ 160.

In the end it's all opinionated and there's no reason to agree on some historian's list, make your own based on your knowledge of boxing and who you have actually seen enough of that you could judge their careers.

I do have a list, and I totally agree that some part of a list can be based on subjectivity b ut at the end of the day, there are some n ames that are set in stone and although it's ideal to see guys fight, there are some names and what they've achieved that they deserved to be placed in a top 50.

personally, h2h is never a great way of making a list, its a good category but far below other points such as resume, best wins, number of title wins and title reign.

So what's yours TS?

here's mine : http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=608842

It's not easy to make a list when I haven't seen 95% of the guys on it fight. At-least I have a summer to watch up on old Boxing Clips.

do it!

[soul_survivor]

BUMP!

[Akuza Da Root]

I seen people put Pacquaio higher than Floyd, also many are saying Carl Froch deserves to be in the list and exclude the man that beat him pretty easily.

Anyway I do not have an ATG list but I watch Robinson, Lomatta, Greb, pep, Armstrong and a couple guys fights and I see why skill wise they are at the top. Also their stamina and will to fight for 15 or sometimes more rounds is pretty much something note.

[M Bison]

I seen people put Pacquaio higher than Floyd, also many are saying Carl Froch deserves to be in the list and exclude the man that beat him pretty easily.

Anyway I do not have an ATG list but I watch Robinson, Lomatta, Greb, pep, Armstrong and a couple guys fights and I see why skill wise they are at the top. Also their stamina and will to fight for 15 or sometimes more rounds is pretty much something note.

I thought longevity was also apart that was meant to be took into these fictitious P4P list that people go so mad about?
I also thought it was subjective... No need to go crying about what someone else has picked

[Weltschmerz]

How do you measure ATG for starters?

[Akuza Da Root]

I thought longevity was also apart that was meant to be took into these fictitious P4P list that people go so mad about?
I also thought it was subjective... No need to go crying about what someone else has picked

Subjective but rarely being lineal champion, not many defense, getting put to sleep can not propel you over fighters, that have accomplished the opposite. In my subjective opinion..

[Croyd]

Too many people here go on about who is a great fighter and who isnt and who should be ranked higher but I never see any lists from anyone, just 100 page threads of BS and criticism. So let's have it, post a list then.

I wish I could post one but I am not educated on any fighters pre-1980's.
I have seen the movie Cinderella Man and I watched Ali-Frazier 1.
That's about the extent of my boxing knowledge pre-1980's so for me I can't even try to put together an ATG list yet.

[New England]

How do you measure ATG for starters?

i consider the "ATG" the top 100 fighters in history based on accomplishments and ability. what's most important is figuring out a way to evaluate, give value to, and compare "who was beaten, and when."