What makes for ATG longevity or peak dominance

[Francis M.]

Just Wanted to see everyones point of view...

[Robbie Barrett]

Longevity means nothing if you don't have dominance.

[Elroy1]

Depends..

PEak dominance is kind of like a one hit wonder song, shines brightly for a moment and then gone, like Tyson.

Longevity like Evander Holyfeild and Ali winning and losing all the time isn't exactly great either.

There are only really 3 HW's in recent history (modern times) that satisfy both conditions.

Wladimir Klitschko
Vitali Klitshko
Lennox Lewis

They were both long lived AND peak dominant champions in a league of their own.

[ИATAS]

Viagra.
___________

[VG_Addict]

What makes an ATG is a great resume.

[Boxing Goat]

I think the best ability at a peak performance is the most important in a H2H sort of way. Longevity is more a resume' building type of stat. I tend to favor H2H all time matchups personally.

[Elroy1]

What makes an ATG is a great resume.

"ATG" is an utterly worthless assessment for any boxer comparison at all.

It is/should be considered nothing more than an "honorary" title.

It is basically achieved observably by being the or one of the best boxers in your division in your era.

THAT^^^ is exactly how it's always been achieved period and there's really no other criteria is could be achieved by.

Resume has nothing to do with it. Proven by the fact that B level boxers today have better resumes than almost ALL ATG's did.

[VG_Addict]

"ATG" is an utterly worthless assessment for any boxer comparison at all.

It is/should be considered nothing more than an "honorary" title.

It is basically achieved observably by being the or one of the best boxers in your division in your era.

THAT^^^ is exactly how it's always been achieved period and there's really no other criteria is could be achieved by.

Resume has nothing to do with it. Proven by the fact that B level boxers today have better resumes than almost ALL ATG's did.

Resume has nothing to do with it? Resume has PLENTY to do with it. Anybody can look good fighting bums.

You become the best by beating the best. That's why resume is so important.

[soul_survivor]

Just Wanted to see everyones point of view...

It's a mixture of both to be a truly high ranking ATG. Take someone like Tyson, who is ranked in the bottom half of most people's top 50. He had an immense peak performance(s). He was the most feared man on the planet for 3-4 years and seen as the most dominant heavyweight ever. Then he had a slow ,decade long decline and he never managed to grab that spark again.

Then turn to Ali, in most people's eyes the greatest heavyweight of all time who had a brief period at the top as the "untouchable". He came back and lost a couple times, had his jaw broke and looked vulnerable...he looked human but then went on to win the title again and stay champion for an extended period of time when he was the best again but clearly past his best.

So it's a combination of the two.

[Elroy1]

Resume has nothing to do with it? Resume has PLENTY to do with it. Anybody can look good fighting bums.

You become the best by beating the best. That's why resume is so important.

Every champion beats the best. Otherwise they would not be champs at all. And the longer they've been champs for, the more of the best they've beat.

This is what I'm saying, resume is era specific and you an only achieve ATG against the fighters in your era. Therefore it is worthless for a comparison and the "ALL TIME" part of it is totally false!

Some ATG's achieved the status without EVER facing a decent opponent!