Where do you rate Floyd in ATG p4p list?

[DJ Enerate]

Weak.

Every single guy I named is going to the HOF eventually.

How do YOU define ATG?

And, as I said, if age or physical prime is your gauge Floyd has at least 4 names that fit that criteria.

But, more than that he has some of those wins when he himself WAS NOT in his physical prime.

But, that would be still another thing that would render your idiocy transparent.

You can stop digging this hole anytime you like.

Generally ATG's are in the top 100. They usually get broken down into tiers. Top tier ATG's etc. Hof fighters arnt always considered ATG's btw. Gatti is no where near in the top 100 of ATGs and he's a hall guy. Hatton, Castillo, Cotto and Corrales will never be considered ATG'S even if they get in the hall one day.

Its a fact Floyd hasn't beat a prime ATG. A few more of his opponents getting in the hall won't change that.

The ATG's Floyd beat are Pacquiao, Marquez and Oscar. Pacquiao is considered top 50 range. Marquez and Oscar are at the 70/80 range. None of them were prime. Mosley might just crack the top 100 as well but he wasn't prime either. Alvarez has a chance but they will say he was green.

It's tough to crack the top 100, man. Even James Toney just makes it in ffs. As I said, the likes of Castillo, Cotto and Hatton could get in the hall of fame one day but there is Zero chance of them ever being considered ATG's.

[Johnny2x2x]

HOF is the definition of All Time great, it's not Floyd's fault his era didn't have any other top 10 all time fighters. Heck, maybe if Pacquaio would have beaten Floyd he'd have been top 5 All Time. Once again, people hold Floyd to a different standard than any other fighter.

Compare the SRL vs Hagler fight vs the Floyd vs Oscar fight.

Hagler was 33, Oscar was 34. Floyd moved up in weight to fight Oscar, SRL moved up in weight to fight Hagler.

SRL made all kinds of ridiculous demands and got them, massive 12 oz gloves, massive 22X22 ring, 12 rounds instead of the standard at the time 15 rounds. Leonard had several non head gear real matches behind closed doors. The fight ended in a controversial split decision that many think Hagler won to this day. Leonard reportedly said that to Hagler that Hagler had won that fight.

There was no controversy in the Mayweather fight. MAyweather gave Oscar every advantage, his gloves, his ring, everything.

Why is SRL's win over Hagler better than Floyd's win over Oscar? The answer is that it's not.

[koolkc107]

What the f**k does high rank mean logically with anything? Realistically top 10-30 usually. I know you ain't that slow. You a waste of my time now.

Meanwhile, in the keeping it 100 department....

Floyd...top 20-30 in the ATG rankings. Chopped up without bias by myself and Iron Dan.

You are clearly biased.

And you are clearly one of those folks who DKSAB but want to act like they do.

Been nice owning you.

Come back for more anytime.

[koolkc107]

Generally ATG's are in the top 100. They usually get broken down into tiers. Top tier ATG's etc. Hof fighters arnt always considered ATG's btw. Gatti is no where near in the top 100 of ATGs and he's a hall guy. Hatton, Castillo, Cotto and Corrales will never be considered ATG'S even if they get in the hall one day.

Its a fact Floyd hasn't beat a prime ATG. A few more of his opponents getting in the hall won't change that.

The ATG's Floyd beat are Pacquiao, Marquez and Oscar. Pacquiao is considered top 50 range. Marquez and Oscar are at the 70/80 range. None of them were prime. Mosley might just crack the top 100 as well but he wasn't prime either. Alvarez has a chance but they will say he was green.

It's tough to crack the top 100, man. Even James Toney just makes it in ffs. As I said, the likes of Castillo, Cotto and Hatton could get in the hall of fame one day but there is Zero chance of them ever being considered ATG's.

But again, even your definition might be a little too vague.

Do you mean top 100 fighters who ever fought?

If that is the case, how often are 2 of the top 100 ever going to cross paths and when the two are both in their prime?

And is that an accurate measure of real greatness?

How often have we gotten Ali-Frazier I or Hearns-Leonard I?

If those fights are so rare, then why do we act like it is some kind of detrimental thing to not face another prime ATG?

The proper stance is to make your case that the fighter fought and beat elite competition. That who they fought was among the best available at that time.

Larry Holmes is an ATG, one that is in the discussion of GOAT heavys. Yet, a look at his resume finds it short of other ATGs faced in their prime. Are we ready to say Larry was not great because of this?

If they actually did the rare thing and faced another ATG in their prime, so much the better. But it is not the end all and be all when considering greatness.

More often, when you hear this rolled out as a talking point, it is the refuge of shortsighted and simpleminded pseudo-fans who are unable to find any other blemish or shortcoming in a fighter.

We also disagree about who is an ATG.

If I say Jose Luis Castillo is an ATG lightweight, that isn't arguable.

If I say Miguel Cotto is an ATG multi-divisional champion, not too much can be said in rebuttal to that either.

So when we say ATG in their prime, we are severely limiting the possibilities if we translate ATG to mean top 100 of all time.

I do agree about not everyone in the HOF automatically being an ATG.

However, I think Castillo and Cotto are undisputedly ATGs and I think good arguments could be made for Corrales and Hatton.

[nubianpiye]

To 5 maybe to three certainly the best I've seen in my life

[hugh grant]

HOF is the definition of All Time great, it's not Floyd's fault his era didn't have any other top 10 all time fighters. Heck, maybe if Pacquaio would have beaten Floyd he'd have been top 5 All Time. Once again, people hold Floyd to a different standard than any other fighter.

Compare the SRL vs Hagler fight vs the Floyd vs Oscar fight.

Hagler was 33, Oscar was 34. Floyd moved up in weight to fight Oscar, SRL moved up in weight to fight Hagler.

SRL made all kinds of ridiculous demands and got them, massive 12 oz gloves, massive 22X22 ring, 12 rounds instead of the standard at the time 15 rounds. Leonard had several non head gear real matches behind closed doors. The fight ended in a controversial split decision that many think Hagler won to this day. Leonard reportedly said that to Hagler that Hagler had won that fight.

There was no controversy in the Mayweather fight. MAyweather gave Oscar every advantage, his gloves, his ring, everything.

Why is SRL's win over Hagler better than Floyd's win over Oscar? The answer is that it's not.

Floyd taking g risks is very few and far between. And so calculated. Maybe he didn't think dlh was that good. And at lmw past porime, dlh was just OK, nothing special. Floyd rated nelo higher that's why the cw, but in reality nelo was only OK as well. Not really tested.
Hagler one of best middleweights ever, ever so slightly out oif prime.
So don't ask silly questions!

[djtmal]

Yeah a lot of guys have deep resumes.

But then some guys have solid resumes but great consistency. Like a Monzon for example, no prime ATG's but beat everyone and alot of top level very good fighters, and some passed prime but still top level great ones.

Then you've got the skill factor, I watch Hagler and I can say he has the tools to beat any Middleweight. But is his resume better than Robinsons? Not IMO but who would I pick to win that fight? I'd pick Hagler.

It's hard with so many factors involved but I'm with you resume is the most important.

Robinson is before my time, but Manny Steward on more than one occasion picked Hagler to beat him, and ranked him #1 all-time @ middleweight.

I think its fair how we systematically broke both fighters down and placed them in atg rankings no unbiased boxing aficionado would not object to too much.

[Johnny2x2x]

Floyd taking g risks is very few and far between. And so calculated. Maybe he didn't think dlh was that good. And at lmw past porime, dlh was just OK, nothing special. Floyd rated nelo higher that's why the cw, but in reality nelo was only OK as well. Not really tested.
Hagler one of best middleweights ever, ever so slightly out oif prime.
So don't ask silly questions!

12 oz gloves? 22 x 22 ring size? 3 rounds short of a championship fight in length? And this was Hagler's last fight ever, he was more over the hill at 33 than OScar was at 34 or even Mosely was at 36.

I'm just saying, look at all fighters with the same eye, SRL, Duran, and SRR all have ***** on their resume if you hold them to the same standard people are trying to hold Floyd to. Over time people just forget them. Either forget them for all fighters and judge just based on the record, or look at every flaw for all fighters the same. Either way Floyd holds up well. The only way you can hold Floyd outside your top 10 is if you're judging him to a completely different standard than the rest of the top 10.

[djtmal]

Generally ATG's are in the top 100. They usually get broken down into tiers. Top tier ATG's etc. Hof fighters arnt always considered ATG's btw. Gatti is no where near in the top 100 of ATGs and he's a hall guy. Hatton, Castillo, Cotto and Corrales will never be considered ATG'S even if they get in the hall one day.

Its a fact Floyd hasn't beat a prime ATG. A few more of his opponents getting in the hall won't change that.

The ATG's Floyd beat are Pacquiao, Marquez and Oscar. Pacquiao is considered top 50 range. Marquez and Oscar are at the 70/80 range. None of them were prime. Mosley might just crack the top 100 as well but he wasn't prime either. Alvarez has a chance but they will say he was green.

It's tough to crack the top 100, man. Even James Toney just makes it in ffs. As I said, the likes of Castillo, Cotto and Hatton could get in the hall of fame one day but there is Zero chance of them ever being considered ATG's.

You sir, know what's up. Much respect.

[DJ Enerate]

But again, even your definition might be a little too vague.

Do you mean top 100 fighters who ever fought?

If that is the case, how often are 2 of the top 100 ever going to cross paths and when the two are both in their prime?

And is that an accurate measure of real greatness?

How often have we gotten Ali-Frazier I or Hearns-Leonard I?

If those fights are so rare, then why do we act like it is some kind of detrimental thing to not face another prime ATG?

The proper stance is to make your case that the fighter fought and beat elite competition. That who they fought was among the best available at that time.

Larry Holmes is an ATG, one that is in the discussion of GOAT heavys. Yet, a look at his resume finds it short of other ATGs faced in their prime. Are we ready to say Larry was not great because of this?

If they actually did the rare thing and faced another ATG in their prime, so much the better. But it is not the end all and be all when considering greatness.

More often, when you hear this rolled out as a talking point, it is the refuge of shortsighted and simpleminded pseudo-fans who are unable to find any other blemish or shortcoming in a fighter.

We also disagree about who is an ATG.

If I say Jose Luis Castillo is an ATG lightweight, that isn't arguable.

If I say Miguel Cotto is an ATG multi-divisional champion, not too much can be said in rebuttal to that either.

So when we say ATG in their prime, we are severely limiting the possibilities if we translate ATG to mean top 100 of all time.

I do agree about not everyone in the HOF automatically being an ATG.

However, I think Castillo and Cotto are undisputedly ATGs and I think good arguments could be made for Corrales and Hatton.

Plenty of the top 100 faced off btw but prime for prime is rare.

You dont have to beat a prime great to get in the top 100 but you do to be considered top tier.

A lot of these shortsighted and simple minded pseudo-fans you talk down to have spent hundreds of hours studying film and the records of hundreds of boxers. It's clear you haven't studied much film of the ATG'S and HOF boxers of history, or looked much into their records. It's you who is the ignorant one here after that comment I'm afraid. To me you come across as a huge Floyd fan who's a tad salty that your boy Floyd isn't considered top tier by a lot of the history geeks ? It seems to me you believe they look to put him down with their ranking systems. The reality is they know he and many others fall short of top tier in resume after studying the sport in depth. Most rank Floyd top tier H2H and know he has a great resume. It's only the great win/wins on his record Floyd falls short on.

Castillo and Cotto are not ATG's and it's absolutely absurd to think Corrales and Hatton have good arguments to be made for being ATG's. Let's here your case for Hatton being an ATG then ?