If you have no list and no history of the sport, how can you determine a ATG?

[Citizen Koba]

I do not have a list and that is why i respectfully stay out of those conversations

Good man. I don't either for what it's worth.

Don't do P4P either, except in the loose way of having a general idea of who the best few guys are in no real order. Meaningless bullchit the way I see it.

I do keep a loose running idea of who's who in each division - y'know, like guys who might potentially actually meet in the ring rather than fantasy nonsense, but aside from that I just enjoy the fights.

[KillaMane26]

Guys don't fight enough and Guys dont fight other ATGs enough to be mentioned as a ATG.

Yall throwing out ATG so easily is disrespect to all the true ATGs. Especially if we talking P4P.

Being a ATG at a specific weight class would be a little more easy to crack.

But like i said how can u surpass ATG boxers who beat mutiple ATG opponents???

[Boxing_1013]

I think the only way you can really do it is to compare guys based on how well they did in their eras...too much is different nowadays, and to think that some of the guys from the past could even compete with some great fighters today...I mean I just don't see that...seems like romanticizing the past to me....guys today are bigger, stronger, faster, better conditioned...not to mention fighting at a weight class that in the past would have been too small for them...with cutting weight etc.

So yeah with that, I think you can compare guys from this era and others and make a determination as to who are the ATGs...I don't think you need to have a top 100 list, but you should know the top 10 or so all-time in any division, and what they did, if you really want to sound credible.

[tjones1989]

The eye test yo. If a fighter looks good that's all you need man.

[Boxing_1013]

Guys don't fight enough and Guys dont fight other ATGs enough to be mentioned as a ATG.

Yall throwing out ATG so easily is disrespect to all the true ATGs. Especially if we talking P4P.

Being a ATG at a specific weight class would be a little more easy to crack.

But like i said how can u surpass ATG boxers who beat mutiple ATG opponents???

Idk man...I don't think many real ATGs even had that many fights against other ATGs...and usually when that happens, they win as many as they lose...I've researched a lot of that stuff before, and rarely have I found that any ATG, or any fighter, has actually fought more than 3 or 4 ATGs/had that many fights with ATGs...it just rarely happens that 2 prime ATGs are around at the same time and same division...and then on top of that they have to actually fight.

I think you would have to expand the definition of ATG a bit to get to the point where any fighter has fought a lot of ATGs...and then to have beaten a lot of them on top of that...I mean I can't really recall one off the top of my head who has like 5 wins over guys like that.

And by that I mean a prime, ATG, at his natural weight.

[Zaryu]

I agree with OP. I try to refrain from giving too many opinions regarding old time fighters and all time great lists because there are certain eras I just don't know much about, and I don't really have ATG lists or anything like that.

I don't keep a p4p list either, but you can always ball park (p4p and ATG) based on what you know, you just shouldn't act like you k how it if you don't have the proper historical knowledge and a list to back up your rankings.

[Boxing_1013]

I agree with OP. I try to refrain from giving too many opinions regarding old time fighters and all time great lists because there are certain eras I just don't know much about, and I don't really have ATG lists or anything like that.

I don't keep a p4p list either, but you can always ball park (p4p and ATG) based on what you know, you just shouldn't act like you k how it if you don't have the proper historical knowledge and a list to back up your rankings.

Honestly I think all it takes is a few minutes watching film on a guy to know what you think about him...I think you can be informed without making it your life.

[Bad_Guy]

Who the **** are you to dictate what criteria others need to use in determining an ATG? OP acting like he's some boxing authority for whom we must all qualify our opinions for his judgment. **** off

[Zaryu]

Honestly I think all it takes is a few minutes watching film on a guy to know what you think about him...I think you can be informed without making it your life.

Well, it doesn't have to be your life, but you would be missing a lot of context by just watching a few minutes of film.

I think that's how a lot of people come to the conclusion that modern fighters are better than legitimate ATGs.

[Boxing_1013]

Well, it doesn't have to be your life, but you would be missing a lot of context by just watching a few minutes of film.

I think that's how a lot of people come to the conclusion that modern fighters are better than legitimate ATGs.

I disagree...I think in that few minute period you should see either 1) something that makes you take notice or 2) something that makes you realize this past great could not really compete in the modern era.

Of course watching more tape is always helpful, but in my experience it usually is the same story with more film...have to make sure you are watching the best version of that fighter though.

I think the belief that past greats could compete with great modern fighters is a bit misguided...not only are they bigger, stronger, faster, better trained/conditioned etc...but a guy fighting at 160 today would have really fought at 175 years ago.

To say the smaller, worse trained, slower, weaker, etc fighter would be by far the better fighter compared to today's greats is, I mean I just don't really see how people can really make that point...I don't think most past greats could beat modern great fighters a weight class or 2 down...I certainly don't see how it is possible for them to do it the other way around.