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

[KillaMane26]

Yeah I hear ya man...I mean I confess I don't really know enough about most of these guys, even what exactly they did in their eras, to really say where I think they should be pfp all-time.

Some greats performing great in one fight seems to stick out to me and kind of cements their legacy in a way, for me...Duran over Leonard in fight 1...SRL over Hagler...Ali over Foreman...maybe I rate those types of performances too much...but those types of big risk, great performance type stuff really impresses me, and I tend to hold those guys up to a higher level than most other greats.

I agree it is a bit easier sometimes to compare greats within one weight class...I feel a little more comfortable doing that usually..but if I said I had a real opinion on any fighter who fought before 1950 I would be lying...I just don't know enough about them and what they did in their eras...I don't know how to really rate their wins or losses.

Exactly....U would have to literally be Bert Sugar(RIP)

[Boxing_1013]

Yeah, this is the response I expected based on your previous post.

I mean I wouldn't really try to refute what I said either, no worries

[TheBestExcuse]

Atg
1. Logan paul
2.ksi
3.canelo
4. Ryan garcia

[IronDanHamza]

Historian Larry been pushing this "You need a list" talk since 2009. Keep it up Larry.

I don't think you particularly NEED an ATG list to identify an ATG, but it does help your case though.

[Zaryu]

I mean I wouldn't really try to refute what I said either, no worries

Lol, I just come here to read and chat a little boxing. Learned a while ago it's pretty pointless to get drawn in to silly arguments in forums like this one. I disagree with you, but this is a topic I would really prefer to discuss in, person not here.

[Boxing_1013]

Lol, I just come here to read and chat a little boxing. Learned a while ago it's pretty pointless to get drawn in to silly arguments in forums like this one. I disagree with you, but this is a topic I would really prefer to discuss in, person not here.

It's all good man, overall I feel the same way...I like a good debate and with it being online I don't really take anything at all serious anyway...too many trolls to do that.

[Zaryu]

It's all good man, overall I feel the same way...I like a good debate and with it being online I don't really take anything at all serious anyway...too many trolls to do that.

Agree, personally I think the main benefit of modern training has been longevity, I don't think it has made a significant impact in developing better fighters in their prime, but having said that I don't just think every HOFer from the 80s and earlier can't be defeated, or be surpassed legacy wise, by some of our modern fighters. It's really on a case by case basis, and I think context is important in evaluating fighters' abilities to understand at what level they were really effective and where they normally fell short, what success was mostly based on style match up, and which fighters actually overcame stylistic disadvantages in significant fights.

It also helps us appreciate fighters who are susceptible to being underrated due to their styles i.e. Winky Wright.

Just a few thoughts on the topic. I did say in my first post here that it's safe to make ball park estimations without having all the history or an ATG list. I think some quick film study on fighters like you suggested would definitely be enough for that and it's actually what I normally do.

[Boxing_1013]

Agree, personally I think the main benefit of modern training has been longevity, I don't think it has made a significant impact in developing better fighters in their prime, but having said that I don't just think every HOFer from the 80s and earlier can't be defeated, or be surpassed legacy wise, by some of our modern fighters. It's really on a case by case basis, and I think context is important in evaluating fighters' abilities to understand at what level they were really effective and where they normally fell short, what success was mostly based on style match up, and which fighters actually overcame stylistic disadvantages in significant fights.

It also helps us appreciate fighters who are susceptible to being underrated due to their styles i.e. Winky Wright.

Just a few thoughts on the topic. I did say in my first post here that it's safe to make ball park estimations without having all the history or an ATG list. I think some quick film study on fighters like you suggested would definitely be enough for that and it's actually what I normally do.

Got ya good post man...I just know that, without naming names, I've watched footage of some past greats and been very unimpressed with the level.

But hey it is just my opinion...I have been wrong before...also these guys used to go 15 rounds or even until one dropped...so that would be a feather in their cap relative to today's fighters.