How many fighters of the last 15-20 years can be considered ATG's/legends

[BKM-2010]

Guess I'm picking the timeline of when I started watching boxing. I realise however that there is an overlap of some era's and when fighters started. So lets say from the start of Roy Jones Jr's peak so around the mid 90s.

[Eff Pandas]

I contend "all time great" is silly **** that is impossible to reliably or accurately judge. Many great fighters in history have no or few fights that one could view & just in general I don't believe many have watched much of great fighters careers or their opponents fights to fully able to gauge who great fighters actually beat. Also with time it would seem that becoming an "all time great" would become more & more difficult as you are competing with more & more great fighters of the past. With that being my stance I feel like all any fighter can be is the best of their era. The best of the last 20yrs to me are Floyd & Manny.

[Elroy1]

I would imagine the toppest boxers for that duration of time would be considered so in more or less the same proportions that they always have been.

The notions of ATG and HOF can basically be defined as achievements against the criteria of the era.

In this case Lennox, Wlad, Vitali, PAc and Mayweather are ATG's along with Roy Jones, Oscar etc, w/o even a second thought.

There'd be a multitude of HOFers obviously.

[soul_survivor]

You mentioned the two most famous ones already but no ATG list is complete without Lewis, Holy, Oscar, Hopkins, Barrera, Morales and strong arguments can be made by some for the likes of Tito, Mosley, Toney, Calzaghe, Jones, Eubank, Naz, Tyson.

There's quite a few names really. Now if they rank top 50 or top 100 and so on is really up for debate. In fact, how many truly great fighters can there be, is in itself up for debate.

[BKM-2010]

I contend "all time great" is silly **** that is impossible to reliably or accurately judge. Many great fighters in history have no or few fights that one could view & just in general I don't believe many have watched much of great fighters careers or their opponents fights to fully able to gauge who great fighters actually beat. Also with time it would seem that becoming an "all time great" would become more & more difficult as you are competing with more & more great fighters of the past. With that being my stance I feel like all any fighter can be is the best of their era. The best of the last 20yrs to me are Floyd & Manny.

It's really not that difficult to differentiate between ATG's and HOF caliber fighters. Some are debatable but boxing fans usually have a consensus.

You mentioned the two most famous ones already but no ATG list is complete without Lewis, Holy, Oscar, Hopkins, Barrera, Morales and strong arguments can be made by some for the likes of Tito, Mosley, Toney, Calzaghe, Jones, Eubank, Naz, Tyson.

There's quite a few names really. Now if they rank top 50 or top 100 and so on is really up for debate. In fact, how many truly great fighters can there be, is in itself up for debate.

I like how I allow you to post here while you put me on ignore to shut me out of your thread for some unknown reason. That's quite the jerkoff move.

[Eff Pandas]

It's really not that difficult to differentiate between ATG's and HOF caliber fighters. Some are debatable but boxing fans usually have a consensus.

I'd say the consensus is built around ignorance & highly subjective opinions because most fans talking about it haven't seen all of the guys they put on their lists (can you really ATG a guy off of what others said about him or what you've read about him & that be your own opinion vs what you've actually viewed with others?) or seen a significant portion of their careers & usually they've seen 10% or less of the guys they beat to qualify those W's.

Can you ATG a guy when you've not seen so many great fighters of the past? I'd say no. Its like saying Aaron Rogers is the best QB in NFL history, but you've only been watching football for 5 years & outside of some past super bowls you've watched have only read about great QB's from the past.

For instance what does Pernell Whitaker's win over undefeated Poli Diaz mean if who've never seen a Poli Diaz fight. There's dozens of fights/opponents like that going on with fighters in the past. Most cats probably can't even name 10 guys Ray Robinson fought correctly if you let LaMotta count as 6 of them let alone have seen those guys in fights of their own to judge what they are capable of. And this is a guy who'd probably be on most everyones ATG lists & high up there on them.

ATG lists by most boxing fans are based off of what others said & little actual opinions of their own from what they've been able to witness themselves. I don't think that makes for a meaningful consensus.

[BKM-2010]

I'd say the consensus is built around ignorance & highly subjective opinions because most fans talking about it haven't seen all of the guys they put on their lists (can you really ATG a guy off of what others said about him or what you've read about him & that be your own opinion vs what you've actually viewed with others?) or seen a significant portion of their careers & usually they've seen 10% or less of the guys they beat to qualify those W's.

Can you ATG a guy when you've not seen so many great fighters of the past? I'd say no. Its like saying Aaron Rogers is the best QB in NFL history, but you've only been watching football for 5 years & outside of some past super bowls you've watched have only read about great QB's from the past.

For instance what does Pernell Whitaker's win over undefeated Poli Diaz mean if who've never seen a Poli Diaz fight. There's dozens of fights/opponents like that going on with fighters in the past. Most cats probably can't even name 10 guys Ray Robinson fought correctly if you let LaMotta count as 6 of them let alone have seen those guys in fights of their own to judge what they are capable of. And this is a guy who'd probably be on most everyones ATG lists & high up there on them.

ATG lists by most boxing fans are based off of what others said & little actual opinions of their own from what they've been able to witness themselves. I don't think that makes for a meaningful consensus.

You're correct, but you're preaching to the wrong crowd. Most of the regulars in this section do know enough about the history of the sport and its fighters, some are damn near historians and have watched most significant fights of the last 2 or more decades on tv. That's why I posted this thread here instead of NSB.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

I think fighters from the last 15-20 years has produced less ATG's due to PED use. I don't really think it's fair to compare fighters who became great without PED's with fighters like Pacquiao, Morrison, Holyfield, Toney, Mayweather, etc...

But many fighters that didn't use steroids like Lewis, Tyson, Wlad, RJJ, B-Hop, etc. definitley make it into the ATG list.

[IronDanHamza]

Mayweather
Pacquaio
Hopkins
Morales
Barrera
Marquez

[Anthony342]

Mayweather
Pacquaio
Hopkins
Morales
Barrera
Marquez

I pretty much agree with you and soul survivor on this. Not sure if Whitaker would qualify. Maybe if it was the last 25 years. How about Chavez? Was kind of the tail end of his career then too. I might even throw in Wlad and Vitali, for being dominant in their era. Could make a better case for Wlad if he retires as champ and beats Wilder to unify.