What criteria makes an "ATG"? Specific as possible

[aboutfkntime]

well i don't know about all that... Can yu name any ATG who Dempsey, Liston, Holmes beat at prime? we can start there...

hold on, did you just say... that you don't know how Dempsey, Liston, Holmes, were great... because you don't know who their opponents were?

because, yea... I told you that is whats up...

it is not even slightly debatable, because that is the criteria historians use

name the heavyweight you consider that criteria does not apply to?

this will be the answer...

that criteria DOES apply to him, you simply do not understand the boxing landscape at that point in time

there is almost nobody who posts on this site who is truly qualified to make those calls, that would take a huge commitment and dedication... historians do the homework... understand the boxing landscape at that point in time... and are worth their weight in gold... the average fan cannot be mentioned in the same sentence, including most hardcore fans

[billeau2]

hold on, did you just say... that you don't know how Dempsey, Liston, Holmes, were great... because you don't know who their opponents were?

because, yea... I told you that is whats up...

No, I know they are great fighters... Boy I tell ya maybe I owe shoulder roll an apology as it seems the general ability of posters here to read something and abide is lacking...

Lets recap, again, I like ya trying to make this painfully simple...

1) The idea of the thread is not to judge WHO is great, rather it is to make explicit HOW that judgement is made...

2) So a few posts addressed that very issue, things were going along awful fine lol...

3) then you come in like a bull in a china shop and make these assertions. Cool... It is your right. "Nobody can know anything about ATG's excepting who they beat..." Ok fine...

4) I simply posed a dilemna I noticed to you. I never said anythng about any fighter not being great that I mentioned... I simply asked you how your criteria... the idea that one point stands supreme (who you beat) deals with the reality that heavyweights, great heavyweights included, often fought against competition judged at the time... not to have fellow ATG fighters in the division.

5) I even sweetened the point, not wanting to start another idiotic mismash and stated my own understanding as to why a great heavyweight could be so great... with no fellow great ATG to beat.... Remember your point right?

6) I even showed you and Lefty who seems to feel strongly about this, an example! I mean the only thing I have not done? is suck your ____ while asking nicely for an example of how to apply your criteria as you see fit... and I don't roll that way...
7) Then you come back with this post... NO! that is not what I said at all... I don't happen to agree that there is a single criteria to begin with and I happen to believe that with a sufficient accumulation of knowledge... we know.

8) Let me say this nicely: I only seek for you to answer a simple question so that maybe, your criteria has merit as an absolute as you are claiming... So please look closely and understand the point:

When we look at Robinson, Armstrong, Duran, Hagler, Jones, etc we see that they beat fellow ATG's right? We don't see this in the heavyweight division, with some exceptions... Like Ali, for example, who fought against foreman Frazier and Liston. What we often see are great fighters who did not beat fellow ATG fighters...

So how, according to your bluster, could we include it as singular, the importance of who a fighter beats to determine ATG status?

[aboutfkntime]

No, I know they are great fighters... Boy I tell ya maybe I owe shoulder roll an apology as it seems the general ability of posters here to read something and abide is lacking...

Lets recap, again, I like ya trying to make this painfully simple...

1) The idea of the thread is not to judge WHO is great, rather it is to make explicit HOW that judgement is made...

2) So a few posts addressed that very issue, things were going along awful fine lol...

3) then you come in like a bull in a china shop and make these assertions. Cool... It is your right. "Nobody can know anything about ATG's excepting who they beat..." Ok fine...

4) I simply posed a dilemna I noticed to you. I never said anythng about any fighter not being great that I mentioned... I simply asked you how your criteria... the idea that one point stands supreme (who you beat) deals with the reality that heavyweights, great heavyweights included, often fought against competition judged at the time... not to have fellow ATG fighters in the division.

5) I even sweetened the point, not wanting to start another idiotic mismash and stated my own understanding as to why a great heavyweight could be so great... with no fellow great ATG to beat.... Remember your point right?

6) I even showed you and Lefty who seems to feel strongly about this, an example! I mean the only thing I have not done? is suck your ____ while asking nicely for an example of how to apply your criteria as you see fit... and I don't roll that way...
7) Then you come back with this post... NO! that is not what I said at all... I don't happen to agree that there is a single criteria to begin with and I happen to believe that with a sufficient accumulation of knowledge... we know.

8) Let me say this nicely: I only seek for you to answer a simple question so that maybe, your criteria has merit as an absolute as you are claiming... So please look closely and understand the point:

When we look at Robinson, Armstrong, Duran, Hagler, Jones, etc we see that they beat fellow ATG's right? We don't see this in the heavyweight division, with some exceptions... Like Ali, for example, who fought against foreman Frazier and Liston. What we often see are great fighters who did not beat fellow ATG fighters...

So how, according to your bluster, could we include it as singular, the importance of who a fighter beats to determine ATG status?

omg, are you serious

what does that fkn post actually mean ?

the criteria is REALLY SIMPLE... way simpler than your post

WHO did you beat... with consideration given to when/how

nothing else matters

1) learn the boxing landscape at the point in time being questioned
2) if you apply that criteria to EVERY fighter, you can now compare across era's

[DeeMoney]

omg, are you serious

what does that fkn post actually mean ?

the criteria is REALLY SIMPLE... way simpler than your post

WHO did you beat... with consideration given to when/how

nothing else matters

1) learn the boxing landscape at the point in time being questioned
2) if you apply that criteria to EVERY fighter, you can now compare across era's

Why do we not take losses into account when evaluating a fighter? If a given fighter loses to someone 5 times, but beats him the 6th do we not look at the previous 5 but just give them credit for the W?

If a guy loses to a bad fighter, but has good wins, shouldnt we hold the loss against them?

[billeau2]

omg, are you serious

what does that fkn post actually mean ?

the criteria is REALLY SIMPLE... way simpler than your post

WHO did you beat... with consideration given to when/how

nothing else matters

1) learn the boxing landscape at the point in time being questioned
2) if you apply that criteria to EVERY fighter, you can now compare across era's

I guess that will be your rejoinder when questioned... Apparently you feel no need to critically evaluate, and respond to questions.

Well at least you are not putting words in my mouth...

[billeau2]

Why do we not take losses into account when evaluating a fighter? If a given fighter loses to someone 5 times, but beats him the 6th do we not look at the previous 5 but just give them credit for the W?

If a guy loses to a bad fighter, but has good wins, shouldnt we hold the loss against them?

And what about when a guy has a second career so to speak? How do we look at that? So, take Bernard Hopkins. a lot of his wins against very good fighters like Tarver and Winkie came after he was past his best at middleweight.

Are these achievements supplemental? I raise this issue because when we compare Hopkins to Jones, Jones beat him and was unbeatable... But Roy went downhill quick after Tarver... So career wise Hopkins did more at a higher level, but Roy was so dominant at his weight... which carries more weight?

[Bundana]

it is not even slightly debatable, because that is the criteria historians use

name the heavyweight you consider that criteria does not apply to?

this will be the answer...

that criteria DOES apply to him, you simply do not understand the boxing landscape at that point in time

there is almost nobody who posts on this site who is truly qualified to make those calls, that would take a huge commitment and dedication... historians do the homework... understand the boxing landscape at that point in time... and are worth their weight in gold... the average fan cannot be mentioned in the same sentence, including most hardcore fans

So most hardcore fans aren't even qualified to have an opinion on this subject - only dedicated "historians", with a special understanding of the boxing landscape at a given time, are?

So who are these dedicated historians we should listen to, and allow to form our opinion? Do you mean someone like Nat Fleischer? Or maybe Tracy Callis? Can you give us some examples of these historians with superior knowledge?

[aboutfkntime]

Why do we not take losses into account when evaluating a fighter? If a given fighter loses to someone 5 times, but beats him the 6th do we not look at the previous 5 but just give them credit for the W?

If a guy loses to a bad fighter, but has good wins, shouldnt we hold the loss against them?

they do... losses are factored in, but are given much less consideration

put it this way... to establish greatness, a historian will gauge a fighters wins, to establish his ceiling... without those wins, losses mean nothing... because without those wins he will not be evaluated for greatness

they tabulate the quality of wins to prove greatness... then they factor in losses to balance the record when comparing with other ATG's

you guys need to read Cliff Rold's MAAT (Measured Against All Time)

you haven't lived until you've done that

it will clear up a lot of questions

[aboutfkntime]

I guess that will be your rejoinder when questioned... Apparently you feel no need to critically evaluate, and respond to questions.

Well at least you are not putting words in my mouth...

I couldn't make head nor tale of that novel you wrote

I thought most of it was completely irrelevant

the truth is waaaaay simpler that all that unnecessary stuff

who did you beat... with consideration given to when/how

losses are obviously a consideration, albeit a much smaller consideration... IF the fighters ceiling justifies further examination

saying... " who he fought "... is frankly ridiculous

you actually have to win those fights to be great

John Ruiz fought everyone

[aboutfkntime]

So most hardcore fans aren't even qualified to have an opinion on this subject - only dedicated "historians", with a special understanding of the boxing landscape at a given time, are?

So who are these dedicated historians we should listen to, and allow to form our opinion? Do you mean someone like Nat Fleischer? Or maybe Tracy Callis? Can you give us some examples of these historians with superior knowledge?

opinions are like a55holes, everyone has one

and like a55holes, most of them smell

dude, I have read the DUMBEST SHlT IMAGINABLE on this site... are you telling me that you did not notice any of that?

fans say the dumbest fkn things, which is why guys like breadman Edwards does not even read this forum, let alone replies to his articles

you can have an opinion, sure

there are plenty of historians... yep Fleischer, Mike Silver, even our own Cliff Rold is excellent... read his MAAT (Measured Against All Time) articles... they are gold

do some research

I know you are aware of credible historians... because, a guy who does not know any boxing historians... obviously would not have any valuable/useful knowledge about fighters from the past... and you seem smarter than that