Why are many ATG lists including boxers who I know many of you have never seen live?

Because footage exists of nearly everyone that people generally put on lists and many of us read boxing histories, as well. Get your head out of your ass, fool.

 

Not just accomplishments, you take into consideration the people they fought, the competition around at that time and the conditions they fought in too

 

As someone alluded to earlier... its all subjective and always will be subjective..... there is no accurate formula or perfect way at ATG lists or p4p lists..... BUT.. out of respect, you give fighters who have accomplished more the benefit of the doubt dude..... Floyd has skills but its hard to rank him over SRR with all of SRR's accomplishments.... and level of competition... resume and achievements play huge roles in these thing which sounds pretty fair to me.. especially since top fighters today only fight twice a year for 12 rounds if a fight lasts that long.. and the big dogs, PAC MAY MARTINEZ KHAN can fight opponents we the public deem as cherrypicks..... fighters today have it easier than fighter back then.. its not like this is football when gameplans, coaching, and techniques have become harder and more complex.... things have gotten waaaayyy easier for the elite fighters... Pac just fought Mosley... Mayweather fought Ortiz and Martinez fought Barker.... def easier for fighters today

 

i've seen ali, louis, sugar ray robinson, pep, duran, armstrong, sugar ray leonard, archie moore, carlos monzon, and ezzard charles fight.

I've seen them fight enough to be able to judge whether I consider them to be an atg or not. what difference does it make if it's LIVE? IT'S THE SAME EXACT FIGHT WITH THE SAME EXACT SIGNIFICANCE whether you're there in person witnessing the fight, or if you see it 50 years later on your laptop. what's your point? how does seeing a live fight factor into whether you judge a fighter to be one of the greatest ever or not? that's right, it doesnt at all.

 

I agree.. its actually easier to study a fight and fighter after its recorded than live... when its live, there's too much emotion when watching fights.. you don't analyze.. you're just entertained.. watching fights in replay makes it easier to see why a fighter lost a fight and etc

 

And who says Oscar ain't an ATG??? He is...

:deal

 

True, there's not one book.

But there's unlimited sources on the internet

 

I suppose when there is 0 footage of ANY of their era's competition, then it becomes difficult. Of Ricardo Lopez, Kosta Tzyu, and others dominant in their division for long stretches of time had no way of evaluating everyone they beat, then that would be problematic; they'd obviously be worth something as fighters for their accomplishments, but we'd have no way to compare them.

(BTW, I do believe Shane belongs somewhere on the ATG list.)

Fighters like Greb, though, while we have no footage of him, we can conclude was great because of the film we have of his competition, which was also stellar. If you showed me Golden Johnson, De La Hoya, Vargas, Margarito, Collazo, Leija, and then told me a guy who I'd never seen called Sugar Shane Mosley beat them all, I'd have to rank his accomplishments higher than other fighter's I'd seen on tape.

We can't guess how he'd do against individuals, but for me All-Time-Greatness has more to do with who you fought and who you beat, because too many times, our faith (or lack of) in a fighter's ability comes back to bite us in the ass whenever there's an upset. What you prove in reality should always overcome what we think the clash of two skill-sets would be on paper. Ex: looking at Leonard and Duran alone, I wouldn't pick Duran to move up and beat him the first time. But he did, and it's one of the best wins in the history of the sport.

So resume counts above all IMO, and you don't always need a ton of fight footage for that.

 

you're a ****ing idiot.

you're basically saying anyone who boxed before we started watching should be left off ATG lists despite them being deserving based on easily obtainable evidence such as video footage, resume and how they're depicted in magazines and books.

you'd have to be 135 years old to witness all these greats yet since the 30's writers have been compiling these lists consisting of many fighters before their time.

your argument holds no weight.....there's such thing as video footage, magazines and books to reference.