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

no you don't. keep in mind that you conceded your biggest original point and it still looks like you meant live in the original post. either way there are fighters on that list that have limitless footage and fights that are readily accessible if you care to look, enough footage to be able to judge whether they're great or not. so what's your point? not being facetious but, do you even have a point?

 

I can accept your explanation.

No, what I was trying to point out were people being hypocrites for laughing at ATG lists with more modern fighters in them than their own. Looks like I made some headway though, and struck a chord, so that's enough for me.

My argument held a lot of weight. Did you see the first posters agree with me and told me that I had a point? If I were to be more extreme I'd say that the only people worthy of making ATG lists would be boxers or former boxers. However I didn't do that did I?

Read the thread first before making baseless opinions, and lay off the cussing. :thumbsup

 

Its simple : Flux Capaciter !

 

Like I said, do I still have to edit my first post and the title of my thread for you to understand? Some people don't like to lose an internet argument these days.

You're generalizing my argument too much. Wherever did I say that it applies to all ATG lists, that you had to see them live? Take note of the word ALL.

See my previous post for the point of this thread. I'm outta here. People around this forum don't even have a shred of delicacy and instead parade around like the fools they are. :hi:

 

If I'm only allowed to include guys I've seen live, as in fights that I've attended, then my ATG list looks like this

1. Kevin Mitchell
2. John Murray
3. Ryan Daniels (the ******* who beat me in my 10th Amatuer fight)
4. Me.

:hey

 

honestly man, you're not too bright. when did I say you said it applied to all atg lists? when? what's your point? seriously, what is your point? can you restate it, because in your original post, it seems to do with something about live fights, then you change it, like how can we rate these guys as atg's when we've never seen them fight, even though over half of those guys have many fights that can be seen? this is easily one of the dumbest threads ever made, and that's because you actually meant to make a point that simply crashed and burned.

sick, you're outta here? , no sweat off of anyone's back to say the least man. and what the **** is a shred of delicacy? a shred of gourmet foodstuff? yeah, I don't have a shred of delicacy right now. maybe I will sometime in the future, when i'm nearly finished eating whatever gourmet meal I might have?:nut

 

:deal

An ATG list is part research, part legend, part gut feeling. I may have only seen Joe Louis on grainy video and biographies, but my eyes, the legend surrounding the man, and the "it" factor are all there.

 

Majority of ATG lists are just biased opinions of there respective authors since there is no common measure to rank fighters from different eras. Even with straight record comparisons there are a lot of asterisks and quid-pro-quos. Just like p4p ATG lists are more beauty contests than objective comparisons.

 

Where would you rank Tyson if you had to go only by few minute long highlight of his fights?

 

do you think vitali's a p4p atg?

 

All you have to do is look at the videos.

 

I am not into beauty contests, sorry. I say if you want a fair comparison, forget everything you know about Vitali, take boxrec record, read some Dan Rafael articles and watch 10min highlight on youtube then compare him to Sam Langford, for example.

 

Interesting. I have a question though, not just for you, but for all who says that they've seen the footage of the comp. Have you seen all of the fights of the competition or just the highlights? The reason Im asking is that if just the highlights then even Sam Peter highlights or couple of fights, i.e Toney 2, Maskaev, can make him look stellar, you know. Just like with any other fighter. But looking at the whole career I would completely agree. I've never seen any too old boxing matches, I ve seen some highlights, so I dont even know if there are full fights on video for really old fighters.

 

I dont get the whole beauty contest thing. be straightforward. he'd probably beat langford. is that what you think?

 

Thats what I was asking, if people rank the older generation fighters by this criteria