What is your criteria for determining ATG status, in order of importance? Any examples would be helpful.
Cleverness, the ability to land knockout blows, endurance, will to win, the ability to withstand punishment and not quit, the ability to slip, block, parry, feint, bob and weave, and then counter to vital regions of the body and head.
For me, KC, it's like the Supreme Court Judge that presided over the thorny pornography case: "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it"
In all weight classes at any one time there are two fighters or so needing to be beaten in some style by one individual to determine greatness. if a contender comes along and ices both Klit brothers in back to back fights he would become an automatic great. so long as he can defend the title and dominate after that point he becomes ATG in my book.
Actually, I think it was a Swedish film (CURIOUS YELLOW)...Remember there were lines 'round the block at the art theatre ta see naked girls.
The ability to dominate your era, and the tremendous skills to beat great fighters who outweigh you time and again....As in horse racing ,truly great alltime race horses have had extra weight on them to burden them and see if they were great enough to overcome this weight and triumph...Same with the greatest P4P fighters in history...Though Ray Robinson was the most beautiful fighter to see in history, he avoided top light heavyweights in his career when he was a middleweight, and even in his prime as a welterweight Robinson to test himself never tackled a Charley Burley and others of the "murderous row" brigade of his time...He COULD have were he confident of victory spotting these men a few pounds in weight, [though not in height}, but opted not to... On the other hand a Harry Greb, a Sam Langford, a Bob Fitz, a Henry Armstrong constantly tackled anyone regardless of weight and triumphed....This is my criteria for P4P...The will and bravery to meet heavier and stronger fighters than you time and again... P.S. I have posted this assertion before...I am convinced that a prime Harry greb at 160 or so, would have beaten every fighter Ray Robinson ever met...And I am equally certain that Ray Robinson at whatever weight he fought at would not have beaten the great Lightheavies and Heavyweights that Harry Greb beat constantly... This is my criteria of the best P4P fighters...The ability to lick heavier great fighters...
People get really enthusiastic about this type of thing so here's what I think about summarized concisely: 1. skills, physical attributes, size, overall head to head ability 2. resume of wins (quality of opponent+quality of era) 3. resume of losses (quality of opponent+nature of the loss) 4. did they avoid anybody? how long did they fight for? could they have done more with the talent they had?
To even begin to be a good fighter, one needs a balanced combination of speed, skill, power, dedication, determination, and killer instinct. Beyond those attributes the one thing every all-time great had is that their hearts & chins have not only been tested, they've been proven. There comes a time in a fighter's career where the $h!+ hits the fan and as Dundee said to Leonard, the men get separated from the boys. A guy's getting out-punched, out-boxed and out-scored. He's been battered, cut and decked. They reach down deeper than deep. They find a way to not only survive, but to thrive. Past the great record, past the resume, past the longevity, past the number of defenses and alphabet belts, that above all else defines every all-time great.
Consensus. There are many fighters who personally I wouldn't rate as an ATG, but universally is regarded as an ATG. They are most probably an ATG. There are many fighters who I consider an ATG, but almost no one else does. In that case, that fighter probably isn't an ATG. And there are many fighters who I really don't know much about. In that case, I will follow the consensus. ATG criteria are subjective. One man's criteria will not be another man's criteria. Many would say that you should have X as a prerequisite of being an ATG, but then shout that boxer A is an ATG while conceding that he hasn't got X, but has Y, Z, and V, which would compensate for not having X. But another fighter who was X, but has not Y or Z, would be derided by the same person as not an ATG. Therefore I would say that objectively, an ATG is whoever a clear consensus of boxing fans agree or decide to be an ATG.
Well, first thing for me would be I go ask Rico if they have a glass jaw and if he says they do I cross them off the list. Because there may be a 'g' in 'glass' but there isn't an 'a' or a-no, I guess there is an 'a', but there's definitely no 't', I know that much.