Beating a great fighter in his prime is shockingly rare

No he isn't but I just realised that I'd struggle to pin down when his 'prime' really was.

 

Before I answered with the negative post you see there, I tried to think of the same thing and didn't want to test my consistency, so I stayed quiet. It is a good question. He seemed to have had peak victories and performances later in his career.

Pascal/Magee up until the first Groves fight? Seems awfully old for a prime but if you go by what they did against who in the ring, that may be the range... Many will say up until the Super Six started because that's when he had shaky performances but even in defeat he was the same guy he was before and then after for the Bute and Kessler rematch, just got bested at that time.

Clearly ended before Groves, in my opinion, but who knows? Maybe he beats Ward and Golovkin and Kovalev all in the next 18 months and goes down as a legend of sorts with a prime that extended his whole late career.

Froch is a very tough case...

 

Pac Barrea I maybe, the second fight and Morales, not against primes. JMM I hate, because I believe he won every one of there fights w/ the exception of 2 which i think was a draw. But then that falls into the same argument that fans have against Mayweather Castillo, which is another fight I think you should have added to your list.

 

He's a strange fighter to try and evaluate for sure.

 

But it all comes down to the question:

"How many ATG's are there throughout history?"

Because if there has been 50 ATG's ever, for example, nobody who has studied up on boxing before 1960-ish would be able to include Barrera in that list.

 

This criticism is often applied to Wlad and I never understood it, I mean how can you not be an all time great boxer if you've been the number 1 fighter in your division for as long as he has. His reign has pretty much spawned a dedicated era in HW boxing which will be remebered as "Wlad" or "Klitchko" era.

And I don't even like Wlad, but credit where credit is due...

 

Then surely Jack Dempsey is an ATG for dominating his era?

This is where the debate turns into: ATG P4P or ATG in their division?

Ivan Calderon isn't a P4P ATG. But he is an ATG in his division. Same with Wladimir for me... So the debate can rage on even further.

 

So in other words youre a fl/omo whos trying to justify floyds resume. :roll:

 

Yes.

It has happened comparatively rarely over the last 100 years, in every singe weight class!

 

He could be a Wladimir fan. The same criticism has been said a lot about Wladimir's resume in the past week for the build up to the Jennings fight tonight.

 

Firstly, fighters don't have to be an ATG to be a great fighter, and great fighters in their prime do meet and when they do there is nearly always a loser (unless it is a draw of course).

 

I think comparing ATGs on P4P basis can get a bit convoluted, simply because there's just so many great fighters in history and there isn't a well set or understood criteria.

 

Yes but there are also many very great fighters who jumped weight classes and therefore are not ATG's in any single weight class. It wouldn't be fair or accurate to say that Pacquiao isn't an ATG. But if you go by divisions exclusively, then he isn't an ATG in any of the divisions he competed in... So in that sense, an ATG list sort of has to be P4P. Which is why I hate when people try to act like using that term is irrelevant.

 

That's a good point, I agree.

 

Chris Byrd wasn't elite fighter.