What Does "ATG" Mean To You?

Nice post

I think some on here define it too narrowly.

Also, I especially like the bullet point "Nature of the actual wins and losses."

 

It gets chucked around a lot like bum or glass jaw or no heart or ducker but it is a viable term in boxing terminology

To me its simply put as a guy who would be good to great in any era and whose accomplishments in their own time are so great they are hard to pale in comparison

Look at Joe Louis and his title defense record, that's stood how many decades? ATG for sure

look at Archie Moore and his KO numbers and how many decades he was successful in, look at Duran

I mean the measure is accomplishments so what you can go on boxrec and see and then its an eye test

 

Hard to explain, I'll give examples of some I think qualify.
Robinson
Greb
Pep
Armstrong
Ali
Louis
Moore
Fitzsimmons
The names overlap into the P4P area quite a bit I find.
I am very sparing with the term great.

 

Thanks.

 

It means little outside of ones own era. It means alot on a list of achievements one accomplished in their own career as a whole. Its an important lable to have if you are a fighter but I would personally rather have the title as the BEST fighter ever,over a more successful fighter ever. ATG is all individual opinions rolled into one of what is more important than other achievements a fighter gained.

 

-Dedication to the sport
-Fought everyone in there era
-Didn't make excuses
-Moved up to different weight divisions (obviously heavyweight is an exception)
-Almost always took the harder fight when they had the title
-Held a title
Bonus points:
-Overcame height/weight differences
-Great Chin
-High Ring IQ

I think the first one is the reason Rocky Marciano is rated so highly

 

absolutely nothing

 

Your list eliminates Patterson, which it should.

 

ATG fighters are those with extraordinary talent and superlative career accomplishments, either in the form of wins over other ATG opponents or exceptional longevity and dominance.

With the exception of the small light-heavyweight/cruiserweight-sized heavyweights of the past, it also means that a fighter should be able to perform well in any era.

Performing well after moving up a great deal in weight is a relevant but not necessary criteria.

I sometimes refer to a boxer having particular traits that are ATG ("ATG power" or "ATG defensive skills, etc.), which is my way of saying that the trait would be considered top-notch in any era.

 

The fighter who ranks at "101" just misses the cut...by one numerical value......what a shame it is...so near, yet so far away....just missing that brass ring. Lists, therefore, are ****.

 

For once we agree on something, it's what they do whilst fighting the best men of their times.

How can one rank a fighters greatness on hypothetical bouts is beyond me.

 

Well that's freakin gratitude for ya. I thought we were pals, Sal and that you'd like "MY" answer the best...