Very Good but not great

Also, gotta ask how much of a distinction we’re making between “great” and “all time great”. As I see it there’s quite a difference.

 

Joe Calzaghe, Winky Wright and Naseem Hamed

 

1000s

 

Camacho
Mancini
Castillo
Corrales
Judah
Hatton

 

I thought the thread criteria was 'very good but not great', not 'above average but not very good'.

 

I'll change them to Judah & Hatton

 

Norton's an interesting one. He's as close to being great as one can get, without quite reaching that rung of the ladder, in my opinion - but that's some fine line and it's almost indiscernible.

 

Not one of those guys was as good as you can get without being and ATG, not one.

 

I DIG YO AVATAR **** U!

 

Donald Curry depending on which side of the razor you fall on.

Jeff Chandler is on the razors edge too. I'm inclined to accept him as a lower tier great. Pintor is similar.

Rodrigo Valdez comes close to the thread mark but for me he falls short and i'd put him a tier under the as good as you can be without being mark.

Mike McCallum and Lloyd Marshall might be in the mix. Marlon Starling might fall a bee's prong short.

Some feel Pryor just misses the mark.

EMM.

Is Galindez a bonafide great to everyone?

Qawi?

Did McGirt do enough to hit the tier below?

What do some think of Calze?

Vitali fell short of the tier below i think.

 

Buchanan hasn't been mentioned and he might be a red hot vote in this one.

 

Guts was a very good win too.

 

Tony Zale

 

Sugar Shane Mosley

 

Harold Johnson
Ernie Terrell
Max Baer
Jimmy Bivins
Tommy Loughran
Alexander Povetkin
Miguel Cotto
Oscar delahoya
To name a few who haven’t been named.