Floyd Patterson be considered an ATG?

And is still to this day the youngest undisputed heavyweight champion in history.

Yes, he is an ATG in my book. Somewhere around Top 20 HW of all time probably.

 

If he isn't now he certainly was.

Winning the title 2x,3x is a really silly award though that requires losing. I don't know what people were thinking when they made that a prestigious honor.

This is going to sound like a weird way to define "ATG" but Patterson has been in basically every boxing video game I've played. If a fighter is in a video game generations after they retired that means they are a "legend" on some level.

 

Well, comparing to every other ATG before him who couldn't manage to do it, it was a great feat.

 

In my opinion yes.

I have given my reasoning previously.

 

Multiple fighters did do it just not undisputed.

 

In certain contexts he can be considered an ATG. He was an Olympic gold medalist. Youngest heavyweight champion to that point in history depending on your view of Tyson’s claim. Was ranked for a long time and beat a handful of guys who made the HOF.

 

Yes

 

Without a doubt. Youngest man to win the heavyweight crown pre Tyson, was the first man to take his title back, should've been a 3x heavyweight champion, and his complete rogues gallery, both wins and losses is a near complete list of relevant names during the eras that he fought in.
Moore, London, Johansson, Liston, Machen, Chuvalo, Ali, Cooper, Quarry, Ellis, and Bonavena.... Not many have a list of accomplishments like that.

 

Before Floyd? I don't think so. Anyhow, I meant the real championship, not paper titles and all of that.

 

He should be for me he just cracks the top 20, great achievements however H2H is would struggle with any hard hitters given his chin issues

 

While most of them were alphabet belts Fitzsimmons 2x HW belts were lineal.

 

No, but I could see why people say he is. He was a very good fighter, but breaking the youngest heavyweight champion record and being the first man to regain the title aren’t things you get an actual award for in boxing, yes it’s a bonus, but if someone won the same belts he won and made the same number of defences he did, and became 2 time champion, but they won the belt at 28 instead, people wouldn’t be saying they were an ATG.
The age thing bumps his legacy up a bit, but the main things are, how many defences you make and who you beat.
If he’d’ve won a title at Light Heavyweight, that’d push him into ATG territory 100%.
Michael Moorer is just about an ATG IMO for example, he’s not an ATG at light heavyweight or at heavyweight separately, but as a fighter he is because he held belts in both divisions.
I’d describe Patterson as an ATG gatekeeper.
Edit: His skill level is ATG level, his style may be bad for him against certain guys, as in he may lose to guys a lot worse than himself due to styles, but all in all his skill level was ATG level, he could beat other very good fighters providing the style wasn’t too bad for him, and if he’d’ve campaigned at light heavyweight, I’m basically certain he’d be an ATG.

 

Hmm, if we assume he won the championship against Corbett, then no. If we assume he won it against Maher, then he would be defending his title against Corbett. If we assume Sharkey's win was legit and Bob lost the championship that day, then his fight against Corbett wasn't for the championship at all, as Sharkey was beaten by Jeffries and Jeffries then beat Fitszimmons. So it's hard to call Fitz a 2x champ.