Biggest "forums darlings"

Wlad's losses are used against him all the time. It doesn't get ignored.

 

Holyfield. The man was juicing for most if not all of his career. We will never know how much the PEDs made a difference in the win/loss column. It's a shame because he had very good boxing fundamentals, but he won a lot of very close fights and I can't help but wonder if those close decisions would have gone the other way had he not been using PEDs.

Jack Johnson. His best wins were against much smaller fighters, old washed up fighters, or novices. All the glory for Johnson is because he was the first black HW champion, outside of that he wasn't very special. Drew the color line as champion and nearly lost his title to a journeyman level Battling Jim.

Harry Wills. Another fighter whose best wins were much smaller opponents. He was a dirty fighter who was DQ'd several times. He was slow-footed and relied heavily on clinching and leaning on opponents to tire them out. He does not look very impressive on what little film there is available.

Mayweather. Never fought an elite level fighter at their best. Hinged his entire legacy on being undefeated and earning the most money while content to fight like an amateur and win decisions. Got some controversial gifts from judges.

 

I'm a Finito fan but I have to agree with this. He was praised to the high heavens 10+ years back in boxing forums so much so that many seem to believe he really was this perfect, supremely skilled fighter who was flawless because of his nice style, unbeaten record, dominance and number of title defenses but his opposition just doesn't do it. It's the same for Orlando Canizales as well who was also over praised and also a personal favorite but admit that his resume was nothing special.

 

James Toney showed more against McCallum than Canelo ever has

 

GGG fights.

 

Ingo had just KO'd Machen and had an earlier KO over Cooper. Those are solid contender credentials. And you say that he came up short against Quarry and Ellis even though the majority have him winning at least two of those three decisions. The loss to Maxim was also controversial and Floyd was a 14 fight teenager at the time.

And I have never seen Patterson rated as an ATG at LHW. Nor at HW for that matter, but certainly not LHW. There have been speculation that he could have been had he stayed there, but that's something else.

Except for Liston and Ali, he only had one clear loss over a 20 year pro career. That's not bad.

 

Yes - they are - in one form or another. However, I think the point spoke to whether or not they are seriously considered as a barrier to Wlad's entry into the Top-10 ATG Heavies.

I'd say there are a fair few posters on this forum who do not weigh those losses against Wlad heavily enough to do that.

There's likely only a relative handful of posters who raise them as being problematic in that respect (myself being one of these).

 

Some posters give it more worth than others but it's very often mentioned as context that Wlad lost to Sanders/Brewster/Puritty. What some posters do is weigh this up with his very long reign and other achievements and still have him higher than you say who rates him somewhere in the 16-20 range.

Still what the post implies is a bit misleading. No way in my book are Wlad's flaws glossed over more than most other champions.

 

Basically agree with all the above with the exception of the Wills footage which was all taken later in his career. And I'm not sure he was any dirtier than his contemporaries or many of our greatest champs that followed... Ali, Lewis, Holmes, Tyson.

 

Yes - They're an unavoidable aspect of Wlad's ledger. But then, so is his longevity, of course.

I guess criteria-sensitivity can have something to do with it. I'm less enamored by longevity and, at the same time, not sympathetic to the losses. For some, who consider the losses as a critical impact, anything less than an equivalent acknowledgement of the same by others might be perceived as apathy.

What one considers an ATG or how an ATG status should be qualified, i.e. Top-10, Top-20, and so on, can differ amongst interacting parties as well. I tend to describe Top-Tier fighters as a qualified range within a division. For example, I'd consider Wlad a Top-20 ATG Heavyweight.

 

Yes because you have a **** criteria and hate on all EE fighters we know bro. Imagine thinking having one of the best title reigns in HW history doesn't quality you as a top ten because of few losses you had in the past. But of course Foreman can have all the loses in the world but a few wins is enough to get him into the top ten. The bias is real.

 

Would be nice to know what posters what the fresh hold for a ATG is which is subjective. Many fighters were so dominant they clearly ruined other fighters chances of being ATG's or building a lot more but then again maybe you could say a ATG should always "find a way" regardless.

I would guess the fresh hold for most posters would probably be the standard divisional top 10 with a handful exceptions in some divisions and cases.

 

The Original 8 have such a long and rich history now, that I prefer a fairly expansive range within which to rate fighters and refer to them as ATGs. It would seem a shame to exclude those that participated in significant ways, even if they didn't boil the ocean relative to others in that history. Adding their stories enriches the broader story of divisions.

The Other 9 are racking up some years as well and I see and hear more conversations about Ye Olde Super Bantamweights, these days, which is a sign of the times.

Top-50 for the 8?
Top-25 for the 9?

The problem with this, I suppose, is that the placement must always be qualified. Or, maybe there's a two-tier view where you have fighters with ATG recognition and then THE REAL TOP-END GREATS (e.g. Top 15, Top-10)

The most number of fighters I have seen in Pound-for-Pound ATG lists is 100 - but I suspect this might need to be expanded in the near future.