Ok I'm a bit confused I guess with ranking boxers as ATGs and rating them P4P. In reference to the thread on who ranks higher as an ATG out of Cazlaghe or Lewis I pick Calzaghe because in my opinion he was the better p4p fighter, no losses to B+ fighters and a 2 weight world champion. So what criteria are you all using to rate ATGs? Use Lewis over Calzaghe as an example if you want. Or examples of fighters who rank higher as an ATG over someone who was pound for pound a better fighter.
I don't think Calzaghe was the better P4P fighter. Lewis fought and beat better competition and he avenged both losses.
No such thing as ranking them in order- For me having thought about this.......its best to have groups like- All time great heavyweights- Group 1 L. Lewis / J. Louis / M. Ali Group 2 G. Foreman/ E. Holyfield/ L. Holmes/ J. Johnson/ M. Tyson Group 3 J. Frazier/ J. Dempsey/ R. Marciano/ Group 4 S. Liston/ R. Bowe/ Vitali Klit/ Vlad Klit/ F. Patterson rough example
I think both ATG should be based on accomplishments, PERIOD. P4P is more of a combination of "who has accomplished the most/who is the best right now" kinda ranking. Lewis accomplished more than Joe, therefore he is the better ATG. Thanks for having such a wonderful avatar, Utter.
I think thats down to your preference then...... I mean the criteria.......can be huge and complex......for example Tyson head to head for me is still one of the best......but overall resume is weak compared to Holyfield or his longevity is terrible compared to Holmes. Liston and Bowe come to mind when talking about head to head.....they were clearly talented fighters but accomplishments are literally none when you compare to the best best. So it very difficult to think about this.
You set it up perfectly. You described why Liston and Bowe are not top 10 heavies of all time. As far as Tyson, he is somewhere between 10-12 all time heavy for me. Head to head, he is probably around number 7 (Lewis, Louis, Ali, Foreman, Frazier and Holyfield all beat him prime for prime).
I think everybody has different criteria, some things are more important to certain people and some people looks at a fighters wins differently. Which is good, otherwise everyones list will look the same. The Duran Leonard thread is a good example, SRL has some of the best wins in Benitez, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, but he doesnt have the longjevity of Duran nor the extensive list of other world class fighters. Its easy to look at the big names on a CV and forget all the hard work which makes up 95% of a fighters record.
-Quality and quantity of wins over contenders (considered on the context of the fighter) -Loses -Time on top, age, etc. -Toe to toe basis
Untrue, you're more than likely only taking into account Liston's short reign as champion rather than his actual prime work prior.
It sure is Sweetness................grouping is far better. How can anyone really rank certain fighters over others when they are so close........your personal bias becomes involved. Unless we had a clear clear order and we could easily call someone the best ever............then grouping is the only option. When i think about the very best standouts........Louis, Ali and L. Lewis have the best resumes and head to head. The other grouping you most likely could change but how do u rank Tyson and Holyfield........one prime was incredible, another one has some awesome accomplishments.
Presumption is weakness No i understand fully that....Liston for a good 3 or 4 years was the best heavy around.......F. Patterson manager Cus D'Dmato didnt want his fighter to fight Liston for obvious reasons. Still a shame.......as Liston could have amounted more championship wins. I always think Liston ushered a new era.......of bigger heavies with boxing skills to go with. Only Joe Louis could compare in my eyes to the best of Liston. The big men before......just didnt have the know how or training operations for them to fully have elite boxing skills. Actually take that back.........J. Johnson was pretty sweet even for head to head. Still the video footage we all have dosent do it justice.......adding to that is that even if you had the standouts like Johnson or Louis.....there opposition in terms of historical significance in the head to head fantasy dont hold up in my humble beliefs. But.......they sure were standouts for there time and so you have to take into consideration when you think how they could have been now. But getitng into this form of subjective analysis without proper conclusions can always lead to debate, more debate and even more debate......without end. We could in hindsight thank Bowe and Lewis for bringing EVEN BIGGER heavyweights with skills......the Klits even though i dont think are quite as good.......have come in even BIGGER with SKILLS. peace