I was arguing over in the Wlad and Lennox thread that Wlad has the potential to rival Lennox in terms of ATG status. So off the top of my head I started thinking what determines how someone is judged on an ATG way. I made a quick list of some criteria I think of when thinking about ATG's, but I would like more imput on this. I will make a poll of the attributes once I get some better suggestions from the rest of you. Here was my quick list. 1) Length of career 2) overall record wins and losses 3) Number of fights 4) Level of opposition 5) Being undisputed and number of title defenses 6) Punching power and number of KO's 7) Fame and world popularity Some other criteria I was thinking of is heart of the fighter, level of conditioning and attitude (professionalism) So what else?
I didnt rank those criteria in order of importance BTW just a list. I think it is fair though to weight some areas more than others. So if you want to add some ideas to my post ..also try and rate how much importance you have to your criteria in making the determination. RC
1) Length of career - 10 years 2) overall record wins and losses - 36 wins, 1 loss to an ATG 3) Number of fights - 37 in total - World Champion at the age of 21 4) Level of opposition - Several world champions, unbeaten fighters and contenders. 5) Being undisputed and number of title defenses - unified the featherweight division 6) Punching power and number of KO's - 37 fights, 31 KO's, nearly 85% KO ratio 7) Fame and world popularity - globally popular, huge in Britain, Europe and Japan, big name in America PRINCE NASEEM HAMED IS AN ALL TIME GREAT! :bbb
honestly i dont think any of the criteria you're suggesting matter. the bottom line for me should be who you beat and at what stage of their - your career you beat them. defining fights make a fighter great.
I dont see how this could be so simplistic. I think there has to be some other criteria involved. I think we will all be able to agree that level of competition will be the number one factor. But look at a guy like Joe Louis and his level of competition. Look at Joe Calzaghe. Then look at a guy like Vargas or Terry Norris.
All these I definitely consider to be worthwhile. A long successful career, beating a variety of top-rated opponents, being The Man in the division for years with title belts won and defended against credible fighters. If you lose, then you need to have come back stronger. If you never lost, then well done you! These I consider less important. For instance, George Foreman had 81 fights but there are an awful lot of journeymen and no-hopers padding up his record, and boosting his number of KOs too. It's quality not quantity. And while it's nice to be famous, it's not such a priority for me in ranking a fighter...I prefer to focus on the in-ring side.
I love Hamed! But this is not to speak about making a case for your favorite fighter this is more a post to determine what criteria we can or rather should use to make such determinations.
(the good) What I am thinking of here is that a guy like Joe Louis, who became the symbol of the USA during the war, fighting exhibitions and joining the army. I am also thinking about a guy like Ali, who stood against the government and for civil rigths was almost jailed. etc (the bad) On the opposite end I think about a Mike Tyson, he was extremely popular and famous. He would eat your children and **** your ass and then go do drugs and women. I think it contributed to hsi overall appeal and thus somehow affects your status. I think this is a lesser criteria but bears some significance.
Nono Ask Ali..he did a hell of a lot more than box. He is an international Icon..a symbol of civil rights etc
but regardless of how good a fighter looks in the ring its who he beats ans when he beats them that he is remembered by. i dont count any of the fighters you mentioned above as great or close
Umm Joe Louis would be considered an ATG. I was making the point that he fought a lot of bums ala Calzaghe recently. While Vargas has an incredbiel resume and had relatively few fights. So level of competition alone cannot suffice in my opinion.