Who do you lads have ranked higher ATG? Hopkins or Mayweather

Floyd. I hate to say it as his fight against Marquez was a disgrace but theres no denying his supreme talent.
As for Calzaghe and Hopkins, I think their borderline atg's. Maybe Joe falls just short. This whole atg, hof status is a bit geeky for my tastes anyway. I'd prefer to remember how the fighters actually were in the ring than harp on too much about their appropiate status.

 

Im not sure I can think of one active fighter who has proved his greatness more than Hopkins, hes certainly done more than PBF. Hes a cast-iron ATG to me. His resume is phenomenal.

 

I thought that he scored them all 10-8. atsch

 

Tarver was never special.

Trinidad, Winky and Hoya were all far better at lower weight.

Pavlik? Who gives a **** about that win.

B-Hop has good wins but he is far from having really proved himself. He liked to pick on smaller fighters.

 

Could that same logic not be applied to Mayweather as well?

Tarver was a very good fighter, and Hopkins pretty much shut him out.

Pavlik was in many peoples P4P top 10 lists when the fight was made, again Hopkins pretty much shut him out - if you don't give a **** about that win, then which of Mayweathers don't you want to give a **** about - Hatton? Corrales? Judah?

 

Hopkins. Ability, talent, commitment, longevity, length of reign, recovery from his later career losses, defeating Trinidad - who was favourite going in - beating Pavlik - who was favourite going in - beating Oscar for the first time anyone did convincingly. Who's Mayweather got?

 

Trinidad was a decent win, Oscar was a farce of a fight,Tarver was decent as well,Pavlik was a great performance although KP's shortcomings are there for everyone to see (unless your from youngstown) Winky was a fat dwarf so thats meaningless, Johnson was fairly average at 160 but it was a masterclass from Hopkins and Joppy had been near ruined by Trinidad and was not particularly special to begin with.
I guess I have rather mixed feelings about him, superb fighter, at mw only the elites like SRR, Monzon and Hagler would be favoured to beat him imo. At LH the list of who I would favour over him grows substantiantly longer.
All this talk abou atg status depends on what your definition of atg really is. Mines rather cloudy and I don't often tend to give it much thought.

 

Mayweather without a doubt

 

The wins against Johnson, Tarver and Pavlik should be counted in his favour. What the hell does 'who gives a **** about the Pavlik win' mean, why? Hopkins was underdog. Tarver was a top fighter when Hopkins met him. He gave a far younger fighter in Calzaghe one of his toughest fights. Trinidad, Winky and De la Hoya were all very good/great fighters, if they couldnt cope coming up they shouldnt have bothered. Not Hopkins problem.

 

ATG is your top hundred boxers ever. I thought that was the way everybody judged it.

 

Good point but I do not think he should be rated as an ATG. I am not saying he was not a very very good champion and very very good at what he needed to do but for me he jusat falls short.

Tarver for me was not great, he was a good fighter who had some style.

Pavlik was an hyped up white Jeff Lacy, decent but nothing to crow about.


Mayweather has some not too great names on his record but he worked his way up through the divisions. He couldhave fought a few more real class acts himself to underline his greatness.


I think both fighters will be rated high but both need a little more to be genuine ATG's. Mayweather still has age and ability on his side to sort it out. B-Hops time has passed.

 

:rofl Your kidding?!
I wasn't aware there was an official way to do it.
I just try to follow my instinct. Duran,Ali,SRR....etc
You think of them and you automatically identify them as 'great'.
I think we are a bit too rigid in our efforts to define a boxers status. They're just oppinions and in no way official.
Also a bit misleading sometimes. Calzaghe is a divisive fighter but a lot of people think hes an atg, two of his biggest 'name' wins were at LH.
Few people outside hardcore boxing fans (and people of a certain age) can remember who John Conteh was but I can guarentee he would've absolutely kicked the **** out of Calzaghe and Hopkins at LH.

 

The overall problem with it is nobody does a top 100 so every time something like this crops up most people just say yeah so in your head theres probably about 200 or more guys you consider ATG's when it can only actually be a hundred. I know a few guys in the classic have done it but nobody else bothers, I've only done my top thirty personally so its all guesswork really. I dont think Calzaghe is an ATG but Hopkins is for me, Conteh was a terrific talent but didnt have the resume of Hopkins. Also Hopkins sparkling career at middleweight should be considered.

 

I think Mcgrain once said that doing a p4p list was worse than filling out a tax return.

As for Conteh/Hopkins. This is the old Record vs Ability arguement. Hopkins clearly had the more succesful career but he clearly wasn't as talented as Conteh. I think thats why I'm not as concerned with records and status as some people are. I would obviously rate Hopkins higher in a top 100 p4p list.
Also Ken Buchanan, definately not an atg but probably a better boxer than some who are considered atg. Just depends really on how much importance you place on it.

 

Mayweather ATG - one of the greatest.
Hopkins ATG- Run of the mill great.
Jones Jnr- One of the greatest.
Calzaghe- Greatest in Newbridge,.