Fighters who are often lauded as all time greats.....

I am aware of everything you have stated, and I agree with every word. I just think there should be a limit on the number of ATGs. If a sport has 400 ATGs, it kind of devalues the meaning of 'all-time great'. As I've said, I think Barrera was truly great too, but if I say he is an ATG, then I have to say others I rank him in a tier with are ATGs too, and you just can't have the 80-100 bracket being called greats for eternity. If you make the list more exclusive, you make it more difficult to become one and you give the term greater value and meaning. I'm not being critical when I say there is a distinct difference between someone like Ezzard Charles and someone like Marco Antonio Barrera. Of course there is. Shouldn't there be a term with a demarcation between these different levels?

 

Tell you what Popkins, give me 10 fighters who you consider 40-50. I bet you I can make a case, quite easily, for Marco having achieved more and beat better opposition than at least 3-4 of them.

 

Greatness is all subjective

 

Tiger, Hearns, Sanchez, Holmes, Hopkins, Benitez Gomez are ATG's. So how are they not ATG's, but yet Jack Dempsey and JCC are? :huh

 

This thread is pretty much tailor made for Oscar De La Hoya.

He was insanely popular and took on all of the best competition, but at the end of the day he didn't rise above the rest, which an ATG needs to do.

 

cos jack and jcc were the better fighters, were about in wales are you from?

 

Cardiff.....Why. Were about in Wigan are you from?

And in your mind Jack Dempsey is great, but Larry Holmes isn't? Holmes was the more accomplished Heavyweight and never ducked no one while champion unlike some.......:roll:

 

Am surprised you have enough time to type you are usually to busy kissing that other gobshites ass fleaman, what is you call him fle? atsch

 

There's a number of fighters I could probably mention, but I'm going to single out Jackie "Kid" Berg for the moment.

Berg is often considered an ATG based on his resume, which features wins over Tony Canzoneri and Kid Chocolate, among a host of other top fighters of his day. No question the resume itself is impressive. However, as a fighter himself he had a number of limitations - he wasn't particularly skilled or versatile, and he really wasn't much of a puncher; he relied strictly on a swarming infighting attack to outwork opponents. Moreover, he only had a relatively brief run at the top, and his limitations were badly exposed by Canzoneri in their rematch, who made him look almost amateurish before brutally KOing him (think of what Mosley did to Margarito and you'll get the idea). Within a year of that loss, he was basically done as a world class competitor. I think a genuine ATG shouldn't be embarrassed that badly while at or near the height of his career, and moreover, should have the capacity to recover and come back as good or better after a bad setback like that. I think a genuine ATG should have the capacity to stay at the top longer and shouldn't be "done" the moment he loses or starts to decline somehow.


Other fighters I wouldn't call ATGs, for similar and various other reasons:

Battling Nelson
Ad Wolgast
Freddie Welsh
Kid Chocolate
Liston
Tyson
Don Curry

 

Whatever Cotto20. Go and kiss Jeff Thomas's ass, he may give you around of pads if you behave yourself.........

 

were about in cardiff are you from, its a big place you bullshitter, what town is it? not long now and your buddy will be on, what is you call him? o thats right it fle! :hi:

 

Yeah Jeff should be on anytime now. You can go and kiss his ass, and ask him will he train you. You should go down to Enzo Calzaghe's camp not to train, but to wash Enzo's mop of curly hair...... That's all your good for.

 

I don't agree with that, by that measure whoever is my number 50 now is an all time great but likely in 10 years won't be when someone else comes up to take there place. Plus once you get to the murky area of around about 50 on an ATG list there are so many variables in place that i doubt there is much difference between the ones that make it and ones that don't. What if you don't have a 50 list? I don't, haven't got anythig below top 10 which is that difficult enough to do and changes on a regular basis

I agree that it can be a term over used but i think most people (well in the classics at least) have a good grasp on who should and who shouldn't be lauded as one.