I think a lot of us are thinking completely different things from each other. Like when I think ATG I just think of one of the best few hundred fighters of the hundreds of thousands that have fought on record. But sometimes I'll argue with someone about who's an ATG and I'll be sticking up for someone's case and they'll say "You think he's a top fifty?" and I'll say "Fifty? No...no. What?"
For me, an ATG (pound for pound) is a member of the Top100 best boxers of all time. I also count the Top12 of each weight class as an All Time Great in THAT weight class.
I was going do a definition post defining terms like ATG, HOFer, and etc. In my opinion, an ATG means that you are one of the pfp best of all time, but there's no definite numerical limit such as Top 100. A HOFer's resume sticks out among the best of a single generation, but an ATG's resume sticks out among the best of all generations. To even be more specific, you must have fought a lot of fights, a lot of great fights, mostly wins (you don't have to have a perfect record), but must have wins over a few HOFers, and better yet other ATG contenders of your generation. You must have fought the best of the best of your generation, and virtually not have ducked anyone at their prime! Winning championship belts, unifying them, and winning different weight classes is also important. You must also beat your opponents in good fashion. Trilogies also help.
Don't really know . . . but for me personally a fighter doesn't have any business being an ATG if he's not inside the TOP 50 P4P of all time. Just me.
haha. cheers. I suspected it wasn't very well defined. All I understand is that it is above HOF and reserved for special fighters. There's been so many "is X an ATG?" type threads lately and I have no way of commenting without knowing what it really is.
This sounds like a good definition to me. It's basically what I have always gone with without really knowing. For example, Tszyu is my fav fighter. But I have always voted against him in threads being an ATG because I dont think he belongs to the top 100 P4P all time.
Depends on what bound you give it, i.e. top 50 ATG or top 10 ATG. I suppose technically every pro fighter is an ATG somewhere on the list, but it'd be pointless to even use the ATG tag if he's way down there.
See the thing with me is if it was just the top 50 or even 100 in 1950, that's one thing but once you hit a certain point, it doesn't seem fair that a guy can accomplish what a modern fighter like Marquez or Barrera or Morales can accomplish and then maybe not even get called more than just great for his time because the slots are full and maybe you can't justify knocking off someone else off the list for them. What if a career is only tantamount to the last name on your top 100 list and not actually better than, but they don't get the credit of being an all-time great because it wasn't enough to justify actually replacing the 100th guy or 50th...I know the title ATG is meaningless when you're in the "I say he was the 815th greatest fighter of all times!" kind of absurdity but after all the history, I have to think it's more like top few hundred guys. Maybe a few special fighters every decade might be added.
I suppose if we want a clear-cut definition, we could say an ATG is either someone who's already in the hall of fame, or bound for it. I'd say that's pretty fair.
I dont know. But it seems to me that there needs to be SOME kind of, at least approximate, definition of ATG. What good are all these "is he an ATG" threads of everybody has a different definition of what it is???????
