An ATG boxer (boxer A) who had a short peak and prime, but made the most of it. Or, an ATG boxer (boxer B) who had a longer peak and prime, made the most of it, but also included not so great opposition. Boxer A was greater throughout his peak and prime. But, Boxer B had the longer peak and prime. If you could give examples for Boxer A and B...I'm sure it would help your argument.
It's hard to say which impresses me more. But in the instance of... ... I can think of Roy Jones (Boxer A) and Bernard Hopkins (Boxer B), and I've been more impressed with the one who had the longer peak and prime - Bernard Hopkins.
Great examples, man. :good Another example could be... Boxer A - Sugar Ray Leonard. Boxer B - Any one of the other 3.
Let's just say that I understand why some rank Armstrong over Robinson even though I don't. Manassa in a recent thread on Armstrong: It was three years of perhaps the most amazing run in boxing history. Burning out with that style and those challenges needs to be considered. What you do in your short prime is all the difference. It's case by case.
Tough argument to ignore, man (I'm not even close to knowing enough about the Armstrong's and Robinson's of boxing history...even though I've seen as much as I can at the minute). (Great signature, I am in the process of changing my avatar and signature now).
I'd disagree. Roy was spectacular, but he's always criticized for cherry picking. Hopkins fights everyone. A better example: Boxer A: Mike Tyson - Short peak, but was the biggest then to happen to boxing since Ali. Mike seemed unbeatable. Boxer B: Lennox Lewis - Lennox had a good long run, but had ups and downs. He was a great champion, but he was never the superstar or beast that Tyson was. In the end, who is the better fighter? Who has the legacy? I think it depends on what you value. Mike did more for the sport overall by bringing lots of attention to it, even to this day. Also, prime for prime, I think Mike could have beat any heavyweight from any era. Possibly having trouble with Joe Louis or Ali, but easily beating the other greats. Lennox on the other hand was a great technical fighter who retired with a solid record, some cash in the bank and his brain still functioning. All of which I respect. Prime for prime I don't think Lennox would beat Tyson, Ali, Joe Louis...or maybe not even Wladimir Klitschko.
im really impressed by Anthony crollar and Frankie Gavin, both amazing fighters, imagine what would happen if they both had a bout #explosive
I suppose a great recent example would be Froch and Calzaghe - although i realise that they are both a million miles from being ATGs. Froch has had a run of 5 great fights against very good opposition in about 2 years. Calzaghe fought about 4 very good fighters over a 10 year period. Who do you rate higher? Personally, if he beats Johnson then i would rate Froch higher. In essence, what i am saying it that a short burst of good, tough fights is more impressive than sustained period of victories against middling opposition.
