**Why we throw the term ATG, with such ease...**

Like who?

 

Ali is an ATG heavyweight. All Time Great. There should be one ATG for every division and one ATG for P4P.

 

You would still have arguments. I have Ali is my second greatest HW. If we go by that, he is not an ATG on my list, which is a crazy thing to type and read.

 

I totally agree. Unfortunately, some people become so infatuated with a particular boxer, that they blow their accomplishments totally out of proportion. ATG is a term that should be used sparingly and mostly for boxers who are retired so we can examine their entire body of work. I see too many people crowning fighters as all time greats after they have had 1 or 2 impressive victories and are either in their prime or have a few more big fights left. I do think most people really mean HOF but throw out ATG instead.

 

At the end of the day its all subjective.. Who do we look up to for common ground in terms of ranking fighters. We have to make do with what we have (Ring MAg). As much as many slag them..they are pretty reasonable in comparison to Amsterdam for example. I like Mosley Im partial to him being an ATG yet Im honest enough that the experts concesus on him is not that of an ATG. You certainly wouldnt ttrust me if I call PAC an ATG... Yet a refutable publication like a RING or maybe ESPN to an extent can provide an unbias list. I certainly cannot trust a Bert Sugar to put together a list it has to be a collective process

 

Its biased. They look at Shane taking on big challenges and getting owned in the process. Forrest kicked his ass. Winky kicked his ass and made him look like a pure bum the first fight. He did fight well the second fight though. But in any case. Shane was on the juice. He beat ODH and Vargas who was just shot. Now, ATG. NO. HOF, GREAT. No questions asked.

 

True; atg is a special term,,,,but then I have to ask - where do we end the list? For an example from the SSM thread, I rate him as just cracking the top 100 atg list (if we want to extend it that far). So if that angers people then where do we cut off the list? Cause if we cut it off as the top 20 greatest fighters of all time as only being deserving of the title, then no current fighters would even make the list (Mayweather knocking on the door, but just not quite there yet imo). See the problem?

 

:good

 

You think Sweet Pea and Hearns are ATGs and not Roy Jones?

 

:good

 

its all subjective and everyone rates different aspects of different fighters and not just their wins and actual fights, some people consider skill and other attributes when labelling atg's rightly or wrongly.

You're probably better off arguing individual cases eternally than trying to come up with a universally recognised system or arguing about how to define the term. Well i guess it doesnt matter what you argue about, fact is it will never end.

I guess that's one of the aspects that makes the sport so interesting.

 

You've got an All Time Great of the first rank right there in your avatar. And using him (Arguello) as an example we can look at a couple others. Danny Lopez and Bobby Chacon;same era, same divisions, all 3 world champions. Lopez and Chacon were great fighters and VERY exciting to watch, but not in the same league with Alexis. Chacon and Lopez are hall of fame good. Alexis Arguello is an ALL TIME GREAT! I think this is a good example of the difference.

Boo