If a ATG boxer moves up from his natural weight class,gets destroyed and retires is he still an ATG?

Depends on further context of course, but Bob Foster's career wasn't too disimiliar to what you've described and I consider him an ATG.

Willie Pep is my #1 all time FW based on fights in that division, he began his career 134-1-1, with the one loss on points to borderline ATG LW Sammy Angott. So, not destroyed and that loss wasn't to a mediocre fighter, but he didn't do much outside of FW and did lose at the division above, yet is unequivocally an ATG.

 

Yes but I would say it depends. If he’s destroyed by a quality opponent who is bigger, you can’t hold it against him. If he is beaten by a guy who is not big for the weight and outboxed, you have to consider it at least. Like the Canelo Bivol fight. Bivol is a small LH and he didn’t overpower Canelo, he outboxed him thoroughly. This is the type of defeat that could impact a fighter’s legacy. Mikey getting spanked by Spence was just a farce, the size difference was ludicrous. And I don’t fault Mikey for wanting to get paid, even if it was a crap fight.

Look at how much size Bivol gave up to Zurdo. They looked at least one legit weight class apart yet Bivol took care of business. I know they were in the same weight class but the size difference appeared greater than the disparity of size between Canelo and Bivol.

If Spence moves up to MW and fights Canelo or a top MW fighter and loses, I don’t think you can fault him for it. Same is true of Khan in his Canelo fight. He had no business at that weight and was given a spectacular KO for his efforts.

 

Yes but it depends.

Emile Griffith moved up to MW ans got flattened in the first with Carter and atill a great.

 

Wilfredo Gomez an ATG at super bantamweight, (despite losing to Salvador Sanchez), moved up to featherweight, and latterly super featherweight, he was never really the same, gifted a decision against Rocky Lockridge at super feather, then KO'd by the limited Alfredo Layne.


Don't think it hurts his legacy much though.

 

No why would it, if ATG status is bestowed on a fighter, then it stays in my opinion, though for me ATG is a meaningless phrase, but realise others feel it is important, which is fair enough.

 

Canelo is in his 4th division that’s not a good comparison when less than 20 fighters in history have been 4 division champions, opl bring up size but don’t think logically Zurdo is a big 175 fighter and other 175 fighters also come in that big… Canelo who only got 4 fights at 168 isn’t gonna to be the same bs guys who at natural 175 fighters

 

If Bivol comes down to 168 and takes all of Canelo’s belts, are you going to say Canelo is really a 160lb fighter? Canelo looked legitimately big at 175. He didn’t look undersized. Also, Zurdo was huge in that fight. He looked at least one weight class bigger than Bivol. Bivol is not a big LH and can make 168 if the money is right. It’s a moot point because you know Canelo is never going to put his SM belts on the line against Bivol.

Canelo is a great fighter and I don’t consider myself a hater. He’s the best SM fighter in the division as long as Bivol stays at 175.

 

Yes. Exhibit A: Michael Spinks.

 

Is De La Hoya not considered an ATG? Trinidad?

 

Although Spinks had two wins against Holmes and also beat Cooney before meeting Tyson.

 

Yes, because people who don't closely follow boxing primarily know Spinks as the guy that Tyson knocked out in 91 seconds.

 

That's true Spinks losing to Tyson hurt his legacy quite a bit unfortunately, he's more known for being a Tyson montage rather than all the great wins he had at Light Heavyweight vs Qawi, Muhammad, Lopez, Johnson, which is a pity.

 

Carlos Zarate dominated at Bantamweight then got destroyed by Wilfredo Gomez at Super Bantamweight, i don't think that hurt his legacy too much and he's still rightly rated very highly as a Bantamweight.