Suppose an active fighter has 15 title defenses. If he gets to like 20+ title defenses, would that make him one of the all-time greats? Or does he still need to beat a hall of fame level opponent?
I think it should put him in that tier. holding onto a title and facing contenders even if they aren't all of the #1 mandatory variety is damn hard. But there are other factors to consider.. Did said champion ever establish himself as best of his era? Or was he merely a belt holder ( Sven Otke. ) did he win his fights decisively or did he have a few gifts ( Sven Otke. ) Did he compete in a truly strong era or did he lack competition? ( Virgil Hill. ) I happen to think that Virgil Hill was an ATG but there are some who have crucified him for losing to Thomas Hearns and never facing the best or having no one around worth facing.
Along with those title defences, there HAS to be dominance, I.e said fighter is unquestionably the best fighter in his division, bar none. Anyone can put a few title defenses and claim to be an ATG while never actually establishing themselves as the best in their division (Calzaghe/Ottke). Wlad is someone who fits the description, he put the defenses together and dominated his era. Although Vitali is his biggest rival, they were brothers so I wouldn't hold that against him. If that's the case, they yes you've got a strong argument that this person is a HOF fighter minimum and an ATG.
not sure if I'd rate Joe Calzaghe as an ATG or at least not on the level of a Hagler or Leonard. But I DO think he belongs in the HOF. Very good fighter with an impressive record and not as padded as some often claim.
The bar for entry into the hof is pretty low so Calzaghe will make it with his flashy undefeated record. I still believe his resume sucks, especially for someone who went 20 years and only fought a handful of decent fighters right at the end of his and their careers.
Twenty is a lot. I'd distinguish between a champion and a belt-holder. I'd also, as has been mentioned, want to think about dominance over the best available competition rather than "dominance" as a word substituted for longevity. So, if the fighter has failed to take on the second best fighter of his generation, for whatever reason, that limits dominance. As does holding a strap rather than the true championship.
Bernard Hopkins continued to be the best light heavyweight in the world for a few years after Joe Beat him. Kessler was a very good super middle too.
Great post. As far as the Klitschko brothers go, I know they're not big on fighting each other, only god knows it never stopped me and my brother when we were younger, but since they often are each others sparring partners, I wonder why that is? Do they purposely let up in sparring? Or are they working on other aspects of the game, timing perhaps or slipping a punch and countering?
To be ranked as an ATG a fighter must exhibit ATG characteristics not just amass title defenses. Toughness - the ability to withstand punishment. Will to win - the ability to take punishment and not quit. Punching power - the ability to land crushing blows Cleverness - the ability to avoid punishment via slipping, parrying, blocking, bobbing and weaving, ducking, feinting, footwork.
He can only face who is available. ATG status should be measured by performance relative to his competition.
