A fighter who fights the best in his respective division and has success, moves up in weight and defeats other greats, wins a fight as a huge underdog .......stuff like that.
That's odd criterias though.. If we want to classify fighters as either ATG or NOT ATG, we need to say: OK, is he amongst the best 50 ever or something like that?
There is no way to put ATG's in a particular order. I tried a few times to make a list of the top 20, 50 and 100 and then had too many guys left over that I felt needed to be there. It's too debatable really.
in my mind they both still have to do some winning to be in the Hall of Fame. A HOF fighter does not lose his two biggest fights in the last 2 years as Cotto has. Cotto is a very good fighter, but HOF is a pretty high standard or should be. And Hatton lost his last 2 big fights.
No, Cotto can POSSIBLY be an ATG, if he beats Pacquiao in a rematch and beats Mayweather, but I don't see that happening. Hatton is a ****ing piece of ****, he's nowhere near being a ATG boxer.
no doubt hall of famers, but atg is for the group that beat them. no shame in being a hall of famer tho.
haha I am said poster! Come on guys, flame on! My general point is that 20 years from now, Hatton and Cotto, by boxing media in general will be recognised as ATG's. Top 150 fighters at the very least. I said Marquez would also be recognised as an ATG, to which the OP disagreed.
No. Both are quality fighters, especially Cotto, but not ATG level. An ODLH, Tito or young Mosely would absolutely decimate and clean out this WW division, let alone an SRL. Hatton's a decent 140 champ, not much more.
HOF? Yes. ATG? I don't think so. I like Hatton, and I'm sure the Brits will hold him in high regard, maybe not Henry Cooper high regard, but high nonetheless. Cotto still has a career in front of him. Time will tell, but I don't see him being an ATG. Some of his best wins are close and, depending on who's talking, undeserved.