Are Patterson and Norton ATG fighters?

I won't speak on Norton however Floyd definitely is an ATG.

Credit to @swagdelfadeel for the below.

"Floyd became the first heavyweight in history to regain the heavyweight championship, and did so after coming back from one of the most brutal KOs ever seen which very few would've been able to do.

On top of that, he also beat more ranked fighters in his career than Foreman did in a career spanning nearly 30 years, and stayed in the top ten longer than anyone else in heavyweight history which takes a special type of consistency.

He also would've been the first heavyweight to regain the title three times if not for such a blatant robbery.

Muhammad Ali also called Patterson the most skilled fighter he'd ever faced which is quite the compliment considering everybody he'd ever been in the ring with."

On top of this was Floyd's character. Outside of the ring Patterson was one of the greatest ambassadors the sport had ever seen.

 

At the risk of stating the obvious, ATG is a subjective term and so it depends on what your criteria is.

For me a p4p ATG is roughly a top 100 fighter all time. Neither meet that criteria, imo.

A divisional ATG varies dependant on the depth of the division, at HW it's somewhere between top 15 and 20, for me.

Patterson, as much as I'm really fond of the guy and think he's underrated from p4p h2h perspective, probably just misses out as he is either my 21 or 22 (I can't remember which way around I have him and Schmeling).

Norton narrowly missed out on my top 25 HWs, so he's a more firm no from me.

By my criteria, they're both borderline ATG HWs. By the criteria of others they could be bona fide ATGs for some and no where near for others.

 

They both have some impressive stats, that it takes a closer look to appreciate.

In Paterson's case he was ranked in more years than any other lineal heavyweight champion.

That is an incredible run of world class form.

He was also on the wrong end of a couple of questionable decisions late in his career, that might have been game changers.

In Norton's case you have to ask what if he had got the nod in two of his fights with Ali?

What if Ali had given him a fourth fight?

What if Spinks had taken his mandatory defense?

It seems that there is a Norton shaped hole boxing history, that he was supposed to conveniently drop into, but somehow never did.

You could make a very reasonable case for either of these men being great.

 

I think Floyd Patterson Is a legitimate ATG. He has an Olympic gold medal, record for youngest linear champ, first man to regain the heavyweight crown and several wins over some good notables. Ken Norton was an excellent fighter but I just don’t think the achievements are there to be labeled an ATG

 

Floyd is 100% an ATG. Norton on the other hand just doesn’t check all the boxes for an ATG.

 

Kenny Norton is not close to an all-time great or even a great of his era. For me, Paterson would be in the lower echelon of the ATGs.

 

Patterson yes Norton no.

Norton for me falls into the category of being very good but falls short of being great.

 

So, I assume that, related to P4P ATG's your list changes over time as new people move into the top 100. Is that correct?

 

Patterson for sure, I have no doubts at all that he is an ATG. I think people doubt him because they see him as a fragile HW with a string of stoppage defeats on his resume. But when we examine it further, he was stopped or KO’d by two ATGs twice…one many people’s No.1 all time great HW, the other a murderous puncher with ATG power, and of course the hard punching Ingo. But at least Floyd avenged the Ingo debacle by KOing Johanssen twice afterwards in successive fights. He definitely put the record straight there.
I don’t think those 4 combined TKOs/KOs at the hands of Liston and Ali help his case though, not let’s sweep them under the carpet. But they certainly don’t terminally damage his ATG status either. His achievements which others have already mentioned have cemented that IMO.

Kenny is another guy who in his prime was only beaten by ATGs…Ali in two close defeats and a KO defeat to Foreman. Norton was a very good fighter and I rate him as a top 5 in his era, no doubt at all.
But to me he doesn’t tick all the ATG boxes. Beating Ali once and running him close twice further and losing very narrowly to Holmes as Norton neared the end of his career, does not meet the ATG criteria without at least a couple of notable world title successes or title defences to fall back on. Winning a title eliminator and being handed the crown afterwards doesn’t really count, especially if you lose it in the ring immediately.

As was mentioned earlier, there are a couple of “what ifs” that could’ve tipped the balance for Norton but those “what ifs” could apply to many, many more fighters over the years too.

Close but no cigar for Ken.

 

Patterson yes, Norton not so much, although you could argue Borton was unlucky to be in the tough era he was.

 

How on Earth is Patterson not amongst the top 100 boxers of all time ?!???
I bet you probably don't even have guys like Tyson or the Klitschkos in there.

 

I have top 20 lists in each of the 8 original weight divisions and a draft top 50 p4p that is still a WIP, but not a top 100.

I've reviewed plenty of top 100 p4p lists and have a rough idea of where I'd place most fighters in the discussion.

To answer your question, yes, over time new fighters will be added to my lists. The key word in my ppst that you have quoted was roughly. "Around top 100 p4p as a guide", would have been a better statement. Its a guide in my own mind and there are fighters I'd see as debatable p4p ATGs and borderline ATGs. It certainly isn't a case of the #100 p4p all time fighter is a locked in ATG, whilst the #101 definitely isn't.

 

I haven't compiled a top 100 p4p list. I've seen a dozen or so. Here's the best - https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-top-100-pound-for-pound-all-time-greats.459918/ - it includes some fighters I'd rank below fighters that are omitted, but on the whole its the best and most well researched that I've seen. Patterson, Vitali and Tyson did not make the cut.

I promise you this is true - the worst boxing list I've ever seen included Froch, Julian Jackson and Gerarld McClellan as being worthy of the top 50 p4p fighters of all time.

 

It's "boxers" not "heavyweights".

What do you think of the top 100 list Greg linked Bomber?