Are Patterson and Norton ATG fighters?

The opinions here are pretty much correct in the general consensus.
I would agree Patterson makes it-especially when you consider "ATG" to include actual size & relative to their era.
Norton does fall a little short.

Patterson would have been among the very best ever with day before weigh ins, staying slightly leaner + dehydrating he would be a LHW.
Anyway he accomplished more than Norton.
However as per a thread on another website had...

Matching these two together would be a great fight!
Patterson better overall, Norton bigger & stronger.
Stylistically not much to favor either man, neither the poison of the other.
Both could be intimidated or defeated by the greatest powerhouse sluggers.

I would tentatively favor Norton but with no degree of confidence!

 

besides some of Floyd's impressive/interesting stats, his balls and skill, he went 12 rounds with pre exile Ali, a couple other guys made it past 10/into deep water with pre exile Ali, but Floyd was the only one of them that fought Liston twice, I'm not sure if Mildenberger or Terrell would come back for seconds after Liston wiped the floor with them, Floyd got annihilated twice and apparently wanted a third fight

 

Yes, and they should have definitely made the cut.
The list is garbage. It has Mayweather at 47 and Pac at 48 for ****s sake.
These guys rank between 10 and 20 all time in the worst case scenario.

That's cause the criteria you use to rank them is completely different.

 

It's very bad. Mayweather and Pac are ranked 47 and 48.
IMO they are top 10 all time, between 10 and 20 all time in the worst case scenario.

 

It was compiled 10-years ago. I suspect McGrain would rank both Mayweather and Pacquiao higher now.

What criteria could possibly justify Froch, J.Jackson & McClellan as being worthy of the greatest 50 boxers of all time?

 

Ok.

H2H ability.

 

Patterson absolutely, Norton no. Although I think Norton had the chops to be one if he’d been a little more consistent and maybe operated in a different era. Let’s say Kenny was an “important” fighter, if that makes any sense.

 

H2H ability? Wow, that surprises me.

In the recent Liston vs Louis thread, you argued for Liston over Louis, and even posted - "the likes of Liston, Patterson, Machen, Moore, Johansson, Williams - move way better and look way more skilled overall than Louis".

Yet you included Louis, along with Froch, Jackson & McClellan, in the fighters you listed as being worthy of top 50 p4p all time in January of this year, whilst you did not include Liston, nor any of the other fighters you mentioned in the above quote.

I'm having trouble understanding the consistency in your views, so to help me I'd be grateful if you could please answer the following two questions:

1) What has changed about your perception of Louis in the past 5-months for your view of him to diminish to such a catastrophic extent? You had him ahead of Liston, but now behind Machen, Johansson and Williams...

2) You also listed Langford & Greb. This surprised me given your views on the antediluvian nature of the skillsets of boxers from around their era in comparison to the 80's & beyond. So, I'm interested, how did you determine that Greb in particular, was so far ahead of his peers in terms of H2H ability, that he's worthy of top 50 p4p all time?

 

It is very simple. When assessing greatness, I take into account 3 factors: achievements, H2H ability (peak form) and impact on the sport.
Louis ranks high in terms of achievements and impact on the sport. He's not that high in terms of H2H ability. But overall the first 2 factors elevate his status.
When discussing hypothetical fights, I only take into account H2H ability.
Therefore boxer A can be greater than boxer B in terms of achievements, yet if they were to fight, boxer B would destroy him.
Does this make sense, do you understand what I am trying to say ?
Let me give you a quick example. I see Louis as greater than Liston, Tyson, Lewis, yet in a hypothetical fight, IMO they'd obliterate and mop the floor with him.

 

They are third-tier greats. They made significant contributions to the division without owning it.

Patterson, Norton, Walcott, Bowe, Vitali Klitschko, Tyson Fury...I think a lot of people might even put Dempsey on this list now, although I know that is opening a can of worms...

 

H2H had no place in assessing greatness, except against other fighters of their era. There are dozens of guys right now who would literally kill some of the small champions of the past. They of course do not deserve consideration as great.

 

It makes sense in that I understand the concept of your criteria, thank you. It doesn't explain some of your picks, but don't worry about that, it's your list.

My advice to you, and you can consider it or completley ignore it, is to avoid criticising the lists of others with such conviction, when many very knowledgable posters on here would either laugh at yours or just simply not take it, or by association you, seriously, regardless of your criteria.

 

Great post mate.

 

Patterson for sure. Gold medalist, 2x Champ in an era where there weren't a bunch of split belts, beat some very noteworthy ranked contenders, continued to get good wins past his prime and nearly won a 3rd championship losing via close decision. He passes the eye test with blazing hand speed, good fundamentals, and good ring IQ. He's just outside my top 10 and he's often underrated due to his lack of durability.

Norton is a little trickier since he never actually beat a champion and won a championship by default in an eliminator. He racked up some good wins in a highly competitive era (4-5 ranked contenders last I checked) but had mixed results against his best opponents. The loss to Foreman is a little forgivable, but he (officially) went 1-2 against Ali and lost a very close fight with Holmes (but a loss is a loss) and completely missed Frazier who was an extremely significant force in that era (to be fair, neither wanted to fight each other since they were friends). There were a few other (non essential) guys he missed that could've bumped his ranking up had he beaten them (perhaps wins over Lyle, Bugner, Bonavena, etc). Norton was always in shape and willing to face just about anyone. He was in the right place at the right time, but sometimes he just got the short end of the stick in close decisions or he just couldn't handle highly destructive punchers. My verdict is fringe ATG.

 

Patterson is ATG. Norton is one win short of being ATG; to beat Foreman or Frazier or Ali one more time or Holmes.