ATG lists. Main criteria for Judging?

I know what you mean.
resume or results proves H2H ability.

i think some people have different ideas of what a great "resume" is. some just concentrate on the greatest "names" on the record, the wins over "ATGs" or whatever. others look at consistency and longevity in the resume and the number of good wins. some factor in the manner of victory, others are more inclined to think a win is a win.
some make a massive distinction between GREAT fighters on the resume, rather than VERY GOOD fighters on the resume. others see the line as being blurred on any given night.

whatever method people think they use, it all involves a lot of subjective judgment. different people will interpret things differently, even if they think they have identical criteria.

 

Very well said Conn......:good

Resume is "quality of opposition defeated" for everyone I guess.....however quality of opposition defeated can be an opponent with a great resume or an opponent with great H2H ability....

I rate Armstrong high, because I rate Ross high, and I rate Ross high because I rate Canzoneri and McLarnin high.....And I rate Canzoneri and McLarnin high because I rate their opponents high....etc.....But if I rate their "abilities" not as high I think would be a bit superficial give a great value to those wins like that.....

Maybe that was a confused post

But anyway...in my opinion, H2H, skillset, etc are the main point for start everything for judging ATG lists......and some guys are lucky or unlucky with their eras.....in my view Louis is unlucky (yes, unlucky !!)....because I see Joe being as dominant in anothers eras as he was in his, and his resume would be even greater......same with Jofre and others......
:good

 

the value of skillsets depend on era's. back when boxers trained at wrestling because they needed some of that. it was important, now it isn't. so i think how and when of styles is very important to this.
I like guys who would still win in other eras.