There's alot of talk about fighter "X" being an ATG if he beats fighter "Y". Is there actually an official ATG list somewhere? Or is it like P4P lists where it's just opinion based. I've seen alot of posts where people are vehimently saying "X" can't be an ATG or is no where near it, making it seem like there's some actual official ATG list similar to HOF.
There's no hard or fast rule to being an ATG, it tends to be by general consensus among fans, fellow boxers, etc. I think of ATG's as those that are above HOF status, but I think the HOF is as close to an official/recognised ATG list you'll ever find I'm afraid - which isn't saying much
There's multiple ATG lists. It's a subjective topic however, the top 10 are almost always the same among every list (in different orders)
This isn't a problem endemic to boxing - are you new to following sports in general? Not meaning that in a rude way, but... Being a designated "All Time Great" in any sport is a subjective matter, but that isn't synonymous with and shouldn't be mistaken for it being arbitrary. There are proprietary achievement criteria to even be in consideration for best in the game, varying per what the game is - and you don't have to necessarily check a given minimum number of those boxes, although obviously your odds will increase appreciably with the more you do. Usually there is significant overlap between athletes reaching the "ATG" tier and being inducted in, if applicable, their discipline's Hall of Fame (although to be sure there is the rare ATG that doesn't get in, or only does posthumously or after lengthy campaigning by fans - and many HOF'ers that have their ATG merits doubted if not refuted outright by the majority). Generally the "ATG" label carries more prestige and has a steeper barrier of exclusivity than "HOF".
The problem is that there isn't a definition of being ATG. A boxing fan can create his "All time top 100" list. Therefore, all 100 fighters are ATG level according to him. Another fan can create his "All time top 50" list because there aren't more than 50 ATGs according to him. These are all subjective. Being ATG, being HOF, scoring fights etc..
ATG is not to be confused with "best" It's based on a shared experience of boxing by historians and fans alike, with different weighting for different criteria based on subjective importance. But usually it comes down to resume, achievement and legacy. The problem with modern fighters is it is almost always too soon. Better threads would be "Will xyz be remembered as an ATG" that can lead to more fruitful discussions. Because if it isn't framed that way, the answer is almost always "it's too soon" which then leads to none fruitful discussions such as "but Canelo would beat Ketchel" or "Fury would beat Marciano" which doesn't really deal with greatness. As Pac and Floyd approached the end of their 20 years at the top of the sport, they had obviously achieved greatness, therefore threads weren't necessary. Same with Wlad as he approached the end of a decade at the top of his division. I think this has led to people wanting to enjoy the moment more, and revel in their favourites more by proclaiming them already great in their prime.
Hahaha. No I'm not new to sports. Boxing is the only sport I know about where people talk about ATG "lists" like top 100 etc. I think this has to do with the fact that other sports have different positions. You hear alot of people talking about ATG boxers like it's an official list.
Well, yeah, but then it just gets broken down the same way by position. You absolutely hear ESPN talking heads going on about their list of "ATG quarterbacks, power forwards, center fielders", etc. with that same tone of certainty that XYZ belong.
I dunno, football (soccer for friends from the US) has lots of recurring lists on ATG players and teams etc. And some of the similar generational quandaries too - Ronaldo & Messi vs Pele and Maradona, similar stuff about nutrition / modern game etc etc I'm guessing NFL and NBA has a lot of that stuff too - not that I even know much about Basketball, but even over here in Scotland I encountered conversations and speculation on whether Steff Curry was better than Michael Jordan/Lebron etc and stuff like that. That stuff is going to be endlessly debated in all sports i'd have thought - Djokovic>Sampras>Borge etc etc
By most peoples "logic" Joe frazier isn't an atg which is why I just stay away from making my own lists
