ATGs.... Genuine ATGs... P.1.

imo, when all elements are considered, the fighter must have established that his overall ability in the ring is among the 100 best fighters of all time.

 

A fighter who fights the best fighters of his generation and wins.

I think that is all what it boils down too. Of course, the ability to overcome adversity, defy the odds, and bounce back from losses are all apart of that.

It has nothing to do with being undefeated but if you finish your career after fighting at the highest level with 0 losses, you're undeniably an ATG.

Likewise, candidates don't necessarily have to be able to function in other eras, but if they dominated at their time and their place, they are ATG's.

Some modern ATG's, in my opinion; Erik Morales, Marco Antonio Barrera, Floyd Mayweather Jr, Bernard Hopkins, Oscar De la Hoya, Tito Trinidad, Ricardo Lopez, Manny Pacquiao, Juan Manuel Marquez, Joe Calzaghe.

 

I love JMM, but I'm not sure he has done enough (yet) to be called an ATG.

Personally, I call only the top 50 fighters in history "ATGs". I think acclaim is showered on fighters far too readily, I'm happy to be elitist when it comes to boxing, the Hall of Fame is a horrible joke, and ATG should be a label reserved for only history's very very best!

All of the factors mentioned are important when determining what an ATG is, but for me the most important is resume. That's what boxing is all about.

JMO :good

 

Disagree, but more on the basis that I think a fighter deemed to be an ATG would have the skills to operate in any other era. Maybe not to the same level of success but none the less they would be there. Anyone who could not operate in another era would not be deemed an all time great in my book - but mainly because, I would conclude they couldnt cope in another era because they have likely struggled against fighters not that great.

Does that make sense? It was all pretty train of thought...

 

:good

Agree with this.

However, I take the HOF to be what it is. A recognition of a major contribution to the sport rather than a list of ATGs. I have no issues with the HOF, but do think the tag ATG should be used sparingly.

 

There is no such thing: While it is called ALL TIME - when did we start counting - when will we stop? Just put all exceptional boxers in the Hall of fame.

 

The fighter must've had genuine top flight ability in the ring and either sustained it over a lengthy period of time at a high level or accomplished enough in a shorter time to compensate.

 

In my estimation, Marquez could and probably should be an undefeated fighter at this point in time. The Norwood fight was legitimately close, but I cannot make a case for John. Marquez beat him, but of course, he was stupid enough to fight in his backyard so he ultimately suffered the consequences.

As for the Manny Pacquiao fights, we all know where I stand on this. I had Marquez narrowly winning both fights, I thought he fought on the outside effectively for most part and pretty much demonstrated a clinic from the third round onwards in their first fight. The rematch was more competitive in terms of rounds, but Pacquiao got hit more than he hit Marquez, in my estimation.

I can thoroughly accept that some people will criticise me for considering these wins. I don't consider them wins. I have to consider Manny Pacquiao the best in the world, especially after his win against Hoya, but that does not mean I cannot hold Marquez in high regard. Even without the fights with Pacquiao, he's still accomplished a lot.

He is a three-weight world champion, and is now the Ring Magazine's Lightweight champion. The first man to ever beat and stop Casamayor, albeit a faded Casamayor, and all of his losses could have gone the other way, in mine and a lot of other people's opinions.

His technical ability and offensive skills are some of the very best, and dare I say, currently P4P the best in the sport today. On ability alone, of which he has showed against his toughest ever opposition in Barrera and Pacquiao to be effective, Marquez has a lefitimate case for being considered a ATG.

That said, I fully understand why it may be to early to consider him among the best. The circumstances really don't do Marquez favours, whereas they seem to favour Manny at every turn. The real Boxing fans, that is most of us, know who the best fighters are, and we know when we are watching a special talent at work. Marquez is that, and on the basis of his ability, his ability to step up in weight, the names on his resume, and his potential to do much more, I think he'll be an ATG by the end of his career.

We can agree to disagree on that though.

 

I think Rocky Marciano is an ATG, but do I think he would dominate during the 70s and 90s era of Heavyweight Boxing? No.

That is what I meant by operate. Of course, ATG's should be able to be competitive in any era, but not necessarily be champion.

 

No, we don't have to agree to disagree, because I agree with you. I agree with you that JMM has the ability to become an ATG and I agree with you that he will be an ATG at the end of his career. The only part I disagreed with was that he has done enough to be considered an ATG now. I don't think he has... yet. He's on the way and he has the skills, but having the potential to do something and having boxing ability is not enough to be considered an ATG. JMM's resume is not ATG standard yet. Once it is, I'll call him an ATG. As it stands now, he is merely a great. The "all-time" part takes time, fights, and achievements.

 

For me an ATG is a fighter who has a top resume, having fought the best around for a sustained amount of time.. spending this amount of time as one of the top fighters p4p of there generation. I don't agree with them having to necessarily have a good KO percentage, they may not have have KO power but they could out box and out fox there opponents fight after fight coming out with UD's.

 

Chin is a very important factor. look at it this way. ALI - the chin = dude who got knocked out by every big fighter he fought, he sure as hell got caught by the bombs

 

:good