I was watching some of Bobby Chacon's classic wars and started to wonder about the criteria for judging an ATG fighter. First and foremost we watch fighters so we will see exciting matches, while skills and technique can be appreciated ultimately we want to be thrilled and see a display of heart, courage and fortitude in the ring. While Roy Jones is immeasurably the greater technician with the finer record than Chacon, is he the stuff of legend? There is more action in Chacon vs Limon 4 than all of Jones' career. If we judge fighter's status based on what ultimately we want them to provide, ie exciting fights, then Chacon is by far the greater fighter. Greatness is to a certain extent based on the memories of the fans rather than cold facts. Many pioneer fighters have records which are difficult to assess over the passage of time, what has made their reputations relevant to future fans is the impression they made on the fans of the time who then passed down their memories of great fights. I am sure there are many fighters with brilliant technical skills who were highly thought of in the 1800s, the 1940's and 50's, who have faded from memory simply because other lesser fighters stayed in the mind due to more exciting matches, see Beau Jack and Rocky Graziano! While I am not suggesting that Arturo Gatti is a greater fighter than Floyd Mayweather I am just interested in peoples thoughts on how much a fighters legacy is based on the excitement and great fights they have generated during their career. After all in the future many more people will searching for and watching the Gatti vs Ward trilogy than looking for Wlad Klitschko fights!
No. Out of the 'great exciters' Chacon would be a notch (or two) above Gatti. Gatti is a level below Boza too. On a similar note Beau Jack is arguably an all time great and does not deserve to be mentioned alongside Graziano! Saad is a great who was also very exciting. But giving someone 'ATG' status just based on the brilliant fights they give us? That would be down to personal preference and criteria, but for me it's a no.
It is a Necessary vs Sufficient Condition thing: Great fights and heart make are necessary to qualify as an ATG BUT Great fights and heart are not sufficient to qualify as an ATG
Thanks this is a very clear way of putting it. Out of interest do you guys think that many of the fighters we think of as recent candidates to be ATGs such as Jones and Hopkins will still be in peoples minds in a hundred years time and thought of as ATGs? Will someone like Virgil Hill who was an excellent but colourless champ with few truly memorable fights to his credit (in terms of excitement) be given his place in history despite having obvious heart and skill? You can have a great heart but not necessarily be in any amazing fights which I think are necessary to being remembered? If being an ATG is a combination of heart, skill and great exciting fights then the definition of ATG should be considerably narrowed and less easily applied?
People are going to get more and more ******ed. Barely anyone cares about most fighters now. In a hundred years no one will give two ****s that Kongtoranee Payakaroon game Gilberto Roman and Khaosai Galaxy really hard fights. No one will care that Fighting Harada was robbed against Johnny Famechon. No one will remember Carlos Palomino and Pipino Cuevas' duel 'reigns' at the top of the welterweight division. There's too much to learn now. Seeing how Floyd Mayweather is frequently named one of the greatest fighters of all time standards have slipped and will probably regress further. What we see now as outstanding achievements will seem as archaic and cold to a generation not raised with these values around them. I'm stoned. Dismiss everything above.
Not alone. An ATG means someone who would compete at a top level in any era of the game. A lot of guys who get popular for having exciting fights and having great heart don't fight at the top level even in their own time. Take the beloved Arturo Gatti for example. This is a guy who was completely and thoroughly stomped every time he fought a fighter anywhere near the A level. And by guys who weren't even near the A level, like Ivan Robinson and Angel Manfreddy, whose biggest accomplishment was winning the WBU title and getting smacked down every time he challenged for a real title. So how does that mean he'd do against Duran, Pryor, Arguello, Chavez, etc. I think we all know the answer. Gatti was a tremendous fighter to watch, a huge bright spot for the sport, and he'll probably be remembered fondly forever. But to call him an ATG is absurd, and it's just as absurd with a lot of other great blood and guts warriors.
