Ok the term is subjective and lot of the time, ones own personal opinion So, fighters that have being classed ATG s, but in your good opinion, aren't?
It depends on your interpretation of ATG. To get the discussion started, I'll postulate that top 12 in one of the original 8 weight divisions and/or top 100 p4p all time = ATG. Using that criteria, the first fighter that springs to mind as a consesnus ATG by others, that using the above criteria I wouldn't consider as such, is Jake LaMotta.
Ismael Laguna Ken Norton Gene Fullmer Paul Pender Several hundred more I'm very sparing with the term great to begin with.
Ken Norton is a fine pic for this. Nothing against him great competitor and warrior but often rated to highly for me.
That's the thing Really, it' can boil down to personal choice, so the interpretation is really entirely up to you. That criteria is fine. I've seen Jake called by a couple of people, an ATG. Me personally, no I don't believe he is, he beat one, but like Norton it doesn't make him one.
for me there are many, in the sense - they are great fighters, therefore Alltime Greats AMONG Boxing History... BUT - ELITE(s) stand alone fighters, well they are obviously fewer, i.e SRR and so on... but Greats/ATG's there are Hundreds & Hundreds of them.
Too me, an ATG is a hall of famer. A few guys made it in that I think are not quite ATG's even though I like them a lot. Gatti Mancini Fullmer Norton And soon to be Hall of famer Carl Froch. All very good fighters just not ATG's.
Yeah, theres definitely a distinction between fame and greatness. Ken Norton will be substantially more well known globally than Packey McFarland, yet McFarland is the greater by a considerable margin, for example.
These Eastern European fighters are difficult to judge as they usually enter the pro game at an older age and with a fair bit of mileage on the clock. On one hand that resume gives them a head start and they can get thrown straight in to the deep end but on the other hand it limits their longevity and records.