How many fighters in the last 20 years are ATGs?

That would be an interesting poll thread, is Nunn an ATG? He definitely falls short for me tho i think he was a superb talent.

 

we are talking ATGs and not HOFs. Guys like Winky Wright, Hamed, Trinidad, Klitschko.... are rather HOFs

 

It's debatable whether Michael Nunn achieved "greatness" in his own era.
He was a genuine world champion. In other eras he would have been a good contender. Whether that makes him "great" is up for question, and "all time great" even more so.

Not that there's necessarily a distinction to be had between GREAT and ALL-TIME GREAT. They may well be the same thing.

I'd say at minimum an ATG may be a champion or a contender, but would have to go beyond being just a world champion or a contender and have something extra, achievements, or something special, epic or memorable that puts them above just being a top fighter in their day. That might be what you mean when you say "transcende an era".

 

Michael Nunn is a sure HOF but not an ATG in my opinion. Same goes for Calzaghe.

 

When I say transcends I mean the talent of the boxer is such that in any era the my would be a great fighter.

Nunn was a great MW who ran into a prime Toney. Went off the boil a bit after that but at his best he'd be a match for anyone.

 

Like I said, I have my doubts as to whether Nunn can be called a "great fighter" in his own era, nevermind ANY ERA.

I'm guessing "he went off the boil a bit" sometime BEFORE he lost to Toney, but I sure didn't think he looked like a "great middleweight" when he boxed Marlon Starling, or Iran Barkley.

 

Nunn is irrelevant to this thread anyway, and seems like a very controversial example to explain what an "ATG" is.
Although I guess he was mentioned to show a MINIMUM standard??

 

Yeah.

Near the bottom of my top 100 list and the bottom of my top 15 MW list.

 

I've never been able to compile a top 100 p4p, but top 15 middleweight is undoubtedly great.
Nunn wouldn't make the cut on mine, too many great middles. He'd do well to end up in the top 25.

But I get where you're coming from. I suspect almost every fighter mentioned for this thread would stack up against quite well with Nunn as the standard.

 

More than 15 achieved greater things than he. But there aren't more than 15 I'd favour to beat him.

I do have an issue with the term ATG in general. John L Sullivan was at one point the best fighter in history, how does one ever go from that level of ATG to not? And where do we draw the line? Corbett for instance was at one time an ATG, when did that stop being the case?

If we have a top 100 as a cut off does someone stop being when they get replaced?

Right now I have Nunn there, but if in 2p years time there's been a slew of MW men who I favour over him, does he stop being an ATG?

It's very ambiguous.

 

DLH was great for boxing, and was a true force at the lighter weights.....but what Big Fights against other potential ATG's, did he win at the heavier weights.

 

Pacquiao, Marquez & Holyfield jump out at me.

 

Guillermo Rigondeaux. When I think of fighters 118-122, I'm not sure there's anyone, ever, who would be better than 50-50 against him. His resume's lacking a little bit, but he's doing okay if you weigh his am career heavily.

 

PBF, Manny, Hopkins, and Wlad are the obvious shoe ins. They all made their mark well within the time frame.

Holyfield, while an ATG, mode most of his history before the cut-off. Everyone else I have to wonder. As more history is made the requirements for being an ATG need to become fairly strict else the list becomes bloated. Mosley, ODLH, Whitaker and the likes have made their obvious mark in history and are well deserving of HOF status but in my opinion the ATG list sits a level above HOF.

 

Is James Toney in your top 14 middleweights?

Your definition of an ATG is someone who would be "great" in any era, so I don't see a problem there.
If you believe in each successive era the fighters get better, then, yes, some fighters will drop out of the ATG category if an era arrives where you think they wouldn't be great in.

"Top 100 cut off" is a different criteria though.