How should the term, All-time Great (ATG) Heavy-weight be defined ?

Haven't thought about it too much, but some combination of performance in one's own era, historical significance, and the general regard they're held in by boxing historians. IBHOF Hall of Fame membership is a loose barometer, but perhaps overinclusive. Holding an undisputed title ought to make you an ATG. Not that I'm an expert.

 

Plenty of boxers have been in all time fights…doesn’t make them all time HWs imo. You need wins over solid opposition. Period. All time is a status reserved for a select few HWs that beat the best in their division…something Wilder hasn’t come close to doing. Heck Fury hasn’t done it either.

 

I'm guessing there have been 50,000 or so heavyweights? While there were a lot of all-time good heavyweights, IMHO, 99.9% of all heavyweight fighters were not all time greats. That leaves us with maybe 50 who were all time greats. From there we can have our top 10 of the all time greats, the greatest of the great!

 

Dunno how many ATGs there are. Tally up the number of undisputed champions from every weight class. That should give you a good first draft before you start adding people. Probably no more than double or triple that number, max.

 

First of all, my basic definition of an all time great would basically be the creme de la creme of Hall of Famers or future HOFers. Also great is how great you are within your era. We have no way on knowing how Jack Johnson would have done in this day and age with modern training and nutriion. By the same token, we cannot know what Lennox Lewis might have achieved in an era where black fighters were not given the opportunities they deserved.

I don't think it's a specific number, top ten, top twenty or whatever the case may be. In any group there could be one ATG one or 35 great ones. For heavyweights I would say there are twelve. Chronologically, they would be Sullivan, Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ali, Frazier, Holmes, Bowe, Lewis, W. Klitschko.

Obviously, this list is subjective and I am sure you disgree with some of them. Happily, that is not the point of this thread.

 

For me it's a bench mark system.

John L Sullivan was the greatest HW ever, for years. No amount of revisionist behaviour can change that he was the goat during his time. No amount of HW fighters coming after him can change it neither. So for me, anyone who is greater than, or on the level of John L, they're an ATG.

 

Wins over current ring magazine when they happened, wins over age 35 to 34 or young ranked men ( wilder has zero ) ,wins when the fighter was past his best say over 35, historical value of the opponent.

 

Exactly my point. ATG isn't a top x imo.

We spend all our lives agreeing Joe Frazier is an ATG, but if 15 better HWs come along he's no longer an ATG?

I don't subscribe to that line of thinking.

ATG is a standard, John L might not make my top 15, quite clearly his greatness transcends all time.