To be an ATG, is it really essential that...,,

No, your resume stands as it is. No taking names out or even adding them in.

 

atg's make fellow atg's. their competition is above non-atg's most especially when they are in their prime. atg's are sure to make the fight happen and not just score on points and be contented on finishing the bout to win.........so it's hard to make someone an atg even if undefeated without the strong competition and atg trait.

 

There's always going to be a small handful of worthy opponents for ATGs. Soooooo taking out one will definitely make a huge difference for any ATG.

 

You need to clarify your question, e.g. by "remove a name or two" do you mean that, in an alternative universe, the actual fight never took place at all or that, in an alternative universe, a different opponent (perhaps lesser known name) was faced in that fight, with the same result?

 

The whole issue is that according to some you can't be an atg if you have never beaten another atg wich is bull of course.
That would mean that essentially NOBODY is actually an atg because the very first atg's in their weightclass have never beaten another one so weren't atg's in the first place. So no lineage at all possible if you think that way.

It's all subjective of course, but anyone with a bit of insight in the sport can distinguish the greats from the rest. There always will be debate and bias of course.

 

If the OP is really aimed at asking this then I agree, it's a paradoxical question.

As I see it, there is an array of criteria used to rate a Boxer. The number of ATG's on your résumé isn't one of them. The reason for this being much like you have described.

We'd have to rate each Boxer individually, based on whatever Criteria is agreed and, only then, would we be able to introduce the criterion 'number of ATG's faced' - post hoc.

Do we then adjust the rating, based on this new classification of opposition faced? If so, in theory, it becomes a circular calculation.

 

It is essential that you don't duck your biggest rival in their prime.

Like Floyd did.

 

ATG ranking is very subjective, but there's one common denominator among them, they fought their rivals and test themselves :good

 

It's like the "chicken/egg" theory.

 

atsch Vits fought five top ten rated heavies going by The Ring. He missed 26. His resume is crap. Take out a name or two and its just crap that got stepped in. :-(

 

My question is like his..

Let's take JMM as an example..

Let's say in an alternative universe, JMM fought a different boxer instead of Pacquiao in their first fight.. I'm thinking Morales, Barrera or Naseem Hamed.. He'd probably lose to Morales, but he gets to beat both.. So, we're creating 3 alternative here.. 1st is he loss to Morales, 2nd is he beat Barrera, 3rd is he beat Hamed.. His next fight is probably the other 2 he has not fought or a rematch with Morales that JMM would probaly win..

At the end of that road, Marquez will get his shot at Pacquiao, its inevitable.. JMM is too good, he'd put himself in a position where the fans would want it.. We'd probably get I, II, III and IV(KO6).. JMM ends up with better ranking..

But, it did not happen that way..