What Does "ATG" Mean To You?

This is a very good question and a great conversation topic. I won't claim to have the best criteria, but here are some factors that I think should be considered and mind you some of them may not apply to everybody.

- Impact that a fighter had on a given weight class
- The quailty of his opposition and what they achieved to warrant merit for beating them.
- Longevity ( if applicable )
- Amateur and professional resumes combined
- Nature of the actual wins and losses
- who beat him and how did it happen
- Titles obtained
- accomplishments in multiple classes ( if applicable )
- Impact on boxing as a whole and impact on society
- Skills and abilities shown in the ring and how they contrast to other greats.

There are probably more but these stand out for me.

 

Someone who can be described as "great" for all time, not just great among this week's fighters. Great among all fighters ever.

In other words, you can pluck them out of their era and put them in any era, win, lose or draw you'd still stand by them being great.

 

I sort of agree and sort of disagree. I don't think a fighter has to hypothetically prove himself as being able to succeed in some other time frame.. Rocky Marciano is by all standards a legitimate ATG but there are eras where I believe he'd fall well short of the top of his weight class.

 

A ridiculous term, you cannot have such a thing.

If we did, we would know who is going to be great in twenty years time...

 

But you're forgetting THE GOLDEN RULE of historical rankings :
"No fighter can ever be greater than a ranked ATG fighter who came along before them."

 

I like this description a lot.

 

Well, I didn't say he'd have to hypothetically SUCCEED.
An ATG could get KO'd in 1 round in a fight and you'd still stand by him being an ATG, that's the point.

Marciano, you can match against 188 pound fighters and he'd never fall well short.

 

The best fighter of their era is a good starting point.

 

Someone who's greatness stands the test of time.

A bit like herpes, once you have it it never quite goes away.

 

I agree with all this except amateur accomplishmants. I just dont think it bares weight at the professional level. Some great amatuers never transitioned to great pro's, and some great pro's never had an amateur or standout amateur career. Everything thing else you said is point on in my opinion. The above of course is only MY opinion.

 

If Wladimir klitschko fell in one round to say, Joe Louis. What would your opinion of him be?

 

And that's a fair position.. If truth most people would concur with you.. I just happen to like factoring in a fighter's entire resume.. It always sounds good when you say

Sugar Ray Leonard

- 1976 olympic gold medalist
- Four Division champion
- Beat Marvin Hagler, Hearns, Duran, benitez

 

Yeah, that's true.
And it's certainly a rarity that any known fighter could have improved.
If a champion fighter loses to a journeyman, the journeyman stays a journeyman, and the former champion is/was/always-will-be a fraud inferior to a journeyman.

Also, if a fighter loses to Ross Purrity and then, much later in his career, goes on to dominate the HW division for about a decade, that pretty much proves the whole division combined is somewhat less than Ross Sanders.
(Unless, of course, the dominating fighter has been cheating and getting away with it ever since losing to Corrie Brewster, which is certainly a possibility if fights were taking place, say, in Germany or its Lebensraum.)

 

Even though he's not retired yet, it's fair to say he's an ATG.

I'd give Louis his due credit for KOing an ATG in 1 round.

(And, to make the hypothetical make some sort of sense ... if Wlad had ACTUALLY existed in Louis's era, I'd be quite confident he would have proven his greatness there, outside of that time Louis KOs him in 1.)