What's the cutoff for an "ATG?"

What does ATG even mean, actually?

 

Yeah, that's what I've been wondering about too!

It certainly doesn't mean a boxer, who would be great "at all times". Like SRR - who undoubtedly would be a standout in any era! It's more like someone who was dominant in his own time, and made an impact - either ability/accomplishment wise or otherwise.

 

deleated double post

 

This. All depends on the weight division - Classic divisions like Lightweight, Middleweight or Light Heavyweight you could conceivably have 20 fighters from any era considered ATG's while newer or more obscure divisions such as Super Middleweight or Light Flyweight would have less.

 

I think you are approaching this the wrong way. Top 30 lists change over the years as more champs come and go.

Are you prepared to REMOVE people from ATG lists as the years go by?

For instance, there is a thread asking if Tony Zale was an all-time great.

If I'm not mistaken, the first class of the International Boxing Hall of Fame had nine middleweight champs inducted.

Only four of the middleweight champ inductees - Fitzsimmons, Greb, Ketchel, Walker - reigned before Zale. Five in that first class - Robinson, Monzon, Griffith, Basilio and Lamotta - reigned after Zale.

Zale was inducted the second year of the Hall's existence. So, really, before Zale's reign, only four middleweight champs who preceeded him were held in HIGHER regard. FOUR!

When Zale was inducted, he was considered somewhere between 10th and 20th best middleweight champ ever.

Tony Zale's last fight was 73 years ago. I am sure there are a number of middleweight champs over the last 73 years who people would rate higher. At this point, I don't know if Zale would make many top 30 "best middleweight champs ever" lists. If he does, he's barely on there.

To me, you are either great, or you aren't.

There can be debate on who was the best ever in a division, and that can change. But why should there be a "cut off" if you were great?

This reminds me in a way of how the "cancel culture" thing began. If a fighter doesn't fit the criteria people think are important NOW, then let's remove him and add someone else.

If he was considered "great" up to and during his era, then he was great. That's why I say you have to respect the pioneers. They were great for their time. You don't have to pick them in head-to-head matchups if people who came after were better, but that doesn't mean they weren't "greats."

And they shouldn't be "cut off" or removed from lists.

 

This is a really, really good point.

I personally don't subscribe to the ratings or numbers game. It's too definitive.

 

I agree with this.

 

If you're in one of the really weak divisions historically like lightweight or middleweight where it's hard to have proven yourself as anything other than just another good fighter or whatever then you could still be an ATG of that division. But only of maybe the top ten or twenty. If you're in a really great division like heavyweight or super middleweight where there's so much depth, you could be at number 50 maybe of just that division and still be an all-time great p4p even.

 

It means someone who is remembered as great beyond their own time, and for all time.

Rather than just someone who might have been called great at some time.

 

Lots of fighters can be called great during their career, they might have a great night, or have a certain attribute that is great, or looked great in a couple of fights, or whatever, they were great in the normal sense.
But that isn't the same as establishing themselves as great for all-time. Achieving greatness.

 

The problem is, it is still warped.


I felt Butterbean was great for boxing, for a period. I look back and chuckle and say that was great.


Under your logic I am calling Butterbean an all time great. And yet most (including me) would say he is not, and plenty loathed the gimmick at the time too.


A less extreme example would be Don Curry. Plenty brought into his hype (me included) and I felt he looked great against McCrory and Jones, and looking back, still do. Yet again, I do not think many would say he is an all time great.


Maybe you could say, an all time great is a fighter who is NOW recognised as great by fans and so called experts who did not live in or who did not know of the fighters era at the time, and thus use hindsight.

 

It does not matter, as you cannot prove you exist!


But wait...neither can I!