**Why we throw the term ATG, with such ease...**

What qualifies as a reasonable understanding of the history of the sport?

You seem to dislike public opinion, but even if you were to narrow it down to the greatest boxing minds and historians, you would still be looking at quite a few different fighters being mentioned based on many different qualifications.

 

Great thread and that reminds me again. Mosley isn't a ATG, period.

 

However, knowing the history doesn't mean you judge it correctly or even have a full understanding of it. I have already shown before that if you take many of the historic lists that even the top 25 boxers or so can have 9-12 fighters not mentioned on one list, but mentioned on others. So the names aren't constant.

Not to mention, the game has changed drastically in recent years, making the accomplishment criteria skewed.

My point is, it's too subjective to call anyone's list wrong unless it has glaring and overt bias.

 

But this isn't a matter of opinion. If I take Ring's 2003 list and Sugar's most recent list, there will be at least 9-12 boxers who are present in one top 25 who are not present in the others. And Ring certainly is a committee of what are considered boxing experts.

 

It doesn't really affect any active fighters who have a chance to be on that list. 3-5 of them perhaps.

But that was the point really. Favoring one era over another makes these lists impossible to judge accurately. Not to mention, as I said, the era's are so vastly different. Beating 3 ATG in this era is a MAJOR accomplishment. PBF has only beaten one, and he is the best fighter this decade. SRR, Pep, and the old timers fought more title fights than some of these fighters had fights. How many ATG and HoF did Greb beat?

 

Thus my point. No one could do that in this time.

 

Accomplishing ANYTHING the greats pre 1980's accomplished. It's just a different time.