Can someone make an updated list of ATG 50?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

My bad, I should know you're not willing to learn. Continue on in the dark.

[Jip]

Are u willing to learn?

I am.

Sure, maybe those debut records werent debut records, maybe yes or maybe not.

Did paid sparring exist?
Did the boxer from the 20s-40s therefore have so many fights, 100, sometimes 200+, because they didnt make much money (compared to 1960-2017) and had to fight many times, even if it was against opponents with very bad records (paid sparring)?

Imagine a champion from today like GGG or Thurman having a tv fight with a guy with a 4 wins 9 losses record. Today unthinkable, back than normal, cause again they didnt make that much money and paid sparring was a way to make some quick buck.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I love learning, hard to imagine it would come from you on the subject of Boxing.

Your response has nothing to do with my post. I've just seen you several times talk about fighters with no fights and thought you may like to know it's false. Not that any of those fighters are of consequence to someone's historical ranking. I said the same thing you did many years ago and someone told me what I told you. Made sense to me and I appreciated it. You...."could've, should've", typical JIP bullshit.

[Jip]

I love learning, hard to imagine it would come from you on the subject of Boxing.

Your response has nothing to do with my post. I've just seen you several times talk about fighters with no fights and thought you may like to know it's false. Not that any of those fighters are of consequence to someone's historical ranking. I said the same thing you did many years ago and someone told me what I told you. Made sense to me and I appreciated it. You...."could've, should've", typical JIP bullshit.

Yes. It didnt have to do with your post. Yet still i asked the question, pointed something out.

You were giving the boxer with 0-0 credit, by saying that boxrec could be left something out and those debut boxers had more fight in reality. And i think i believe those guys were paid sparing partner with bad records.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

As for your questions.

I wouldn't think that there was much paid sparring in Fitzsimmons day but I'm far from an expert on that era.

Fighters absolutely had more fights because they made less money. If GGG was fighting in the 20's he'd have 150 fights and if Sugar Ray Robinson was fighting now he'd fight once or twice a year. I'm sure Harry Greb would trade his 42-0(or thereabouts) year for one Mayweather payday. The money is the modern fighters award, I just won't take away the more fights the old timers had. It's just too vast of a resume. that doesn't mean modern fighters couldn't compete.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I love learning, hard to imagine it would come from you on the subject of Boxing.

Your response has nothing to do with my post. I've just seen you several times talk about fighters with no fights and thought you may like to know it's false. Not that any of those fighters are of consequence to someone's historical ranking. I said the same thing you did many years ago and someone told me what I told you. Made sense to me and I appreciated it. You...."could've, should've", typical JIP bullshit.

Yes. It didnt have to do with your post. Yet still i asked the question, pointed something out.

You were giving the boxer with 0-0 credit, by saying that boxrec could be left something out and those debut boxers had more fight in reality. And i think i believe those guys were paid sparing partner with bad records.

No, I wasn't giving anyone credit. Just pointing out something inaccurate in several of your posts. It's common sense that any fighter of consequence would have a record in the database.

[Jip]

I love learning, hard to imagine it would come from you on the subject of Boxing.

Your response has nothing to do with my post. I've just seen you several times talk about fighters with no fights and thought you may like to know it's false. Not that any of those fighters are of consequence to someone's historical ranking. I said the same thing you did many years ago and someone told me what I told you. Made sense to me and I appreciated it. You...."could've, should've", typical JIP bullshit.

Yes. It didnt have to do with your post. Yet still i asked the question, pointed something out.

You were giving the boxer with 0-0 credit, by saying that boxrec could be left something out and those debut boxers had more fight in reality. And i think i believe those guys were paid sparing partner with bad records.

No, I wasn't giving anyone credit. Just pointing out something inaccurate in several of your posts. It's common sense that any fighter of consequence would have a record in the database.

What do u mean any fighter of comsequence?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Yes. It didnt have to do with your post. Yet still i asked the question, pointed something out.

You were giving the boxer with 0-0 credit, by saying that boxrec could be left something out and those debut boxers had more fight in reality. And i think i believe those guys were paid sparing partner with bad records.

No, I wasn't giving anyone credit. Just pointing out something inaccurate in several of your posts. It's common sense that any fighter of consequence would have a record in the database.

What do u mean any fighter of comsequence?

I mean if the guy is listed at 0-0 and his true record was 12-8 it isn't going to change the boxers historical standing. Again, just passing on some information to someone that didn't know. Jesus, dude.

[Jip]

As for your questions.

I wouldn't think that there was much paid sparring in Fitzsimmons day but I'm far from an expert on that era.

Fighters absolutely had more fights because they made less money. If GGG was fighting in the 20's he'd have 150 fights and if Sugar Ray Robinson was fighting now he'd fight once or twice a year. I'm sure Harry Greb would trade his 42-0(or thereabouts) year for one Mayweather payday. The money is the modern fighters award, I just won't take away the more fights the old timers had. It's just too vast of a resume. that doesn't mean modern fighters couldn't compete.

Okay.

So a boxer from today cant become a atg top 10, because nowadays you simply dont fight 100 or 200 fights.

And since for legacy it is important to have many fights it is impossible for todays fighters to achieve the highest status?

So if greb was boxing today and have 40-60 fights in total, than he wouldnt be in the top 5 atg.

I mean honestly, boxong historians need to find a better way judging boxer. Not everything evolves around a record. Quality is as if not more important than a record. 1 big win over an elite oppinent means more than defeating 30 chumps....

I am realy irritated how somebody who defeated hearns, hagler, duran isnt ultimatly in a top 10 atg, rarly makes the cut. But other who fought so many chumps ate mostly in it.

[Jip]

No, I wasn't giving anyone credit. Just pointing out something inaccurate in several of your posts. It's common sense that any fighter of consequence would have a record in the database.

What do u mean any fighter of comsequence?

I mean if the guy is listed at 0-0 and his true record was 12-8 it isn't going to change the boxers historical standing. Again, just passing on some information to someone that didn't know. Jesus, dude.

So why do u point it than out if it doesnt matter

[SaadOffTheDeck]

As for your questions.

I wouldn't think that there was much paid sparring in Fitzsimmons day but I'm far from an expert on that era.

Fighters absolutely had more fights because they made less money. If GGG was fighting in the 20's he'd have 150 fights and if Sugar Ray Robinson was fighting now he'd fight once or twice a year. I'm sure Harry Greb would trade his 42-0(or thereabouts) year for one Mayweather payday. The money is the modern fighters award, I just won't take away the more fights the old timers had. It's just too vast of a resume. that doesn't mean modern fighters couldn't compete.

Okay.

So a boxer from today cant become a atg top 10, because nowadays you simply dont fight 100 or 200 fights.

And since for legacy it is important to have many fights it is impossible for todays fighters to achieve the highest status?

So if greb was boxing today and have 40-60 fights in total, than he wouldnt be in the top 5 atg.

I mean honestly, boxong historians need to find a better way judging boxer. Not everything evolves around a record. Quality is as if not more important than a record. 1 big win over an elite oppinent means more than defeating 30 chumps....

I am realy irritated how somebody who defeated hearns, hagler, duran isnt ultimatly in a top 10 atg, rarly makes the cut. But other who fought so many chumps ate mostly in it.

It's possible, I don't have an issue with Floyd at the back of the top 10.

It's not the number of fights total, it's the number of fights against top opponents.

Greb couldn't possibly do what he did today.

Nobody rates anyone over beating 'chumps'. Yet you rate Rigondeaux for nothing. Hypocrite much?

Sorry you're irritated.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

What do u mean any fighter of comsequence?

I mean if the guy is listed at 0-0 and his true record was 12-8 it isn't going to change the boxers historical standing. Again, just passing on some information to someone that didn't know. Jesus, dude.

So why do u point it than out if it doesnt matter

I've explained that several times.

[Jip]

As for your questions.

I wouldn't think that there was much paid sparring in Fitzsimmons day but I'm far from an expert on that era.

Fighters absolutely had more fights because they made less money. If GGG was fighting in the 20's he'd have 150 fights and if Sugar Ray Robinson was fighting now he'd fight once or twice a year. I'm sure Harry Greb would trade his 42-0(or thereabouts) year for one Mayweather payday. The money is the modern fighters award, I just won't take away the more fights the old timers had. It's just too vast of a resume. that doesn't mean modern fighters couldn't compete.

Okay.

So a boxer from today cant become a atg top 10, because nowadays you simply dont fight 100 or 200 fights.

And since for legacy it is important to have many fights it is impossible for todays fighters to achieve the highest status?

So if greb was boxing today and have 40-60 fights in total, than he wouldnt be in the top 5 atg.

I mean honestly, boxong historians need to find a better way judging boxer. Not everything evolves around a record. Quality is as if not more important than a record. 1 big win over an elite oppinent means more than defeating 30 chumps....

I am realy irritated how somebody who defeated hearns, hagler, duran isnt ultimatly in a top 10 atg, rarly makes the cut. But other who fought so many chumps ate mostly in it.

It's possible, I don't have an issue with Floyd at the back of the top 10.

It's not the number of fights total, it's the number of fights against top opponents.

Greb couldn't possibly do what he did today.

Nobody rates anyone over beating 'chumps'. Yet you rate Rigondeaux for nothing. Hypocrite much?

Sorry you're irritated.

Rating bob 3 for beating a lot of chumps and nostalgia. U didnt do it i know. Your list made sense.

I rate rigo for what he is. A boxer with elite footwork, elite speed, elite defence, just an elite boxer. Does he has an impressiv pro record. For the 1000 time no he has not. I rate quality over quantity. If a boxer had only 35 fights but wins over floyd, pacquiao, spence, lara, canelo, ggg i would rate that mu h higher than what chavez or marciano did mostly beating taxi drivers.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Okay.

So a boxer from today cant become a atg top 10, because nowadays you simply dont fight 100 or 200 fights.

And since for legacy it is important to have many fights it is impossible for todays fighters to achieve the highest status?

So if greb was boxing today and have 40-60 fights in total, than he wouldnt be in the top 5 atg.

I mean honestly, boxong historians need to find a better way judging boxer. Not everything evolves around a record. Quality is as if not more important than a record. 1 big win over an elite oppinent means more than defeating 30 chumps....

I am realy irritated how somebody who defeated hearns, hagler, duran isnt ultimatly in a top 10 atg, rarly makes the cut. But other who fought so many chumps ate mostly in it.

It's possible, I don't have an issue with Floyd at the back of the top 10.

It's not the number of fights total, it's the number of fights against top opponents.

Greb couldn't possibly do what he did today.

Nobody rates anyone over beating 'chumps'. Yet you rate Rigondeaux for nothing. Hypocrite much?

Sorry you're irritated.

Rating bob 3 for beating a lot of chumps and nostalgia. U didnt do it i know. Your list made sense.

I rate rigo for what he is. A boxer with elite footwork, elite speed, elite defence, just an elite boxer. Does he has an impressiv pro record. For the 1000 time no he has not. I rate quality over quantity. If a boxer had only 35 fights but wins over floyd, pacquiao, spence, lara, canelo, ggg i would rate that mu h higher than what chavez or marciano did mostly beating taxi drivers.

[Jip]

I am overexagerating rocky and julio had amazing careers but you get my point.

I heard floyd is the boxerwho beat the most champions ever. Shouldnt he be p4p 1 ever since quality means so much. But yet prime for prime leonard and jones were better boxer than floyd.

There should be 3 p4p lists. One concentrated on record, greb would than be a favourite for 1. The other concentrated of which boxer was actualy THE BEST at his prime, jones comes to my mind. And a list where both tecord and boxer quality combined, robinson, great record and ability wise elite.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Why would you penalize fighters from an era with only one champion? Marciano and Chavez are both overrated imo. Make as many lists as you'd like. The only ones that interest me are of the resume variety. Though I did do a list of my favorites once.

[Jip]

Why would you penalize fighters from an era with only one champion? Marciano and Chavez are both overrated imo. Make as many lists as you'd like. The only ones that interest me are of the resume variety. Though I did do a list of my favorites once.

Yeah.

Quality in no order: jones robinson leonard ali
Record. """ : greb langford pepp armstrong
Combo of both. : robinson leonard ali mayweather

Just an example.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Pep's record is the kind you criticize, more on quantity than quality. Charles and Armstrong have far superior ledgers. You should put Willie in your first list. Benny Leonard should be on all of them. He's smooth as silk on that shitty old film. The only guy who is.

[Jip]

Pep's record is the kind you criticize, more on quantity than quality. Charles and Armstrong have far superior ledgers. You should put Willie in your first list. Benny Leonard should be on all of them. He's smooth as silk on that shitty old film. The only guy who is.

True. Benny was smooth. Rare talent.

Würg pepp. Technicly top of top, but didnt he lack of physic. I mean you can have an elite technique like marquez but when u dont have an athletic physic than enables you to do things you cant with a average athletic body. You know what i mean. Thats why bixer like fliyd or pernell were so dangerous, they had world class texhnique on top of bein elite athleticky. A nightmare for most opponents

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Pep was extremely athletic, very fast. He was never the same after the plane crash and still beat most.

[Jip]

Pep was extremely athletic, very fast. He was never the same after the plane crash and still beat most.

Okay. Iwill watch some footage of him now

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You should focus more on Duran, you clearly haven't seen enough of him if you think Manny punched harder and had better punch variety. Duran's straight right was better than manny's straight left.

[Lackeos]

I don't have him rated anywhere near the top 10, but you should know that every fight in history isn't on the Boxrec database. Someone with an 0-0 record could well have had 40 or 50 fights.

Shouldve couldve....

Usually people say "should've, could've, would've" in situations where something didn't happen, to dismiss hypotheticals of unrealized potential. I.e. they use this expression in situations where it's a fact that something didn't happen, like Mayweather never fought Kostya Tszyu, and maybe he would've beaten him anyway, but shoulda coulda woulda. Except we're talking about a fighter from the 1880's, and boxrec really does have incomplete data back then, they very possibly might have had more than 0 fights, and it isn't a fact that they didn't.

In general, when you're dealing with records of non-elite fighters from 1885, like Joe Riddle, Alf Brinsmead, Jack Greentree, Pablo Fanque, and "Brinsley," you should not assume that boxrec has complete data on their fight records. With elite fighters like Fitzsimmons, people are going to try to dig up every single piece of information about his fights and try to achieve near completeness. But with some guy like Joe Riddle, no one is going to make that effort. So you shouldn't assume that boxrec data from 1885 is complete, and I suggest that you not make this mistake again.

That's not to mention the fact that the logic of "he can't be great, because the first 5 opponents of his pro career weren't great." That logic is just flat-out wrong. Also, you should look at Julio Cesar Chavez (Sr.)'s record. His first 7 opponents included 5 debutantes and 2 winless fighters.

[Jip]

I don't have him rated anywhere near the top 10, but you should know that every fight in history isn't on the Boxrec database. Someone with an 0-0 record could well have had 40 or 50 fights.

Shouldve couldve....

Usually people say "should've, could've, would've" in situations where something didn't happen, to dismiss hypotheticals of unrealized potential. I.e. they use this expression in situations where it's a fact that something didn't happen, like Mayweather never fought Kostya Tszyu, and maybe he would've beaten him anyway, but shoulda coulda woulda. Except we're talking about a fighter from the 1880's, and boxrec really does have incomplete data back then, they very possibly might have had more than 0 fights, and it isn't a fact that they didn't.

In general, when you're dealing with records of non-elite fighters from 1885, like Joe Riddle, Alf Brinsmead, Jack Greentree, Pablo Fanque, and "Brinsley," you should not assume that boxrec has complete data on their fight records. With elite fighters like Fitzsimmons, people are going to try to dig up every single piece of information about his fights and try to achieve near completeness. But with some guy like Joe Riddle, no one is going to make that effort. So you shouldn't assume that boxrec data from 1885 is complete, and I suggest that you not make this mistake again.

That's not to mention the fact that the logic of "he can't be great, because the first 5 opponents of his pro career weren't great." That logic is just flat-out wrong. Also, you should look at Julio Cesar Chavez (Sr.)'s record. His first 7 opponents included 5 debutantes and 2 winless fighters.

"Suggest that you dont make this mistake again", another teacher being arrogant. Keep your suggestions for yourself.

Bob and chavez are overrated not because they fought debutants but because bobs record isnt all that impressiv and chavez was good at beating c level and cap driver and ones he got into the ring with elite like pernell, meldrick and randall the result were losses and gift descisions!!!