What does it take to be #1 ATG?

[halfamill]

The general consensus among hardcore boxing fans is that Sugar Ray Robinson is the greatest fighter pound for pound of all time. If a fighter today wants to achieve that as their goal what would they have to do?

A couple of scenarios..

If Pacquiao had defeated Mayweather, faced Canelo/Golovkin, and called it quits, where would he be ranked all time?

If Ward returns decisively defeats danngerous light heavyweights Bivol, Bertebiev, Gvozdyk, went up to cruiserweight dominates Usyk, goes to heavyweight defeats Wilder and Joshua. Where would he rank all time?

If Roman Gonzalez had not lost and kept being #1 at four more weight classes?

[oogiebe]

The general consensus among hardcore boxing fans is that Sugar Ray Robinson is the greatest fighter pound for pound of all time. If a fighter today wants to achieve that as their goal what would they have to do?

A couple of scenarios..

If Pacquiao had defeated Mayweather, faced Canelo/Golovkin, and called it quits, where would he be ranked all time?

If Ward returns decisively defeats danngerous light heavyweights Bivol, Bertebiev, Gvozdyk, went up to cruiserweight dominates Usyk, goes to heavyweight defeats Wilder and Joshua. Where would he rank all time?

If Roman Gonzalez had not lost and kept being #1 at four more weight classes?

Yeah...ATG's beat the best of their era and don't just milk the belt. I like the WARD what if!

[tiny_acres]

This is not a knock on previous generations

But the past is seen through rose colored glasses. It would take God himself to come down and proclaim a fighter the greatest of all time. And then 90% of those that witnessed it would call God a liar and an idiot.

[jas80s]

The general consensus among hardcore boxing fans is that Sugar Ray Robinson is the greatest fighter pound for pound of all time. If a fighter today wants to achieve that as their goal what would they have to do?

A couple of scenarios..

If Pacquiao had defeated Mayweather, faced Canelo/Golovkin, and called it quits, where would he be ranked all time?

If Ward returns decisively defeats danngerous light heavyweights Bivol, Bertebiev, Gvozdyk, went up to cruiserweight dominates Usyk, goes to heavyweight defeats Wilder and Joshua. Where would he rank all time?

If Roman Gonzalez had not lost and kept being #1 at four more weight classes?

Interesting question...I assume you mean if Pac had defeated Mayweather and then defeated either canelo or GGG. If so, he would have had a very strong argument. And this from a guy who thought that much of his ascent up the ranks was helped by timing and matchmaking and a guy who doesn't see GGG as the second coming. But still, that would be an insane resume when one considers the wins over the likes of Morales, Barerra, and Marquez, coupled with the other wins.

If Ward could do all of that he would have to be a consensus number one. I mean, doing what he has actually done and then beating all of those guys and then beats the two heavies???? That's like superhuman,.

As for Gonzalez, if he dominated like that he would be one of those guys that boxing fans love and they would no doubt throw around his name in these types of discussions, but he would still suffer in the eyes of casual fans due to the smaller man bias. Just a sad fact. But, I would be hugely impressed.

We should avoid looking through rose colored glasses at the fighters of the past too. Any of these achievements would be ridiculously impressive in any era. I doubt we will see insane resumes too often moving forward, I think fighters and managers have caught on that careful management can lead to a couple of high profile fights and then comfortable retirement. There is just so much money now, you don't have to subject your fighter to a murderer's row to make money anymore, so why do it??

[Oiky]

Beat the best of the best around in your era, win proper belts, not bullsh*t phony ones,

[oogiebe]

This is not a knock on previous generations

But the past is seen through rose colored glasses. It would take God himself to come down and proclaim a fighter the greatest of all time. And then 90% of those that witnessed it would call God a liar and an idiot.

IT's true, but this thread is truly opinion. Only ONE person in the forum will crap on this. Guess who? lol! Past generations can't compete with today's athletes in any sport in reality, with few exceptions.

[oogiebe]

Beat the best of the best around in your era, win proper belts, not bullsh*t phony ones,

[oogiebe]

Beat the best of the best around in your era, win proper belts, not bullsh*t phony ones,

Like next Saturday's Silver Heavyweight Title, whatever that is!!!

[Deleted_Scenes]

This is not a knock on previous generations

But the past is seen through rose colored glasses. It would take God himself to come down and proclaim a fighter the greatest of all time. And then 90% of those that witnessed it would call God a liar and an idiot.

IT's true, but this thread is truly opinion. Only ONE person in the forum will crap on this. Guess who? lol! Past generations can't compete with today's athletes in any sport in reality, with few exceptions.

True, but if SRR was fighting today, he'd have access to all of today's science and training methods.

In terms of skill, I'm not sure boxing has moved that far since WW2. Early 20th century, of course the sport was a lot more primitive, but I'd say certain areas like footwork have actually regressed in the last 30 years.

Boxers today just don't fight often enough to learn certain nuances to quite as high a level. That's offset by being more athletic/explosive (although cutting too much can undo a lot of that too).

Anyway, didn't Robinson beat something like 14 fellow hall of famers? That's crazy.

[jamamb]

they fought way more years ago and so those old timers tend to have more notable wins, but i think thats significantly in part due simply to fighting more and not necessarily being all that much better then the best of later generations. making resume the standard makes it slanted to past fighters

[oogiebe]

This is not a knock on previous generations

But the past is seen through rose colored glasses. It would take God himself to come down and proclaim a fighter the greatest of all time. And then 90% of those that witnessed it would call God a liar and an idiot.

IT's true, but this thread is truly opinion. Only ONE person in the forum will crap on this. Guess who? lol! Past generations can't compete with today's athletes in any sport in reality, with few exceptions.

True, but if SRR was fighting today, he'd have access to all of today's science and training methods.

In terms of skill, I'm not sure boxing has moved that far since WW2. Early 20th century, of course the sport was a lot more primitive, but I'd say certain areas like footwork have actually regressed in the last 30 years.

Boxers today just don't fight often enough to learn certain nuances to quite as high a level. That's offset by being more athletic/explosive (although cutting too much can undo a lot of that too).

Anyway, didn't Robinson beat something like 14 fellow hall of famers? That's crazy.

I agree with a lot of what you point out. It's like Baseball...today's hitters only want home runs...no more hit and runs; moving runners; spraying the ball to right with a guy on second base. The nuances are definitely not as prevalent. I'd still take a highly skilled boxer over a puncher.

[Deleted_Scenes]

IT's true, but this thread is truly opinion. Only ONE person in the forum will crap on this. Guess who? lol! Past generations can't compete with today's athletes in any sport in reality, with few exceptions.

True, but if SRR was fighting today, he'd have access to all of today's science and training methods.

In terms of skill, I'm not sure boxing has moved that far since WW2. Early 20th century, of course the sport was a lot more primitive, but I'd say certain areas like footwork have actually regressed in the last 30 years.

Boxers today just don't fight often enough to learn certain nuances to quite as high a level. That's offset by being more athletic/explosive (although cutting too much can undo a lot of that too).

Anyway, didn't Robinson beat something like 14 fellow hall of famers? That's crazy.

I agree with a lot of what you point out. It's like Baseball...today's hitters only want home runs...no more hit and runs; moving runners; spraying the ball to right with a guy on second base. The nuances are definitely not as prevalent. I'd still take a highly skilled boxer over a puncher.

Totally agree. Comparing eras is even more difficult than comparing p4p today. All you can really go on is who beat who, which as janamb pointed out does favour those who fight more often, and people do tend to view the past through rose tinted glasses.

[Lackeos]

There is only one way that a fighter can distinguish himself as #1 of all-time. That is by beating Henry Armstrong, Randy Turpin, Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio, Bobo Olson, Sammy Angott, Fritzie Zivic, Jake LaMotta, and Kid Gavilan.

If Pacquiao had beaten Mayweather and Golovkin, I would've considered that clearly less impressive than beating Duran, Hearns, and Hagler.

[jamamb]

with manny its not just comparing the opponents but also factoring in size, being as small as he is, starting out just not much over 100 pounds, and then coming up to beat a p4p mw would be impressive well beyond just the quality of the mw he beat. ray started at the same class or heavier then those three

manny in his 20s weighed as little as 113 and was also a world champ at flyweight (guys like estrada, srisaket, etc are SUPER flys). to move all the way up to 160 is just an insane amount of size at that low body frame

compare the size of the top mws to the size of super flys, its just a world apart

[jamamb]

but ya, if we can only go by resume how can we possibly not be stuck with old timers as the highest level atgs? because they needed to fight way more to make the money and hence had way more opportunities to add notable wins to there resumes

but imo if we just go by resume the atg stuff at the highest levels will be frozen mainly in past eras and not do a good job of recognizing elite fighters from more recently and in the future

[jamamb]

okay, for ppl saying the examples in the op dont earn #1 atg, lets do this resume for manny pacquiao:

-retires 70-0
-won all his fights clearly
-started at 106, won world titles in every division from 112 to 168
-beat everyone hes actually faced (floyd, jmm, cotto, etc) plus wins over andre ward (for 168 title), golovkin (160 title) lara-hurd winner, spence,+crawford+thurman (taking all there 0s), mikey garcia, lomachenko, naseem hamed,


what is the highest you can reasonably rank him all time. can we say #1 yet?

if you say no, then what about if we further add a 108 title win over ricardo lopez.

[Thomastearns]

Is it not like asking what you need to be the perfect boxer? One without any obvious weaknesses. I think that's why Robinson is regularly touted as no 1. He had knockout power in both hands, a good chin, great footwork, and astonishing amateur and professional records.

Who else is there? Ali, circa 1967? Blinding speed and reflexes, unparalleled sense of ease, unequalled confidence etc. Weaknesses? Other than lack of outright power, none that I can think of.

Then there's Mike Tyson, the 1988 version. Tremendous power and accuracy allied to brilliant defence. Again no obvious weaknesses and good to great in most areas.
Doubts about his size were non-existent after he demolished Spinks.

Joe Louis didn't have any obvious weaknesses in Hus time, but perhaps was too static by future standards.

Sugar Ray Leonard had everything except dynamite in both hands. Duran was as tough as they come, but again lacked explosive power. The perfect boxer should carry a constant threat of knockout power.

I can't think of anyone in recent times who'd be a contender. Manny Pacquiao got closest but perhaps lacks great defence. Mayweather had phenomenal defence but it went with a cautious style devoid of any excitement. Out of the two, one too cautious, the other not enough, I'd take Pacquiao.

Lomachenko is a good a boxer as any we've seen but again power is not his strong point.
Errol Spence doesn't seem to have any obvious weaknesses, but it's still early days.

I guess to be a contender for the ATG number 1 spot you need to be blessed with almost superhuman natural talent. And that's just the start!

[Boxing Writer]

The general consensus among hardcore boxing fans is that Sugar Ray Robinson is the greatest fighter pound for pound of all time. If a fighter today wants to achieve that as their goal what would they have to do?

A couple of scenarios..

If Pacquiao had defeated Mayweather, faced Canelo/Golovkin, and called it quits, where would he be ranked all time?

If Ward returns decisively defeats danngerous light heavyweights Bivol, Bertebiev, Gvozdyk, went up to cruiserweight dominates Usyk, goes to heavyweight defeats Wilder and Joshua. Where would he rank all time?

If Roman Gonzalez had not lost and kept being #1 at four more weight classes?

I think that beating Floyd would put Manny very close but he still would need to beat Marquez without any questions to earn it.

Ward would definitely be coonsidered GOAT if he did those things, but I can't see him dominating Usyk or defeat Wilder and Joshua.

The same goes to Gonzalez - he already lost one of his biggest assets (power) in his current weight division, so I can't see him winning world title in 4 more classes.

Pacquiao would definitely be the closes one to reach GOAT status, even without beating GGG or Canelo.

[oogiebe]

The general consensus among hardcore boxing fans is that Sugar Ray Robinson is the greatest fighter pound for pound of all time. If a fighter today wants to achieve that as their goal what would they have to do?

A couple of scenarios..

If Pacquiao had defeated Mayweather, faced Canelo/Golovkin, and called it quits, where would he be ranked all time?

If Ward returns decisively defeats danngerous light heavyweights Bivol, Bertebiev, Gvozdyk, went up to cruiserweight dominates Usyk, goes to heavyweight defeats Wilder and Joshua. Where would he rank all time?

If Roman Gonzalez had not lost and kept being #1 at four more weight classes?

I think that beating Floyd would put Manny very close but he still would need to beat Marquez without any questions to earn it.

Ward would definitely be coonsidered GOAT if he did those things, but I can't see him dominating Usyk or defeat Wilder and Joshua.

The same goes to Gonzalez - he already lost one of his biggest assets (power) in his current weight division, so I can't see him winning world title in 4 more classes.

Pacquiao would definitely be the closes one to reach GOAT status, even without beating GGG or Canelo.

Kinda tells us how far away these guys are. The sport's changed...hardly anyone wants to take on the best in the world, so...perhaps that's why some of us have a hard time getting past era boxers out of our heads.

[actjac]

The greatest of all time changes with every decade. Its a joke of a debate. Kind of like the P4P argument. Given the fact that the average age of a boxing forum poster is about 25-26 and with no reference of memory before last week.
-mid 60's to mid 70's it was Ali,
-Late 70's to mid 80's it was Sugar Ray Leonard
-Late 80's it became Mike Tyson
-After that it was Roy Jones Jr.
-Then it was Oscar DLH
-Followed by Mayweather and for a brief period it was Pacquiao
-Now it is either Golovkin or Canelo
-soon the #1 All Time Great will be either Anthony Joshua, Lomachenko or Oleksandr Usyk.

[oogiebe]

The greatest of all time changes with every decade. Its a joke of a debate. Kind of like the P4P argument. Given the fact that the average age of a boxing forum poster is about 25-26 and with no reference of memory before last week.
-mid 60's to mid 70's it was Ali,
-Late 70's to mid 80's it was Sugar Ray Leonard
-Late 80's it became Mike Tyson
-After that it was Roy Jones Jr.
-Then it was Oscar DLH
-Followed by Mayweather and for a brief period it was Pacquiao
-Now it is either Golovkin or Canelo
-soon the #1 All Time Great will be either Anthony Joshua, Lomachenko or Oleksandr Usyk.

True that.

[oogiebe]

The greatest of all time changes with every decade. Its a joke of a debate. Kind of like the P4P argument. Given the fact that the average age of a boxing forum poster is about 25-26 and with no reference of memory before last week.
-mid 60's to mid 70's it was Ali,
-Late 70's to mid 80's it was Sugar Ray Leonard
-Late 80's it became Mike Tyson
-After that it was Roy Jones Jr.
-Then it was Oscar DLH
-Followed by Mayweather and for a brief period it was Pacquiao
-Now it is either Golovkin or Canelo
-soon the #1 All Time Great will be either Anthony Joshua, Lomachenko or Oleksandr Usyk.

True that.

Essentially, time will tell as it always does. I remember a lot of fighters in those decades who were the next big thing or on the cusp of greatness who kind of faded away...Bobby Chacon comes to mind.

[gilgamesh]

I'd say you'd need to be at least a 2 or 3 weight World Champion in this era, and would need to have beaten several marquee fighters. At least a dozen or so, and I'm talking A dozen or so Hall of Fame type talents. Which certainly isn't an easy thing to do. Part of that is beyond the fighters control as you can't exactly help how good the guys around you are at the time you come along.

It definitely would help a guys claim to the top spot if he participated in a few Fight of the Year type fights. Not necessarily that this makes you a better fighter, but it seems to endear you to the fans more certainly.

If you had a run of dominant wins that went on for years and years and years though that'd be equally noteworthy.

Bottom line: It would take a sustained run of brilliance against the best that the sport (in your weight class) have to offer for a period of at least 12 to 15 years.

I think Robinson's status is further cemented by the fact that he was able to regain the title several times as an older fighter when he was past his best as well. So maybe that would be crucial

The truth is though. A lot of fighters get treated kinder with the passage of time. I wonder...was Sugar Ray Robinson considered the best fighter that ever lived upon his retirement? Or did that come later?

[gilgamesh]

The greatest of all time changes with every decade. Its a joke of a debate. Kind of like the P4P argument. Given the fact that the average age of a boxing forum poster is about 25-26 and with no reference of memory before last week.
-mid 60's to mid 70's it was Ali,
-Late 70's to mid 80's it was Sugar Ray Leonard
-Late 80's it became Mike Tyson
-After that it was Roy Jones Jr.
-Then it was Oscar DLH
-Followed by Mayweather and for a brief period it was Pacquiao
-Now it is either Golovkin or Canelo
-soon the #1 All Time Great will be either Anthony Joshua, Lomachenko or Oleksandr Usyk.

True that.

Essentially, time will tell as it always does. I remember a lot of fighters in those decades who were the next big thing or on the cusp of greatness who kind of faded away...Bobby Chacon comes to mind.

Bobby Chacon didn't so much fade away as he was bludgeoned into the inevitable end that most Boxers will endure if they don't hang 'em up when they should.

One of the most exciting fighters of all time. The 4th fight with Bazooka Limon is one of my favorite fights of all time.

[jezzamundo]

I think it's pretty much impossible for a modern boxer to be considered the ATG. True greatness comes from fighting the best fighters in your era in their primes and ideally they too should have fought plenty of top prime fighters too. This happens pretty rarely these days, plus boxers fight less frequently.