What does it take to be #1 ATG?

[oogiebe]

Uh... in his prime, Bobo Olson was only ever knocked out by Sugar Ray Robinson and Archie Moore; both of whom are top 5 p4p all-time, and both of whom have over 100 KO's each. Beterbiev has never fought anyone in the top 5,000 p4p all-time.


Or the thing I have to criticize him on (aside from being nowhere close to all-time greatness ability-wise) is the fact that he's never fought anyone good. Literally every boxer, when they make their debut, is undefeated and has no good wins. That's where Beterbiev is right now. Being undefeated doesn't mean sh*t. Darryl Edmund Kho is undefeated. QING CUI is undefeated. Lonnie Hill is undefeated. You don't get regarded as #1 all-time by being undefeated and beating nobody.

do you think it would be fair to rank pac #1 with this

-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,

LMFAO!!! um...maybe...

Seriously though, it wouldn't because one could always question his fortitude having never been tested, given "won all fights clearly"

ATG=Kalan said so.

[Lackeos]

Bobo Olsen had no strength and couldn't defend himself well... He got knocked out a lot and knocked out badly... To compare a guy so easy to hit and KO to Beterbiev who has a tremendous chin, defense, and punching power is idiotic.. Bobo was a waif with limpy soft arms and no power... His KO ratio was 40%... Beterbiev's is 100%.

Uh... in his prime, Bobo Olson was only ever knocked out by Sugar Ray Robinson and Archie Moore; both of whom are top 5 p4p all-time, and both of whom have over 100 KO's each. Beterbiev has never fought anyone in the top 5,000 p4p all-time.

It's funny when the only thing you have to criticize a fighter on is fights that he won and knocked his opponent out.... And you call him a total nothing... When you see how easy Robinson was to hit and knockdown... and how badly hurt he was a few times, you can understand why he suffered as he did from the sport.

Or the thing I have to criticize him on (aside from being nowhere close to all-time greatness ability-wise) is the fact that he's never fought anyone good. Literally every boxer, when they make their debut, is undefeated and has no good wins. That's where Beterbiev is right now. Being undefeated doesn't mean sh*t. Darryl Edmund Kho is undefeated. QING CUI is undefeated. Lonnie Hill is undefeated. You don't get regarded as #1 all-time by being undefeated and beating nobody.

do you think it would be fair to rank pac #1 with this

-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,

Probably. Simply by virtue of beating Mayweather, Cotto, Hatton, 3 wins over Bradley, and 9 wins over the 3 Mexicans; he would be somewhere vaguely in the ballpark. Plenty of great quantity, but no one in the top 20 (Mayweather IS #20ish with the help of the win over Pacquiao, but without that win, he'd be considered #50ish). All of this other nonsense feels kind of like overkill, but it might actually only barely be enough. Most of these extra names are people that probably won't be regarded as top 75 all-time, except for maybe Ward. Using quantity alone, it's still not easy to surpass fighters who have beaten top 15 all-time legends like Henry Armstrong, Archie Moore, Roberto Duran, etc. (I'm saying that these 3 guys are the scalps who some other ATG beat). Beating the bigger Golovkin still isn't as big of an accomplishment as a welterweight beating Hagler. But beating Ward, with the ridiculous size disparity, might be enough.

[Kalan]

Jack Dempsey
“Day after day I trained, up at six, then seven to ten miles of jogging followed by a hot and cold shower and a rubdown until breakfast, which consisted of meat and vegetables. After breakfast, a quick nap and then off again, sprinting a few miles. My typical afternoon consisted of exercise and sparring, which could be watched by anyone willing to shell out two bits. Afterwards, more sprinting until dinner. At night everyone settled down to chewing the fat or playing gin rummy. No drugs, no drinks and no women were allowed on camp grounds. Those were the rules.”

I don't believe Dempsey did that much running....boxers are not runners..... Up to 10 miles of roadwork at 6AM???... Sprinting a "few miles" more shortly after breakfeast??? After the PM workout more sprinting until dinner??? I've talked to many fighters from the 40's, 50's, and 60's and some who fought earlier... I've never heard of that much roadwork.

My routine was 6 AM I ran 5 to 7 miles 3 days a week.. After running I did push-ups, pull-ups, flexibility and high-bar work.. I did twelve to twenty 100-meter wind sprints on 3 alternate days going almost full blast with 1 minute rests... After work I drove to the gym and started with 2 or 3 rounds of rope and 2 or 3 rounds of shadow boxing... I'd hit speed bag, double-end bag, and Heavybag for 8 rounds total and change the mix... Then 2 to 4 rounds on the focus pads.. Then I'd spar as many rounds as I could find anyone to spar with up to 12 rounds.. I would try to get home before 8:30 and eat... at 10:30 I did 30 minutes of weight lifting sit-ups, obliques and back extensions and went to bed.

In those day we cut off the wife 3 weeks before a fight... It didn't seem to make a difference if you took a fight on a couple days notice, but I still thought it weakened you... Everybody thought so in those days.

[Like a Boss]

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 can just as easily be argued fans of today look at the present through rose colored glasses.

Many of those arguing for someone of today to displace Robinson know nothing more about Robinson than his career win/loss numbers.

[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 can just as easily be argued fans of today look at the present through rose colored glasses.

Many of those arguing for someone of today to displace Robinson don't know any more about Robinson than his career win/loss numbers.

Either way it's an impossible task. It's fun to debate it, but with some of the posters who are intolerable, no longer the case. I would rather discuss FAVOURITES, so there is no nastiness going on, because really...isn't it our favourites we defend!? Greatest of All Time (for this particular era perhaps, yes?)

[Like a Boss]

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 can just as easily be argued fans of today look at the present through rose colored glasses.

Many of those arguing for someone of today to displace Robinson don't know any more about Robinson than his career win/loss numbers.

Either way it's an impossible task. It's fun to debate it, but with some of the posters who are intolerable, no longer the case. I would rather discuss FAVOURITES, so there is no nastiness going on, because really...isn't it our favourites we defend!? Greatest of All Time (for this particular era perhaps, yes?)

I think it depends to a degree on what type of boxing fans we are.

I rank some fighters I disliked immensely, much higher than some I really enjoyed following. We are really lying to ourselves when we let our heart overrule our head with our opinions.

[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.

It can just as easily be argued fans of today look at the present through rose colored glasses.

Many of those arguing for someone of today to displace Robinson know nothing more about Robinson than his career win/loss numbers.

And I agree to a point. But when all time p4p ratings come up in discussions.
The majority of boxing fans will not even give an ounce of thought of including a modern fighter.
There can not be an exclusion of past or present 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 can just as easily be argued fans of today look at the present through rose colored glasses.

Many of those arguing for someone of today to displace Robinson know nothing more about Robinson than his career win/loss numbers.

And I agree to a point. But when all time p4p ratings come up in discussions.
The majority of boxing fans will not even give an ounce of thought of including a modern fighter.
There can not be an exclusion of past or present fighters

Dare we put a new thread on ATG by division again?! Stand back and wait for the fireworks.

[Kalan]

You don't need volume. If Sugar Ray Leonard only beat Benitez, Duran, Hearns, and Hagler; then retired 4-0, I would rate him higher than Julio Cesar Chavez.

So...what if SRL LOST to Duran (he did) Hearns (he admitted he did) and a different set of judges had Hagler winning?

That would make Leonard 0-3.... Then what if his 4th fight was Terry Norris??? ... 0-4.... That's a bad start.

And I don't think you ever watched Beterbiev fight... He'd smash the chinny and limp armed Bobo out in seconds.

[Lackeos]

You don't need volume. If Sugar Ray Leonard only beat Benitez, Duran, Hearns, and Hagler; then retired 4-0, I would rate him higher than Julio Cesar Chavez.

So...what if SRL LOST to Duran (he did) Hearns (he admitted he did) and a different set of judges had Hagler winning?

That would make Leonard 0-3.... Then what if his 4th fight was Terry Norris??? ... 0-4.... That's a bad start.

And I don't think you ever watched Beterbiev fight... He'd smash the chinny and limp armed Bobo out in seconds.

This is the stupidest post I've read in at least the past month.

[Counter-puncher]

You don't need volume. If Sugar Ray Leonard only beat Benitez, Duran, Hearns, and Hagler; then retired 4-0, I would rate him higher than Julio Cesar Chavez.

So...what if SRL LOST to Duran (he did) Hearns (he admitted he did) and a different set of judges had Hagler winning?

That would make Leonard 0-3.... Then what if his 4th fight was Terry Norris??? ... 0-4.... That's a bad start.

And I don't think you ever watched Beterbiev fight... He'd smash the chinny and limp armed Bobo out in seconds.

This is the stupidest post I've read in at least the past month.

stupider than this?:

Some of the smartest boxers up until the present day: Vasyl Lomachenko, Gene Tunney, Jack Johnson, Salvador Sanchez, Vitali Klitschko, Anthony Joshua, Floyd Mayweather, Gennady Golovkin, Joe Gans, Keith Thurman, Chris Eubank Jr, Manny Pacquiao, Roberto Duran, Ray Leonard, Gary Russell, Jack Blackburn, Willie Pep, Ricardo Lopez, Eder Jofre, Tommy Loughran, Mike Gibbons, David Haye, Jim Corbett, Juan Manuel Marquez, Gustav Scholz, and Max Schmeling

[tiny_acres]

You don't need volume. If Sugar Ray Leonard only beat Benitez, Duran, Hearns, and Hagler; then retired 4-0, I would rate him higher than Julio Cesar Chavez.

So...what if SRL LOST to Duran (he did) Hearns (he admitted he did) and a different set of judges had Hagler winning?

That would make Leonard 0-3.... Then what if his 4th fight was Terry Norris??? ... 0-4.... That's a bad start.

And I don't think you ever watched Beterbiev fight... He'd smash the chinny and limp armed Bobo out in seconds.

And if your grandma had balls she'd be your grandfather.
It's a moot point. It's not what happened

[oogiebe]

You don't need volume. If Sugar Ray Leonard only beat Benitez, Duran, Hearns, and Hagler; then retired 4-0, I would rate him higher than Julio Cesar Chavez.

So...what if SRL LOST to Duran (he did) Hearns (he admitted he did) and a different set of judges had Hagler winning?

That would make Leonard 0-3.... Then what if his 4th fight was Terry Norris??? ... 0-4.... That's a bad start.

And I don't think you ever watched Beterbiev fight... He'd smash the chinny and limp armed Bobo out in seconds.

And if your grandma had balls she'd be your grandfather.
It's a moot point. It's not what happened

YES!!!!

[Kalan]

You don't need volume. If Sugar Ray Leonard only beat Benitez, Duran, Hearns, and Hagler; then retired 4-0, I would rate him higher than Julio Cesar Chavez.

So...what if SRL LOST to Duran (he did) Hearns (he admitted he did) and a different set of judges had Hagler winning?

That would make Leonard 0-3.... Then what if his 4th fight was Terry Norris??? ... 0-4.... That's a bad start.

And I don't think you ever watched Beterbiev fight... He'd smash the chinny and limp armed Bobo out in seconds.

And if your grandma had balls she'd be your grandfather.
It's a moot point. It's not what happened

It is what happened essentially.... Hearns did get the better of Leonard in their rematch and he admitted it... Duran did beat Leonard... According to many Hagler beat Leonard (for me, Leonard won) and with a different set of judges he may have.... And Terry Norris did box Ray Leonard's ears off... So just to rate Leonard ahead of Chavez Sr. on fights that were competitive doesn't really tell the story... Leonard was a brilliant boxer, but he was fairly easy to hit with jabs and straight rights... Had he fought more opponents with the skills of Duran, Norris, and Hearns he would have more losses....

After Leonard beat Hagler his top Middleweight Challengers were very tough.... (McCallum, Nunn, Jackson) Ray wasn't old, but he DIDN'T go there. He abandoned the title and came up with LHW Donny Lalonde... "I'll fight you at 168."

Mayweather went there in his 5th Division (154) with De La Hoya... Cotto... and Canelo

[punchoutsb]

My point is, fans are much harsher these days in regards to win loss records and the lack of total contests makes it harder for a modern fighter to reach the sheer volume necessary to be an ATG.

You don't need volume. If Sugar Ray Leonard only beat Benitez, Duran, Hearns, and Hagler; then retired 4-0, I would rate him higher than Julio Cesar Chavez.

The only past vs present factor that is holding back present day fighters from proving their all-time merit is the lack of ATG opposition to make their name against. Provided that a particular fighter is capable of beating Roberto Duran, they won't be able to get a win against Roberto Duran if there doesn't exist a Roberto Duran in the current era.

In Mayweather's case, he didn't really have a lot of opponents he could have fought who were top 50 all-time (and in their prime). He did fight Pacquiao, he did beat Pacuquiao, but people found the win a lot less impressive than it could have been because he beat the 2015 version of Pacquiao, who was more lackluster than the 2009 version of Pacquiao. See, if Mayweather was concerned about his place in history (he wasn't), he could have fought Pacquiao in 2009, and rematched him in 2010. That would have solved his dilemma of not having a good enough opponent to make his legacy against.

In the past, boxing matchmaking was like a Super Six all year round, every year. If there was a Super Six in every division, and a particular welterweight beat the winner of the WW Super 6, the winner of the LMW Super 6, and the winner of the MW Super 6; he'd be on the fast track to a top 50 all-time ranking. But in the present day, you'd have to move planets to get all of those fighters to agree to that. In the past, the best just automatically fought the best; you didn't have to convince them.

This is far too pie in the sky. Fighters of the past fought a lot--and they fought everyone. A great fighter losing to someone else then gives the winning fighter more appeal. I'm not saying volume is the most important factor, that would be quality of wins--but by greatly reducing the volume you are reducing the chances for good fights, upsets, and impressive battles. If Sugar Ray Robinson hadn't fought SO much, guys like Basillio or Fullmer wouldn't be anywhere near as respected because they wouldn't have wins over him. It takes more than 4 fights (even against greats) to make a career.

[oogiebe]

My point is, fans are much harsher these days in regards to win loss records and the lack of total contests makes it harder for a modern fighter to reach the sheer volume necessary to be an ATG.

You don't need volume. If Sugar Ray Leonard only beat Benitez, Duran, Hearns, and Hagler; then retired 4-0, I would rate him higher than Julio Cesar Chavez.

The only past vs present factor that is holding back present day fighters from proving their all-time merit is the lack of ATG opposition to make their name against. Provided that a particular fighter is capable of beating Roberto Duran, they won't be able to get a win against Roberto Duran if there doesn't exist a Roberto Duran in the current era.

In Mayweather's case, he didn't really have a lot of opponents he could have fought who were top 50 all-time (and in their prime). He did fight Pacquiao, he did beat Pacuquiao, but people found the win a lot less impressive than it could have been because he beat the 2015 version of Pacquiao, who was more lackluster than the 2009 version of Pacquiao. See, if Mayweather was concerned about his place in history (he wasn't), he could have fought Pacquiao in 2009, and rematched him in 2010. That would have solved his dilemma of not having a good enough opponent to make his legacy against.

In the past, boxing matchmaking was like a Super Six all year round, every year. If there was a Super Six in every division, and a particular welterweight beat the winner of the WW Super 6, the winner of the LMW Super 6, and the winner of the MW Super 6; he'd be on the fast track to a top 50 all-time ranking. But in the present day, you'd have to move planets to get all of those fighters to agree to that. In the past, the best just automatically fought the best; you didn't have to convince them.

This is far too pie in the sky. Fighters of the past fought a lot--and they fought everyone. A great fighter losing to someone else then gives the winning fighter more appeal. I'm not saying volume is the most important factor, that would be quality of wins--but by greatly reducing the volume you are reducing the chances for good fights, upsets, and impressive battles. If Sugar Ray Robinson hadn't fought SO much, guys like Basillio or Fullmer wouldn't be anywhere near as respected because they wouldn't have wins over him. It takes more than 4 fights (even against greats) to make a career.

That is reasonable. I may not agree 100%, but it makes sense.

[Abradolf Lincler]

It would be a lot more difficult to achieve that status in modern day boxing than it would in most, if not all, other sports. Firstly because boxers today don't fight anywhere near as often as their counterparts from the past. The sport is also far more politicized than it used to be (although it always suffered from that to an extent), which brings into question the merit of belts, reigns, etc., more so than they may've in the past. Suffice to say the odds are greatly stacked against anyone looking to make a case as more proven than the likes of Greb, Langford, Robinson, Armstrong, etc.

That's not even taking into account the waning interest in the sport compared to the days of yore, and not just among spectators. With the decrease in gyms, quality trainers, and the lure of bigger paydays elsewhere, the best athletes are more and more likely to go to other sports, particularly in the US.

The popularity overseas is still quite high (some may say at its peak) but even then you have to consider that many of the best amateurs in other countries never even turn pro for a variety of reasons.

A guy like Floyd has done about as well as I'd expect any fighter from here on out to do, barring a major resurgence in public interest.

[Kalan]

I fail to see anybody who Robinson beat who had great Boxing skills.... We know that Robinson lost to guys who couldn't box real well... Fullmer, LaMotta, and Basilio were pretty crude... Basilio had 12 losses... They lost a lot because they got hit a lot... You wouldn'call them fast... But they were fast enough to hit Robinson a lot and get the victories over him.

Other guys who beat Robinson, such as Randy Turpin.. Ralph Jones.. and Joey Maxim weren't the cream of the crop when it came to power and skills.. Basically they out hustled or outlasted Robinson.

We know that a lot of guys who Mayweather beat had better skills than Robinson's opponents... Mosley... De La Hoya... Pacquiao... Marquez... Cotto... Canelo.... and Judah were all highly skilled.... Floyd also fought a lot of guys who weren't that skilled -- such as Victor Ortiz, Ricky Hatton... and Robert Guerrero.... Those 3 had only 3 losses in 109 fights between them when they fought Floyd... They didn't have a chance in Hell of beating Floyd because they were too slow and hittable.

You line up Mayweather's Championship Fights and Robinson's Championship Fights... Floyd not only fought more top rung fighters with good skills in more World Title Fights -- he beat all of them.

[Lackeos]

WTF??? ... Are you kidding??? Lomachenko is probably the best boxer in Fistic History.

This is why you're 300% unqualified to even be speaking on the subject of #1 ATG.

[Kalan]

Oh shut it!!! .... You don't know a thing... Robinson was floored HARD by crude boxers like Rocky Garziano... Rocky Castillano... Jake LaMotta... Artie Levine... and Tommy Bell... ALL of them were crude swingers but SRR was on queer street at times.

Who floored Lomachenko??? NOBODY!!! Who had Loma in trouble??? NOBODY!!! .... And who knocked the crap out Loma like Ralph Jones did to Sugar Ray Robinson??? Now remember....Ralph Jones was coming off FIVE (5) STRAIGHT LOSSES when he shocked the nation by scoring a major upset over Robinson... If boxers today do that they get written off.

Lomachenko has already won almost as many World Championship fights as Robinson ever did... Robinson lost quite a few of them -- and he didn't lose them because he was a masterful defender.

Robinson was a great fighter for his day and time.... But he certainly wasn't as dedicated to his craft as Lomachenko.

[oogiebe]

Oh shut it!!! .... You don't know a thing... Robinson was floored HARD by crude boxers like Rocky Garziano... Rocky Castillano... Jake LaMotta... Artie Levine... and Tommy Bell... ALL of them were crude swingers but SRR was on queer street at times.

Who floored Lomachenko??? NOBODY!!! Who had Loma in trouble??? NOBODY!!! .... And who knocked the crap out Loma like Ralph Jones did to Sugar Ray Robinson??? Now remember....Ralph Jones was coming off FIVE (5) STRAIGHT LOSSES when he shocked the nation by scoring a major upset over Robinson... If boxers today do that they get written off.

Lomachenko has already won almost as many World Championship fights as Robinson ever did... Robinson lost quite a few of them -- and he didn't lose them because he was a masterful defender.

Robinson was a great fighter for his day and time.... But he certainly wasn't as dedicated to his craft as Lomachenko.

It may be a bit early to make a call on Lomachenko.

[Kalan]

Oh yeah.... He needs to accumulate 40 Title Defenses in 5 Divisions first... Never mind that he wasn't a big Featherweight.

How about ever answering the points I make in my post.... Or is that too much to ask?

[oogiebe]

Oh yeah.... He needs to accumulate 40 Title Defenses in 5 Divisions first... Never mind that he wasn't a big Featherweight.

How about ever answering the points I make in my post.... Or is that too much to ask?

Let's see after 25 fights. "oh yeah..." lmao!

[jas80s]

Oh yeah.... He needs to accumulate 40 Title Defenses in 5 Divisions first... Never mind that he wasn't a big Featherweight.

How about ever answering the points I make in my post.... Or is that too much to ask?

I think the fairest way to measure the two would be to have Loma fight 199 times over about 25 years and see how he does. I expect that he would be awesome, but fighting every few weeks and fighting into his mid 40s, I don't expect that he would go 199-0, or I guess 198-1 since he has a loss already.

I know you don't rate SRR highly, but he did fight what was there and that list includes a staggering amount of guys that the HOF was stupid enough to let in, so I think holding any other perspective number one to the same standard would be fair.

You might believe that Loma would do far better in such a circumstance and you might be 1000 percent right, but until you put guys in the same environment, comparing them is pure conjecture. You have to mitigate variables, it's just basic science.

[Syntax Error]

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.

Spot on.

Too many of the best don't fight each other nowadays & fight too infrequently.

Top line fighters fight about three times a year if you're lucky & the top PPV cash cows will fight no more than 2 fights a year: If your name is Keith Thurman, that goes down to once a year.

It is very unlikely that a modern fighter will have enough years on the planet to have all the fights necessary to ever be number 1 ATG.