Does it matter to you how many fights someone has to be called an ATG?

[Controversial]

Is there a sweet spot for a number of fights someone should have? Or all about longevity and how many great fighters they beat? For arguments sake say Lomachenko beat Lopez in a rematch, defended a few times, maybe winning a title at another weight, and retired 20-0 would you consider him an ATG? Or not enough fights? Not enough big wins? Or is it just what they achieve in those fights and if so would it bother you if guys get in and out of boxing as soon as possible, earn the dough and leave?

James J Jeffries is normally highly rated as an old timer but only 24 bouts listed on his record 19-1-2 (2 no decisions)

[DrDuke]

There are many factors, but the most significant one is defeated opposition in its prime.

Talking about Lomachanko, if he comes back against Lopez and then defeats Haney and Davis, I'll call him an ATG.

[Controversial]

There are many factors, but the most significant one is defeated opposition in its prime.

Talking about Lomachanko, if he comes back against Lopez and then defeats Haney and Davis, I'll call him an ATG.

Difficult isn't it as there are ATGs who didn't beat anyone world class in their prime

[DrDuke]

There are many factors, but the most significant one is defeated opposition in its prime.

Talking about Lomachanko, if he comes back against Lopez and then defeats Haney and Davis, I'll call him an ATG.

Difficult isn't it as there are ATGs who didn't beat anyone world class in their prime

For example?

[elmersalsa]

You can only fight what is available in front of you.

For example, the Klitschko brothers dominated the heavyweight division for almost 10 years when they were champions of the world. Does that makes them all-time greats?

I see in their overall careers that they lost to some bum fights. Bum fights that they should have won. They should have retired undefeated with 20 defenses for each brother. I think that would have put them in the ATG rankings at heavyweight and pound per pound in my view.

[DrDuke]

For example, the Klitschko brothers dominated the heavyweight division for almost 10 years when they were champions of the world. Does that makes them all-time greats?

Wlad is an ATG for sure.

Vitali isn't. Although he'll be remembered because of the rare phenomenon of two brothers simultaneously reigning in a single era. But the casuals will never give a f*ck about who beat who there.

And it looks like it's again Vitali time on the forum.

[Controversial]

For example?

You could make arguments that Calzaghe or Tyson didn't beat any great in 'prime' fighters, Marciano too. I'm sure there are others.




.

[f read]

I think it is just a part of it. Longevity and consistency are too very meaningful traits. The caliber of opposition and when you fought them would be a very important factor as well. Here is a for instance Buck Smith if anybody recalls him had over 100 fights and he traveled the country fighting. He does not fall into the category of an all time great just because of his many fights that he had. His love and dedication for the sport would make anybody stand up and take notice. The old timers fought often and made peanuts some say because if they did not stay active and earn a living they would not have dinner on the table. Talent is another category that must be examined closely. Some have more natural ability than others some have to work much harder and overachieve to gain success. I would take a less talented boxer who had determination and intestinal fortitude over a person who had talent and natural ability but was lazy and uninterested. If you could combine the two talent longevity hard work determination you have the formula for a total package and an all time great in the making. A few who would fall into this category would be Sugar Ray Robinson and Roberto Duran. Now a loss or a setback for some would be a blessing in disguise back to the drawing board examples Muhammad Ali after his first loss to Joe Frazier Joe Louis after his first loss to Max Schmeling and Sugar Ray Leonard after his first loss to Roberto Duran. All were able to comeback strongly and win world titles after devastating losses. You have Gerry Cooney who never really came back strong after his loss to Larry Holmes. I think his dedication and personal problems were keys factors that kept him from coming back strongly.

[f read]

For example?

You could make arguments that Calzaghe or Tyson didn't beat any great in 'prime' fighters, Marciano too. I'm sure there are others.




.Marciano was an overachiever long on his conditioning and determination. He was the most with the least and he went along way. The competition during his time was not top notch and in the long run that will be held against him. As mentioned you can only fight what is available. I draw an analogy to the 1972 Miami Dolphins 17-0 still a record to this day. The schedule was weak but they could have easily been tripped up and played to the level and caliber of the opposition. My hat is off to them for coming out every week even with a backup quarterback. However i go deeper than the record which is on the surface and can be deceiving in the overall picture. Marciano certainly a top 10 heavyweight and an overachiever but the caliber of opposition keeps him from being in the top 2 or 3 in my opinion. The same would apply to the 1972 Miami Dolphins as well.

[brilo33]

good question, i think the truth is there is no equation for an all time great , cause if people dont like you or rate you nothing changes that, i think if you have had only a few fights but beat the best in your division what more can you do, but boxing is very subjective sport people like different things, look i love a fighter, but if i talk an atg i will always choose a boxer

[Onetimeonly]

No, what matters is opposition and results. Loma is an atg amateur nowhere near as a pro. Wlad falls short for me too.

[f read]

No, what matters is opposition and results. Loma is an atg amateur nowhere near as a pro. Wlad falls short for me too.

Agreed Loma does not have the track record and longevity to be in the conversation for atg status as a pro at this time. Lets see were he is in 5 years if he achieves greatness or just fades away. Time will certainly tell. He is no question one of the best amateurs of all time and he has the track record to prove it.

[brilo33]

No, what matters is opposition and results. Loma is an atg amateur nowhere near as a pro. Wlad falls short for me too.

dont agree , loma will go down as a great in pro boxing due to his title fights and defending his title , how can he not ,

[brilo33]

No, what matters is opposition and results. Loma is an atg amateur nowhere near as a pro. Wlad falls short for me too.

Agreed Loma does not have the track record and longevity to be in the conversation for atg status as a pro at this time. Lets see were he is in 5 years if he achieves greatness or just fades away. Time will certainly tell. He is no question one of the best amateurs of all time and he has the track record to prove it.

look at the fighters loma beat he was going up divisions aswell , has to be a great, no he is a great

[Onetimeonly]

No, what matters is opposition and results. Loma is an atg amateur nowhere near as a pro. Wlad falls short for me too.

Agreed Loma does not have the track record and longevity to be in the conversation for atg status as a pro at this time. Lets see were he is in 5 years if he achieves greatness or just fades away. Time will certainly tell. He is no question one of the best amateurs of all time and he has the track record to prove it.

look at the fighters loma beat he was going up divisions aswell , has to be a great, no he is a great

None of the fighters he beat are great. Russell is quite good, past that he lost to the two best he faced.

Obviously a great fighter, not an atg. They're two different things.

[Controversial]

Lots of top fighters don't beat 'great in prime' fighters in their career. Calzaghe is an interesting one as lots of fights, unbeaten but RJJ wasn't the fighter he once was. The Hopkins win looked better in time as Hopkins went on to beat some good fighters but would you consider Hopkins to be in his prime aged 43? Other than them who else did he beat, Kessler and Eubank both very good fighters but not ATGs and a much hyped Lacy.

Would Riddick Bowe be considered a great for beating Holyfield? His record is very thin if you take Holyfield out.

[DrDuke]

For example?

You could make arguments that Calzaghe or Tyson didn't beat any great in 'prime' fighters, Marciano too. I'm sure there are others.

It shouldn't necessarily be ATG opposition, it should be available good opposition. Tyson and already mentioned Wlad were beating the best opposition available, not great, except past prime Holmes in Tyson's case. They both deserve to be called ATG. The same with Calzaghe. Each of them will be remembered as the man of the division and time he fought in.

[Controversial]

For example?

You could make arguments that Calzaghe or Tyson didn't beat any great in 'prime' fighters, Marciano too. I'm sure there are others.

It shouldn't necessarily be ATG opposition, it should be available good opposition. Tyson and already mentioned Wlad were beating the best opposition available, not great, except past prime Holmes in Tyson's case. They both deserve to be called ATG. The same with Calzaghe. Each of them will be remembered as the man of the division and time he fought in.

Would you say JC was, he never took RJJ on at his peak or Hopkins

[DrDuke]

You could make arguments that Calzaghe or Tyson didn't beat any great in 'prime' fighters, Marciano too. I'm sure there are others.

It shouldn't necessarily be ATG opposition, it should be available good opposition. Tyson and already mentioned Wlad were beating the best opposition available, not great, except past prime Holmes in Tyson's case. They both deserve to be called ATG. The same with Calzaghe. Each of them will be remembered as the man of the division and time he fought in.

Would you say JC was, he never took RJJ on at his peak or Hopkins

But he has Kessler, who was a top competitor for very long. Anyway, Hopkins was still more than just relevant.

[nickcat0]

All discussions of ATGs are subjective, and usually combine a mixture of quality and quantity, with the standard of opponent and the length of career being assessed according to our own opinions and prejudices.

The only thing which is fact, is a boxer's record (and even that may include some dodgy judges' decisions).

[gilgamesh]

Is there a sweet spot for a number of fights someone should have? Or all about longevity and how many great fighters they beat? For arguments sake say Lomachenko beat Lopez in a rematch, defended a few times, maybe winning a title at another weight, and retired 20-0 would you consider him an ATG? Or not enough fights? Not enough big wins? Or is it just what they achieve in those fights and if so would it bother you if guys get in and out of boxing as soon as possible, earn the dough and leave?

James J Jeffries is normally highly rated as an old timer but only 24 bouts listed on his record 19-1-2 (2 no decisions)

It's mainly about how good the opponents are that you beat.

I mean if Sugar Ray Leonard only had 15 fights, and he still had wins over Benitez, Duran, Hearns and Hagler. He'd still be a Legend.

[Controversial]

It shouldn't necessarily be ATG opposition, it should be available good opposition. Tyson and already mentioned Wlad were beating the best opposition available, not great, except past prime Holmes in Tyson's case. They both deserve to be called ATG. The same with Calzaghe. Each of them will be remembered as the man of the division and time he fought in.

Would you say JC was, he never took RJJ on at his peak or Hopkins

But he has Kessler, who was a top competitor for very long. Anyway, Hopkins was still more than just relevant.

I agree I think he is an ATG, many argue that JC fought a lot of nobodies in his defences though instead of the big names.