BoxRec

floyd could of but for me his avoidence of manny rules him out for me .
if broner beats floyd and manny and clears out the 140 class he could get around the top 10 ( not saying it will happen)

sometimes i think it's nearly impossible for a modern fighter to get rated as ATG no matter what they do , fighters are never going to have 300 fights like harry greb anymore .

so who could go down as a great and what would they have to do ,who would they have to beat to get there ?

stevedoc wrote:floyd could of but for me his avoidence of manny rules him out for me .
if broner beats floyd and manny and clears out the 140 class he could get around the top 10 ( not saying it will happen)

sometimes i think it's nearly impossible for a modern fighter to get rated as ATG no matter what they do , fighters are never going to have 300 fights like harry greb anymore .

so who could go down as a great and what would they have to do ,who would they have to beat to get there ?

Automatically I thought Manny Pac and Floyd but then I remembered SR Robinson, SR Leonard, Ali, Foreman, Frazier, LaMotta, Louis, Dempsey, Greb, Armstrong, Pep, Marciano, Hagler, Duran, Hearns, Griffiths, Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield etc and realise noone nowadays comes close

A lot will depend on your own Criteria and Interpretation .

Myself i believe both Klits should be considered ATG's

I judge it on what ive seen myself not what ive read etc , no point me trying to judge them against guys from the 60's or prior as all i know of them is what ive read , its not a reflection on my own views so to speak so i cant fairly consider matching their credentials with others i have seen .

Yes ive seen the odd clip etc but who are they fighting ? etc etc , no way of knowing if they just looked good in that one fight etc etc .

Just my view of course and i know i may be in the minority.

damianhucker1 wrote:A lot will depend on your own Criteria and Interpretation .

Myself i believe both Klits should be considered ATG's

I judge it on what ive seen myself not what ive read etc , no point me trying to judge them against guys from the 60's or prior as all i know of them is what ive read , its not a reflection on my own views so to speak so i cant fairly consider matching their credentials with others i have seen .

Yes ive seen the odd clip etc but who are they fighting ? etc etc , no way of knowing if they just looked good in that one fight etc etc .

Just my view of course and i know i may be in the minority.

I like the Klitschko's. I think they get a lot of unwarranted flack to be honest.

columbo wrote:

damianhucker1 wrote:A lot will depend on your own Criteria and Interpretation .

Myself i believe both Klits should be considered ATG's

I judge it on what ive seen myself not what ive read etc , no point me trying to judge them against guys from the 60's or prior as all i know of them is what ive read , its not a reflection on my own views so to speak so i cant fairly consider matching their credentials with others i have seen .

Yes ive seen the odd clip etc but who are they fighting ? etc etc , no way of knowing if they just looked good in that one fight etc etc .

Just my view of course and i know i may be in the minority.

I like the Klitschko's. I think they get a lot of unwarranted flack to be honest.

i like them to especialy wladimir but i don't think either have had the an oponent that brings out the best in them like say leonard had with hearns or duran . it's not their fault but Ali became Ali by fighting frazier,liston and foreman ,the klits just haven't had those tests..

stevedoc wrote:

columbo wrote:

damianhucker1 wrote:A lot will depend on your own Criteria and Interpretation .

Myself i believe both Klits should be considered ATG's

I judge it on what ive seen myself not what ive read etc , no point me trying to judge them against guys from the 60's or prior as all i know of them is what ive read , its not a reflection on my own views so to speak so i cant fairly consider matching their credentials with others i have seen .

Yes ive seen the odd clip etc but who are they fighting ? etc etc , no way of knowing if they just looked good in that one fight etc etc .

Just my view of course and i know i may be in the minority.

I like the Klitschko's. I think they get a lot of unwarranted flack to be honest.

i like them to especialy wladimir but i don't think either have had the an oponent that brings out the best in them like say leonard had with hearns or duran . it's not their fault but Ali became Ali by fighting frazier,liston and foreman ,the klits just haven't had those tests..

Yeah I know what you mean. What are you supposed to do though if the opposition isnt there ya know.

If, and its a very big if, Saul Alvarez can beat Floyd then he has the potential. The guy is only 23, has already won the WBA and WBC belts and has a 42-0-1 record (with the draw coming very early in his career). If he won then he has a long time left in the sport to try and become an ATG.

Saying that, I am pretty sure he loses in September.

[quote="doctorboxing"]If, and its a very big if, Saul Alvarez can beat Floyd then he has the potential. The guy is only 23, has already won the WBA and WBC belts and has a 42-0-1 record (with the draw coming very early in his career). If he won then he has a long time left in the sport to try and become an ATG.

Saying that, I am pretty sure he loses in September.[/quote
i agree . that's what i mean if saul does floyd then martinez and golovkin he would be spoke about in the same terms as duran .

stevedoc wrote: i like them to especialy wladimir but i don't think either have had the an oponent that brings out the best in them like say leonard had with hearns or duran . it's not their fault but Ali became Ali by fighting frazier,liston and foreman ,the klits just haven't had those tests..

They were both tested and they both failed.

Wlad had the chance to fight through fire and ended up a quivvering semi-conscious wreck on the canvas, several times.

The 'all-time top 10', what, across all divisions? It is simply too stacked already as it is, to start shoving in these 'fight once or twice a year against handpicked opponents while sponsored and sold hard by a major subscription channel and its ppv arm.'

It's all smoke and mirrors, all belts fractured, all fighters building a record, no one at all cleaning out their divisions, bouncing around and whacking the number one guy out there.

I'm going to take some abuse for what I'm about to write, but the modern internet fans who would rate Floyd Mayweather probably know in their own hearts that they haven't the boxing metier to truly place him anywhere, too much ignorance of too many decades of the sport for their lofty ranking of Floyd to mean anything or carry weight.

loaded_gloves wrote:

stevedoc wrote: i like them to especialy wladimir but i don't think either have had the an oponent that brings out the best in them like say leonard had with hearns or duran . it's not their fault but Ali became Ali by fighting frazier,liston and foreman ,the klits just haven't had those tests..

They were both tested and they both failed.

Wlad had the chance to fight through fire and ended up a quivvering semi-conscious wreck on the canvas, several times.

i must of missed vitali quivering on the floor

I don't think any active fighter can make top 10ATG, but of the current crop I'm most interested in Ward's progression and at the other end of the spectrum I'm positively salivating at the potential of Lomachenko

Deserter wrote:I don't think any active fighter can make top 10ATG, but of the current crop I'm most interested in Ward's progression and at the other end of the spectrum I'm positively salivating at the potential of Lomachenko

Lomachenko is an interesting one. Wonder if he'll transition to the pro's ok.

columbo wrote:

Deserter wrote:I don't think any active fighter can make top 10ATG, but of the current crop I'm most interested in Ward's progression and at the other end of the spectrum I'm positively salivating at the potential of Lomachenko

Lomachenko is an interesting one. Wonder if he'll transition to the pro's ok.

You can never say with certainty, but his style looks made for the pros from what I've seen.

Mayweather, pacquio,Marquez are already greats
I think golovkin would have to ko some top class 12 stoners as the middleweight crop is at its weakest ever.

Guillermo Rigondeaux, potential top 10 ATG in his weight division

You never know but if David Haye had wanted to hang about at Cruiserweight for the majority of his career,he could go down as one of the all time great CWs

Although he probably still is one of the best in the not so glamarous division since only him and Holyfield have successfully moved up to HW to win world titles but if he,d hung about more after unifying then people would probably have him as one of the best ever at that weight,although nobody would really give a poo as it only Cruiser ;;-)

Deserter wrote:

columbo wrote:

Deserter wrote:I don't think any active fighter can make top 10ATG, but of the current crop I'm most interested in Ward's progression and at the other end of the spectrum I'm positively salivating at the potential of Lomachenko

Lomachenko is an interesting one. Wonder if he'll transition to the pro's ok.

You can never say with certainty, but his style looks made for the pros from what I've seen.

Yeah he's not your typical southpaw huh. Very aggressive style with a lot of upper body movement and bobbing and weaving to avoid what comes at him as he comes at his opponent.

Just my two cents, but I already happen to think the following are ATG's as they stand:

1. Floyd Mayweather Jr.

2. Manny Pacquiao

3. Juan Manuel Marquez

4. Vladimir Klitschko

dr_devious wrote:Guillermo Rigondeaux, potential top 10 ATG in his weight division

Yep, good call actually. Such a shame he didn't turn over younger.

Floyd without a doubt

Andre Ward is already an ATG Super Middle.

If Wlad beats Povetkin, and 1 other serious challenger he's well in the conversation to be top 10.

Floyd Mayweather is certainly in the conversation, as are Manny and Marquez.

Alvarez Win or lose against Mayweather will end up close, he has years to build a solid C.V, which i think he will.


Constant weight hopping makes it harder to assess people's ATG status now, but there are definitely people who will, could make it.

stevedoc wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:They were both tested and they both failed.

Wlad had the chance to fight through fire and ended up a quivvering semi-conscious wreck on the canvas, several times.

i must of missed vitali quivering on the floor

He said "Wlad". Vitali failed when he fought Lewis.

Nobody. Floyd is an excellent fighter and the only one who could get anywhere near.

As loaded gloves has already said, fighting twice a year against hand picked opposition cannot come close to equaling the achievements of the great fighters from the past. It's just a different sport these days. Yes people will always be able to debate who would beat who but who as far as achievements go, there is no arguement.

I have this argument so often on here, twitter etc but how can someone say that modern fighters couldnt come close by only fighting once or twice a year. We live in a different world now, if Mayweather or Marquez were about in the Robinson days then they would likely have fought every few weeks as that was the norm and that was how they made money. Likewise if Robinson was about today then he would probably he promoted by Goldenboy and fighting twice a year max on big PPV cards.

Its a different world, yes compare ability, compare opposition but I hate people using the regularity of fights between now and yesteryears to compare fighters against each other as its just not a valid argument in my opinion. No elite boxer is ever gonna come out and have hundreds of fights again. Simple as that!

For me Mayweather, Marquez, Pacquiao are all ATG's, how they would have faired against their predecesors is just opinion but they would have certainly been competitive.