What criteria makes an "ATG"? Specific as possible

[Bundana]

opinions are like a55holes, everyone has one

and like a55holes, most of them smell

dude, I have read the DUMBEST SHlT IMAGINABLE on this site... are you telling me that you did not notice any of that?

fans say the dumbest fkn things, which is why guys like breadman Edwards does not even read this forum, let alone replies to his articles

you can have an opinion, sure

there are plenty of historians... yep Fleischer, Mike Silver, even our own Cliff Rold is excellent... read his MAAT (Measured Against All Time) articles... they are gold

do some research

I know you are aware of credible historians... because, a guy who does not know any boxing historians... obviously would not have any valuable/useful knowledge about fighters from the past... and you seem smarter than that

Yes, I have of course noticed, that much of what is being said here is beyond ******! Posters with an obvious agenda, saying the silliest things.

But there are also several good posters here. Long-time fans who may not claim to be "historians", but have great historical knowledge. Joeandthebums, JAB5239, Battling Nelson (to name but a few) seem to be level-headed posters, who know what is what.

I will certainly take the opinions of those 3 over Fleischer and Silver any day. Cliff Rold, though, is very good.

[billeau2]

So most hardcore fans aren't even qualified to have an opinion on this subject - only dedicated "historians", with a special understanding of the boxing landscape at a given time, are?

So who are these dedicated historians we should listen to, and allow to form our opinion? Do you mean someone like Nat Fleischer? Or maybe Tracy Callis? Can you give us some examples of these historians with superior knowledge?

he has decided to approach the subject a ss first... Obvious from his first post. Don't know why as he usually is a thoughtful poster. But seems determined to make the point that no points should be made on the subject... and that he has no reason to answer queries to his perspective.

[billeau2]

Yes, I have of course noticed, that much of what is being said here is beyond ******! Posters with an obvious agenda, saying the silliest things.

But there are also several good posters here. Long-time fans who may not claim to be "historians", but have great historical knowledge. Joeandthebums, JAB5239, Battling Nelson (to name but a few) seem to be level-headed posters, who know what is what.

I will certainly take the opinions of those 3 over Fleischer and Silver any day. Cliff Rold, though, is very good.

I also think there is a tendency to think anyone with a question has an agenda... We only grow by questioning assumptions we have... and this thread is no slight to Mayweather, or any of the great heavyweights... It simply is asking to question how we judge ATG status... yet many assume this question is a way to spread an agenda.

I am on record here as praising Mayweather and the great heavyweights... but no one questioning whether I have an agenda can even be bothered to notice that.

[billeau2]

So to get back on track

Some of the criteria that people have put fourth:

1. Great in any Era
2. correlate between skill set and resume
3. Resume alone

Any more anyone can think of? Did I leave any out?

Lets see and then apply these criteria.

[Bundana]

I also think there is a tendency to think anyone with a question has an agenda... We only grow by questioning assumptions we have... and this thread is no slight to Mayweather, or any of the great heavyweights... It simply is asking to question how we judge ATG status... yet many assume this question is a way to spread an agenda.

I am on record here as praising Mayweather and the great heavyweights... but no one questioning whether I have an agenda can even be bothered to notice that.

When I said "here", I didn't mean this thread specifically - but the forum in general.

Also, when talking about posters with an agenda - I certainly did not have you in mind!

[aboutfkntime]

Yes, I have of course noticed, that much of what is being said here is beyond ******! Posters with an obvious agenda, saying the silliest things.

But there are also several good posters here. Long-time fans who may not claim to be "historians", but have great historical knowledge. Joeandthebums, JAB5239, Battling Nelson (to name but a few) seem to be level-headed posters, who know what is what.

I will certainly take the opinions of those 3 over Fleischer and Silver any day. Cliff Rold, though, is very good.

well, I think you are nuts... no disrespect meant to those guys, because according to you they never claimed to be historians

we can agree to disagree

[Bundana]

well, I think you are nuts... no disrespect meant to those guys, because according to you they never claimed to be historians

we can agree to disagree

I'm not sure, what you mean!

I don't know, if those guys claim to be historians - I said they may not claim to be. Or are you saying, that everybody here are automatically historians, because they post in this forum?

[aboutfkntime]

I'm not sure, what you mean!

I don't know, if those guys claim to be historians - I said they may not claim to be. Or are you saying, that everybody here are automatically historians, because they post in this forum?

I am saying that dedicated professionals > fans who occasionally post on the internet

[DeeMoney]

I'll add this, and trust me I am not trying to be a pedant but I believe it needs to be addressed. To what extent are we differentiating between Great and Best?

There are many people who define 'great' as 'a sum of career accomplishments'; whereas 'best' is more 'your ability on a relative level compared to others'.

So are we just asking great in this context, which is basically looking at a resume? Or are we looking at it in the context of whom was better than someone else?

[Eff Pandas]

ATG is a sci fi fantasy term guys who've usually never had one pro fight use to artificially hype, or diminish fighters not on their ATG list, based on their own personal & highly subjective bs qualifications. It's impossible to grade fighters from different eras in any proveable or fair way. All one can be is among the best of their own era. Everything else is mental ************ that can never be proven or disproven & therefore serves lil purpose to discuss in any serious way as boxing fans often seem to do.