ATG Standings

What can a modern boxer do to break into the higher echelons of the ATG standings?

You have guys like Johnson who ducked more live opponents than he fought and imo is only there because of his historical standings. You have guys like Dempsey who fought once a year at best and against chumps rated highly. Greb who no-one had ever seen is ranked in many people's top 3. The only footage of him is him skipping and that looked awkward.

Louis who had his bum of the month contest and got smacked by an average German is in everyone's top 10 and some have him ahead of Ali.

Then you have RJJ who looked sensational over a decade, beat everyone out of sight and made boxing look easy and an art form. He is no-where and many look at his implosion as a result. Had he retired after winning the WBA strap, many would still mark him down and probably outside the top 20.

It seems also that the oldies get so many passes they qualify despite many loses on their records. Yet once a modern fighter loses, he becomes less than those immortals and a single defeat however dubious will be used to mark them down.

A tad unfair methinks.

I agree...........Thing is the people who mark them down contradict themselves.

Duran lost to almost every slick technician he faced and Mayweather has beaten slick boxers as well as brawlers over the same title winning reign period that Duran lost 6/7 times...........but never mind..

Some guys have Duran over Mayweather because he beat the best Ray Leonard.... and yet they have Louis higher than Frazier!!!!.......WTF!!!

Some wally moans that Mayweather never beat anybody so needs marking down................and yet has Louis on a par with Ali!!!!!!

Mayweather top 10...Jones top 10/15...............

I think its their favourite boxers who get a pass. Objectivity gets lost. I like Duran but his exploits north of 135 is average. Yes he beat SRL. Great win. But lost the rematch and lost to every good fighter he faced above 135. His losses to the crud who beat him are ignored and airbrushed. Great fighter but deffo not top 10 ATG.

As for Louis, don't get me started. His record is worse than Holmes but he gets marked up. He got decked by some fat barman yet people use Snipes to beat Holmes with. His loss to Rocky is ignored yet Holmes lost a highly dodgy decision against Spinks and it is used to beat him with.

So many passes for the oldies its like Barcelona.

Ha. Have you two just skipped the other thread to agree with one another on here? You crazy diamonds.

Bored with the other thread..

Two wums agreeing with each other.....how quaint.

If I said that I'd be getting a pm in my box..........Like I've had all morning....

Not that it isn't always a pleasure to converse with the moderators.. like our troops in Iraq they do a sterling job!!

Nah, decided to start a thread because the other threads were saying the same thing. Stick the ATG issues on one thread and discuss all the boxers.

Genuine question... We're the challengers of Louis' time any better than the guff around today?

On par with them. Genuine answer.

Wlad would kick Louis's rear end also. Ditto Vitali.

Not as good as Cotto... Delahoya....Marquez....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If I said that I'd be getting a pm in my box..........Like I've had all morning....

Conversing with mods behind the scenes was never alien to you.

Well as easy as it is to dismiss Az's premise (and naturally, it wouldn't be Az if he didn't over egg the pudding ever so slightly!), it does hold some truth. Fighters of today are allowed less leeway than the greats from yesteryear more often than not by contemporary fans / critics. The recent-ish lists of all time top twenties produced by the IBRO and Boxing News support that, in my view. Every fighter included in those lists was great beyond any doubt, don't get me wrong - but the way those lists look, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the production line for truly, truly great fighters suddenly ground to a halt a quarter of a century ago.

You can pretty much guarantee that a decent percentage of the writers and historians who helped compile those lists would want Mayweather crucified if he were to drop a split decision to even a good young fighter like Alvarez or Trout, or that Roy Jones' rapid decline from 2004 onwards is seen by them as a reason to make him down while airbrushing out the fact that Ezzard Charles, likewise, fell apart just as rapidly towards the end of his career.

But - and it's a big but - I don't think this is anything new. If you look at boxing history, it's always seemed to be the 'done thing' in any generation to be overly harsh on the oustanding fighters within it. Very few (in comparison to now) were calling Tunney an all-time great when he retired in 1928. Louis, now permanently viewed as a top two Heavyweight and greater than any other barring Ali, was routinely placed behind some of his predecessors such as Dempsey, Johnson and Jeffries right up until the sixties. Even Ali, in his pomp, was regularly rated behind some of the aforementioned champions by the sports writers and journalists of the day (and Lord knows he was never shy in telling everyone how much it annoyed him! "Jack Dempsey to beat me? Is this a joke!?").

Charles, Holmes, Langford, Jofre etc - all examples of fighters who were often shunned or talked down in their own time, but who have eventually gone on to garner the respect and commendation they deserve.

I believe history will repeat itself for today's group as well (as well as those who peaked slightly before). Right now, those who want to appear 'high brow' will run down Mayweather, Pacquiao, Jones, Whitaker, Wladimir, De la Hoya etc but, as time passes, the younger generations (who, by then, will have a whole new generation of fighters to run down and be overly harsh to!) will start to heap the praise and rankings on them which they deserve.

Today's crop definitely get a hard time, but that won't always be the case.

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If I said that I'd be getting a pm in my box..........Like I've had all morning....

Conversing with mods behind the scenes was never alien to you.

I've always been the outgoing type..

We're all misty eyed nostalgics at the end of the day. I love 80's fighters, 80's music, mullets. Well 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

There are some sepia tinted spectacles on here, but I think we get a generally healthy mix of people standing up for different eras. Nothing wrong with that.

i think some of the stuff thrown at mayweather is harsh... But there is some truth in it. When you're talking greatest fighters of all time, no-one was perfect and the margins are small. MAyweather's selectivity of opponents might be justification to keep him out of the top 10... But 40 fighters better? Taking the mick really.

!4 years at the top is unprecedented...........Beaten 3 p4pers.and won titles from 130-154........

If that isn't top 10 then no one will ever be from the modern era.

88Chris05 wrote:Well as easy as it is to dismiss Az's premise (and naturally, it wouldn't be Az if he didn't over egg the pudding ever so slightly!), it does hold some truth. Fighters of today are allowed less leeway than the greats from yesteryear more often than not by contemporary fans / critics. The recent-ish lists of all time top twenties produced by the IBRO and Boxing News support that, in my view. Every fighter included in those lists was great beyond any doubt, don't get me wrong - but the way those lists look, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the production line for truly, truly great fighters suddenly ground to a halt a quarter of a century ago.

You can pretty much guarantee that a decent percentage of the writers and historians who helped compile those lists would want Mayweather crucified if he were to drop a split decision to even a good young fighter like Alvarez or Trout, or that Roy Jones' rapid decline from 2004 onwards is seen by them as a reason to make him down while airbrushing out the fact that Ezzard Charles, likewise, fell apart just as rapidly towards the end of his career.

But - and it's a big but - I don't think this is anything new. If you look at boxing history, it's always seemed to be the 'done thing' in any generation to be overly harsh on the oustanding fighters within it. Very few (in comparison to now) were calling Tunney an all-time great when he retired in 1928. Louis, now permanently viewed as a top two Heavyweight and greater than any other barring Ali, was routinely placed behind some of his predecessors such as Dempsey, Johnson and Jeffries right up until the sixties. Even Ali, in his pomp, was regularly rated behind some of the aforementioned champions by the sports writers and journalists of the day (and Lord knows he was never shy in telling everyone how much it annoyed him! "Jack Dempsey to beat me? Is this a joke!?").

Charles, Holmes, Langford, Jofre etc - all examples of fighters who were often shunned or talked down in their own time, but who have eventually gone on to garner the respect and commendation they deserve.

I believe history will repeat itself for today's group as well (as well as those who peaked slightly before). Right now, those who want to appear 'high brow' will run down Mayweather, Pacquiao, Jones, Whitaker, Wladimir, De la Hoya etc but, as time passes, the younger generations (who, by then, will have a whole new generation of fighters to run down and be overly harsh to!) will start to heap the praise and rankings on them which they deserve.

Today's crop definitely get a hard time, but that won't always be the case.

Great post Chris, exaclty what I think.

I said might be justification truss. I.e the arguments about whether he makes the top 10 or just misses out is where the debate should be.

If you take the premise, you can only be the best of your era, and picked the best fighter from each decade of modern professional boxing, as your basis for all time greats, the worst he could be is 13

AlexHuckerby wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Well as easy as it is to dismiss Az's premise (and naturally, it wouldn't be Az if he didn't over egg the pudding ever so slightly!), it does hold some truth. Fighters of today are allowed less leeway than the greats from yesteryear more often than not by contemporary fans / critics. The recent-ish lists of all time top twenties produced by the IBRO and Boxing News support that, in my view. Every fighter included in those lists was great beyond any doubt, don't get me wrong - but the way those lists look, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the production line for truly, truly great fighters suddenly ground to a halt a quarter of a century ago.

You can pretty much guarantee that a decent percentage of the writers and historians who helped compile those lists would want Mayweather crucified if he were to drop a split decision to even a good young fighter like Alvarez or Trout, or that Roy Jones' rapid decline from 2004 onwards is seen by them as a reason to make him down while airbrushing out the fact that Ezzard Charles, likewise, fell apart just as rapidly towards the end of his career.

But - and it's a big but - I don't think this is anything new. If you look at boxing history, it's always seemed to be the 'done thing' in any generation to be overly harsh on the oustanding fighters within it. Very few (in comparison to now) were calling Tunney an all-time great when he retired in 1928. Louis, now permanently viewed as a top two Heavyweight and greater than any other barring Ali, was routinely placed behind some of his predecessors such as Dempsey, Johnson and Jeffries right up until the sixties. Even Ali, in his pomp, was regularly rated behind some of the aforementioned champions by the sports writers and journalists of the day (and Lord knows he was never shy in telling everyone how much it annoyed him! "Jack Dempsey to beat me? Is this a joke!?").

Charles, Holmes, Langford, Jofre etc - all examples of fighters who were often shunned or talked down in their own time, but who have eventually gone on to garner the respect and commendation they deserve.

I believe history will repeat itself for today's group as well (as well as those who peaked slightly before). Right now, those who want to appear 'high brow' will run down Mayweather, Pacquiao, Jones, Whitaker, Wladimir, De la Hoya etc but, as time passes, the younger generations (who, by then, will have a whole new generation of fighters to run down and be overly harsh to!) will start to heap the praise and rankings on them which they deserve.

Today's crop definitely get a hard time, but that won't always be the case.

Great post Chris, exaclty what I think.

Same here....except for the bit about someone over-egging the pudding.

The only thing I would say to expand on Chris’ point is dropping a split decision to a guy you have no business losing to is a little more forgivable when you are fighting once a week and do not see your opponent in action until you are across the ring from them than it is when you have three months of preparation and video footage of every fight they have pretty much ever fought readily available.

Carl Froch deserves to be an ATG. It takes a B-Hop like freak show performance after performane or a die hard fight anyone and win Froch to get in there, I think.

davidemore wrote:Carl Froch deserves to be an ATG. It takes a B-Hop like freak show performance after performane or a die hard fight anyone and win Froch to get in there, I think.

No he doesn't. He 2nd or 3rd best active SMW. Never been number 1. He's something like ATG 1000+.

I reckon Hopkins could beat froch - even now.

It's purely a matter of opinion, some use different measures and Rowley makes a good point that dropping the odd loss here and there when you're fighting more frequently doesn't mean as much.

If Greb fought once a year he'd be undefeated too.

Greb was at the top 14 years was he??

Impressive as that sounds Truss, those 14 years have consisted of 26 fights while Greb was at or near the top for about 10 years which consisted of well over 150 fights.

Different era Mate..........

Precisely Truss, 14 years at the top sounds mightily impressive but it wasn't really possible until boxers started to fight 2/3 times a year.

I agree modern day fighters and sportsman in general will find it harder to be the greatest of all time which is wrong if anything sportsman will be getting better and better which makes it harsh that no fighter ever will be rated higher than SRR unless they do something riducuolos an go from welterweight to heavy weight with no losses and 100+ fights

TRUSSMAN66 wrote: Some guys have Duran over Mayweather because he beat the best Ray Leonard.... and yet they have Louis higher than Frazier!!!!.......WTF!!!

Good line!

With regards to Mayweather I said 2 years ago that if he added Pacquiao, Alvarez, Cotto and Martinez to his ledger he would be the greatest of all time.

When you look at the guys who are widely considered to be in the top ten they really didn't lose that often, sweeping statements get passed off as near facts when you have to look at the men individually and realise that they are rated highly for a reason.