How do you make ATG lists?

[Rusty Tromboni]

From time to time I come up with lists. From those lists, I often move fighters up and down in the rankings over time for one reason or another. Recent wins or digging up something about a fighter from decades past are examples of why I might reconsider the order or add or replace fighters. That said, lists are subjective, opinion-based, and not to be taken too seriously. Certainly not worth fighting over.

I tend to look at a fighter's body of work, their skill sets, the eyeball test, and their durability. Did they fight the best of their era at their best? Did they duck anyone? Did they win against stacked odds? How many gifts did they receive during their careers or robberies did they suffer? And of course, most importantly, how would their skill set carry over into higher or lower weight classes?

your own P4P list was pretty good.

I'll be interested to see what you got if you ever whip up ATG lists for Middleweight and Light Heavyweight, though.

[billeau2]

I see them around sometimes and folks arguing over them, but, I'll be damned if an ATG p4p ranked list isn't hard as **** to make. Even if I'm open with my biases I have too many to make a list and feel good about each names ranking.

How do youse even go about comparing say Bob Fitzsimmons to Wlad?

H2H or by resume? Accolades? Bit of a mix?

If H2H how do you handle an 0? Do you tell yourself you know how to beat Floyd or Marciano or Barry? Taking weight out of it doesn't make then easy customers. If they was all HWs or LW or any other weight it'd be damn hard to pick one.

You don't then feel your list is just made up bull**** piled on high? I mean once you're handed an undefeated an L you've taken quite a few steps down bull**** lane. Sure, I can see how HW Floyd can beat Marciano or WW Marciano lose to normal Floyd, but, I can also see Marciano KO'ing him pretty easily in both divisions. They're unbeaten for a reason man...you don't know. No one does, no one figured them out.

So then resume and accolades?

Barring things that can be big to one man and meaningless to another, like Joe's defenses, how does one hurdle over weight division and time so easily?

RJJ may have only captured one HW title while Fitzs was undisputed but RJJ had to make weight while Fitzsimmons was allowed to fight at any weight he felt was good for him.

So even if I do put a lot of weight into weight division jumping then I have a problem with weight division jumpers because time's changed too much.

Pac-Armstrong conundrum.

Marciano-Floyd-Barry-Ward-Calzaghe conundrum

Also, are single belt holders really equal to world title holders or undisputeds?

Reckon that depends on when don't it?

For example, Rocky and Jimmy are undisputed undefeated champions while Mayweather, Dre, and Joe are multiple title holders but never undisputed. Marciano and Barry are also from a time when quite a lot of the world that boxes today did not box. Floyd, Joe, and Dre had to win and defend their titles against quite a lot more of the world's talent. So, who is really a world champion? The undisputed champion from a time when boxing was really just a few western nations or the guys who were not undisputed but fought guys from all over the place?

I can't hardly even give myself a criteria

Reckon my P4P ATG list will have to be something real simple minded that I can't stand behind very well but could post and talk about.

Top 5:

Jimmy Barry

Ricardo Lopez

Floyd Mayweather

Rocky Marciano

Joe Calzaghe


Based on wins/losses.

58-0

51-0

50-0

49-0

46-0


I can't argue in favor of that list, but seems like anyone making a list has to use some such similar simple minded approach right?

How do youse do it and end up with something you're willing to go to bat over? I'm not wanting to join those arguments pre se it's just astounding anyone is willing to get vehement over something like ranking greatness. Greats are great...I think that's about it. I can't really rank them.

I think we have to look more critiquely at those who have a goose egg. How much was a favored decision, or two, or three, responsible? I don't have any faith in judges decisions when we talk about dominating the competition. Was Sven Ottke also a great fighter due to his goose egg?

No sir, to me if you want to get to the heart of the matter...well the Samurai and the house wife both had it right; Go through the stomach...But if we want to really talk about a fighter no one figured out, who dominated the competition then lets look at a fighter like Ray Robinson, Roy Jones, guys that were considered for a time unbeatable...no judges decision needed to reaffirm such talent. We could even put Ward up there, given his run including cleaning out the super middle division in that tourney.

When you start looking at wins and loses instead you are not necessarily looking at the same quality. Floyd for example, was in some close fights, even when he was at his best (135 and below). Jones, by comparison, while he was dominant, was unbeatable. He beat guys like Toney who were very good fighters.

Now my comments are purely in reference to IF one wants to use this criteria, me myself? I don't know if I would, which is why I agree with you about these lists and have never felt right about making one.

[billeau2]

If I were going to make a list I would consider the following:

1) what actual, film based, skills do we see?

2) Did they fight great competition?

3) Were they dominant?

4) What special attributes did they have? And what I mean by that is simply, if I walked into a room what stands out? I once saw this stocky, strong, mean looking guy on the cellphone while working in the Marriot Hotel. Turned out to be Shannon Briggs. The guy was obviously a strong guy and in a room full of similar aged individuals it would be noticeable that this guy had big shoulders, and a thick trunk, etc.

Liston has strength, Tunney has insight and speed.

[OctoberRed]

If I were going to make a list I would consider the following:

1) what actual, film based, skills do we see?

2) Did they fight great competition?

3) Were they dominant?

4) What special attributes did they have? And what I mean by that is simply, if I walked into a room what stands out? I once saw this stocky, strong, mean looking guy on the cellphone while working in the Marriot Hotel. Turned out to be Shannon Briggs. The guy was obviously a strong guy and in a room full of similar aged individuals it would be noticeable that this guy had big shoulders, and a thick trunk, etc.

Liston has strength, Tunney has insight and speed.

I can great a good list for Rocky Balboa based on these four tabs.

[billeau2]

I can great a good list for Rocky Balboa based on these four tabs.

There is a lot to "film" You can manipulate it to see and compare things. Then you have proof of assertions and empirical validation of skills.

If you were a biologist studying different germs, wouldn't you need to see in a microscope the activity you were looking for? And wouldn't you need some training to know what you were looking for?

The difference is that a high level biologist at the center for Disease control in Atlanta looks and observes how a virus conducts itself... Most others just look at the affect of the virus.

Most boxing fans are happy to talk of Jack JOhnson, and how many of them have seen the things he does that are on film? Burley only has one fight on tape, but one can see plenty in that fight.

[QueensburyRules]

- -In the older B&W footage with both fighters in black trunks of the same race and size, it's impossible to tell them apart.

[billeau2]

Start with the film.

This is still a subjective matter, and imperfect: look at the odds-makrs before fights; consider that sometimes there are upsets.

That being said, it's the thing easiest to agree upon. Maybe we disagree about who won Leonard-Hagler, but no one would dispute Hagler was past his best. Same with no one would ever say Miguel Canto would beat Ali... or even Chuck Wepner. But everyone can agree that Canto is a more refined and sound defensive fighter.

Then you can move to comparing fighters' records. Again, open to interpretation, but those opinions can be supported by facts: Calzaghe and Ward are undefeated, but no one would argue that either man was half as tested as Joey Maxim (29 losses). Not even close. To clarify, that's not to say Maxim is better, but it shows that not all records are created equal. Fixating on things like number of losses is ******. It's the first sign a guy is in over his head in any meaningful conversation.

After that you can discuss other factors, the intangibles: precociousness, innovation, longevity, number of weight classes.

Finally, the one criterion that needs to be thrown away: myth.

Interestingly, this criterion generally *****s the others. A lot of people don't even concern themselves with anything else. They look at a list someone else wrote (almost certainly itself a copy of a copy) and reorder it based on the fighters they like most.

Maybe it's not easy crafting a good list, and it's hard to every be satisfied with a list (because you can never actually be "right"), but you certainly can make an intelligent, defensible list. Comparing apples and oranges might be ultimately become a matter of opinion, but there's no dis*****g they're both fruit.

Great post!

I always like confirmation for things that few look for...In this case seldom do people come out and mention "film" but it is a tremendous tool to confirm information and reputation. One can literally look and list skills that a fighter can do from watching film. Robinson was often known for being particular in his ability to fight going backwards. that is something that has to he seen on film.

A fighter's record is a testiment to whom he fought, and as a testiment as to whether the fight was close, or perhaps if a fighter was competing at the margins, or dominating his competition... The least important thing being how many wins/loses are recorded.

So just as an example, Jones versus floyd. At his prime Jones was untouchable and dominated his competition. Floyd by comparison, never fought a prime ATG and often snuck by decisions that were debatable. Big difference!

And the idea of myth, or parroting the opinions of others is human nature and destructive to determining the level of greatness a fighter achieved. I also would add a caveat to myth that does indicate a category of greatness: That would be the so called "fighter's fighter." So for example, a man like Chyrsanthium Joe, Choyinsky, who is not generally brought up as a great fighter, but who was instrumental in mentoring Jack Johnson and known to be a very technical fighter for the time by other fighters. Some fighters have attributes along these lines that make them exceptional.

[The Old LefHook]

Mayweather is the GOAT--if Meadowlark Lemon is the greatest basketball player ever.

[QueensburyRules]

- -Wilt one of three GOAT claimants, the others being Jim Thorpe and Babe Ruth.

Wilt not only set new records, most of which have never been broken, but he compelled the NBA to change the rules to limit him not to mention forcing a young Ali in 1967 to back out of their scheduled fight captured in the ABC studio with Howie hosting.

[MaxT]

RJJ may have only captured one HW title while Fitzs was undisputed but RJJ had to make weight while Fitzsimmons was allowed to fight at any weight he felt was good for him.

Good point.

If smaller fighter is forced to gain some weight, expecially muscle mass, it may completly ruin his style.

Tipical mistake made by small guys when they are moving up in weight is the placement of additional weight - most of addition muscle is plased on upperbody? particulary arms, shoulders. Thats clearly killing fighter legs, may reduce speed and ruin reflexes.

Look at James Toney - at cruiser he became as static as his main training partner, fridge.

Very, very few fighters do not made this mistake. Prime examples are Pacman and Duran. Both keep mobility, footwork and great part of power despite gaining a lot of weight.