How do you make ATG lists?

[Marchegiano]

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.

[QueensburyRules]

- -Easy for me to make since I ain't dumb enough to stretch out a list beyond 5.

The first 3 are self evident .

[The D3vil]

Yeah, it takes a certain level of nuance.

You have to have a lot of criteria.

Unlike a lot of Floyd stans, I don't just take being undefeated as the way to determine if someone is the GOAT.

I look at who they fought, when they fought them.

I give guys like Duran and Pac credit for being formidable fighters in divisions above their natural ones.

I give Ali credit for fighting everybody, even when he probably shouldn't have.

I give Manny and Lennox Lewis credit for being willing to fight guys in their home countries, taking the risk that they will get robbed.

I give guys credit for unifying divisions.

And then, I just say, "if these guys were all the same size, who would win?"

It's hard.

But since this is about lists, I guess I gotta give my top 5 now.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Roberto Duran
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Muhammad Ali
5. Harry Greb.

[OctoberRed]

ATG lists are all subjective to overall opinion. You still have people calling Ali as the Greatest of All-Time - just because it's the cool thing to say

[ShoulderRoll]

Was a fighter the best of his era? That gets him into the conversation.

Then you have to compare his resume to that of other "best of their eras." Did he fight better or lesser opponents?

Compare his skillset as well. In baseball they talk about 5 tools: speed, power, hitting for average, fielding, and arm strength. Not every player has the complete set of tools at his disposal. But some players are special and can do it all. These are called 5 tool players.

Similarly you can come up with a list of boxer tools and compare across eras to see who ticked more of the boxes.

[GhostofDempsey]

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?

[Rusty Tromboni]

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.

[Nash out]

You start with TBE, Floyd Mayweather, then you build around it.

[Rusty Tromboni]

You start with TBE, Floyd Mayweather, then you build above it.

Fixed.


And you may need to have some time on your hands. Realistically, you'll probably find 40 or 50 better fighters to work through.

[Ben Bolt]

You can't make an ATG list if it wasn't for all these other guys who ain't considered ATGs.

Comparing apples and oranges might be ultimately become a matter of opinion, but there's no dis*****g they're both fruit.

I like the quote.
And I put the forgotten challengers in the fruit bowl as well.