What criteria makes an "ATG"? Specific as possible

[aboutfkntime]

Well... that is debatable. Who did some of the great heavyweights beat who we consider ATG?

it is not even slightly debatable, because that is the criteria historians use

name the heavyweight you consider that criteria does not apply to?

this will be the answer...

that criteria DOES apply to him, you simply do not understand the boxing landscape at that point in time

there is almost nobody who posts on this site who is truly qualified to make those calls, that would take a huge commitment and dedication... historians do the homework... understand the boxing landscape at that point in time... and are worth their weight in gold... the average fan cannot be mentioned in the same sentence, including most hardcore fans

[billeau2]

it is not even slightly debatable, because that is the criteria historians use

name the heavyweight you consider that criteria does not apply to?

this will be the answer...

that criteria DOES apply to him, you simply do not understand the boxing landscape at that point in time

there is almost nobody who posts on this site who is truly qualified to make those calls, that would take a huge commitment and dedication... historians do the homework... understand the boxing landscape at that point in time... and are worth their weight in gold... the average fan cannot be mentioned in the same sentence, including most hardcore fans

well i don't know about all that... Can yu name any ATG who Dempsey, Liston, Holmes beat at prime? we can start there...

[The Old LefHook]

there is only 1 criteria for ATG consideration

WHO did you beat... with consideration given to when/how

it has always been that way

sorry.... but, every other answer will be wrong

/thread

This man has it so precisely that he cuts off all other answers.

[billeau2]

This man has it so precisely that he cuts off all other answers.

so then... who did Louis beat? Or Dempsey?

[DeeMoney]

Not trying to hijack things here, but I think it may be more apt to set a defining line of where one becomes an ATG and where they are not one; as opposed to criteria.

In other words not just what things you look at, but how much of said thing does it take to reach the ATG status. There are people out there who could have the exact same opinion and rank of every fighter out there, but one would only consider the top 25 ATGs, while the other considers the top 100 ATGs.

They would just bicker semantics while actually agreeing. So how good does one need to be to be an ATG can be important too.

[The Old LefHook]

Now of course there are ancillary qualities any ATG must also possess. But these are well recognized too. Known as the big four, they are, in order:

1 Whiskers
2 Milking Grip
3 Marathon swimming
4 Flatulence control

A man only releases his flatulence to add impetus to his own assault. Timing must be perfect, or the flatulence is wasted. But used properly it thrusts a man forward with his punch, and also enhances uppercuts.

Essentially, to be a champion you work on basic technique. To be an ATG you take it to the next level and work on the Big Four.

[billeau2]

it is not even slightly debatable, because that is the criteria historians use

name the heavyweight you consider that criteria does not apply to?

this will be the answer...

that criteria DOES apply to him, you simply do not understand the boxing landscape at that point in time

there is almost nobody who posts on this site who is truly qualified to make those calls, that would take a huge commitment and dedication... historians do the homework... understand the boxing landscape at that point in time... and are worth their weight in gold... the average fan cannot be mentioned in the same sentence, including most hardcore fans

This man has it so precisely that he cuts off all other answers.

Don't misunderstand me... I am not trying to lead anyone into a Socratic death trap... I mean are you saying that the general level of competition? Thats something that I believe... As a matter of fact check out this Liston fight:



Just watch maybe the first two rounds and if you don't mind gentlemen make a list of all the techniques and approaches you see... and how they are executed.

1) They fight at all ranges and do it well
2) Both men slip punches
3) Both men counter and punish when the other guy misses
4) Both men control distance, keep a high guard.
5) Both men move beautifully light on the feet... etc.
6) Both men appear in great shape, no extra weight to speak of
7) Head movement! and plenty of it
8) Shifting weight and plenty of it
9) The ease with which they punch in bunches... no excess movement, tension to short circuit power.
10) This opponent? uses a false center line... and old technique where the head is placed over a back shoulder giving the illusion it is on top of the shoulders... He uses it so well that Liston misses many punches.

I could double this list if I wanted to do so...

I could go on... this guy Liston is fighting? Never heard of him, but on a technical level, lets compare him (and Liston to a modern day bought. How about klit versus Joshua?

1) Flinching both men Klit moves his arms straight as he closes his eyes... pathetic
2)No head movement
3) No inside fighting,
4) No punches in bunches... just a few that catch a flinching opponent
5) No footwork, just squared up
6) Haphazard guard.

Its all right there... the flinches are really bad...

[billeau2]

Not trying to hijack things here, but I think it may be more apt to set a defining line of where one becomes an ATG and where they are not one; as opposed to criteria.

In other words not just what things you look at, but how much of said thing does it take to reach the ATG status. There are people out there who could have the exact same opinion and rank of every fighter out there, but one would only consider the top 25 ATGs, while the other considers the top 100 ATGs.

They would just bicker semantics while actually agreeing. So how good does one need to be to be an ATG can be important too.

But in point of fact... we generally have a consensus regarding what knowledgable boxing fans consider a great fighter... yes hypothetically? we could argue and indeed... many casuals think the HOF for example is a criteria, when any real fan knows it is not...

The distinctions are not semantic, just not stated... and maybe that is why Shoulder Roll thinks Castillo might be considered an ATG lol, I don't pretend to know.

[billeau2]

Now of course there are ancillary qualities any ATG must also possess. But these are well recognized too. Known as the big four, they are, in order:

1 Whiskers
2 Milking Grip
3 Marathon swimming
4 Flatulence control

A man only releases his flatulence to add impetus to his own assault. Timing must be perfect, or the flatulence is wasted. But used properly it thrusts a man forward with his punch, and also enhances uppercuts.

Essentially, to be a champion you work on basic technique. To be an ATG you take it to the next level and work on the Big Four.

Ok wise guy go ask a flat earther what happens if youfart in space! would you accelerate?

[DeeMoney]

there is only 1 criteria for ATG consideration

WHO did you beat... with consideration given to when/how

it has always been that way

sorry.... but, every other answer will be wrong

/thread

Assuming you are right, your criteria is actually three variables:

Who (the given opponent), When (how good where they at the time you beat them), How (to what extent did you beat them).

For example, Fighter A is really good in criteria 1, lots of big names he beat. But then you look closer and see he beat most of them when they were past it, and lots of his decisions were gifts and close decisions.
Conversely, Fighter B didnt secure many big name opponents, but he fought all comers in their prime and destroyed those in front of him.