Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What criteria makes an "ATG"? Specific as possible

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    #1

    What criteria makes an "ATG"? Specific as possible

    So I have started a second thread regarding a specific consideration raised by a fellow member. I want to thank both, Travisty for asking how I would evaluate Will's resume compared to Dempsey... whats known as a leading question... T I wish I had had you when I was teaching legal ethics... That is a high compliment.

    I also want to thank Shoulder Roll... while he is being somewhat defiant, thick skulled, and not seeming to read posts that would answer many questions by not necessitating having them be asked in the first place... and no doubt he will think I am hectoring him with this thread... I am not... He raises a good issue:

    How would you define an ATG?

    I maintain the following position... we know through consensus. Just as 9 times out of 10, despite all our goofies here, the boards will pick the right winner in fights, people know and through various dialogues, we arrive with certainty that some fighters are great, others might be, and some are not...

    I think this is as valid as it gets. Prove me wrong, show me a criteria that demonstrates what at ATG is by definition.

    Go!!!!
    Tags: None
    #2
    A fighter who takes on tough challenges and fights other great fighters at their best. One who can overcome adversity and adapt. Perhaps a fighter who enters the ring and doesn’t always have every single advantage. We can also add a fighter who can lose and come back as strong or better. How do they handle defeat? Do they lose their heart or self destruct? Or come back stronger?

    You can also be a great fighter in your respective era, but would you be great in any era? That is also something to consider when we discuss all time great status.

    Also, what was their impact on the sport? Did they leave it slightly better than before they arrived? Or did they stink it up?
    Last edited by GhostofDempsey; 11-28-2020, 07:16 PM.

    Comment

      #3
      When skill meets resume

      Comment

        #4
        Originally posted by GhostofDempsey View Post
        A fighter who takes on tough challenges and fights other great fighters at their best. One who can overcome adversity and adapt. Perhaps a fighter who enters the ring and doesn’t always have every single advantage. We can also add a fighter who can lose and come back as strong or better. How do they handle defeat? Do they lose their heart or self destruct? Or come back stronger?

        You can also be a great fighter in your respective era, but would you be great in any era? That is also something to consider when we discuss all time great status.
        Ok so as most posters will you discuss a lot of characteristics...Which is great.

        The last statement is something we could add as criteria...

        Can I put this as our first criteria?

        1. A ATG would be great in any era.

        Comment

          #5
          Originally posted by bluebeam View Post
          When skill meets resume
          So... we have fighters with great skill sets. Some of whom are not ATG's... Most fighters with great resumes are probably going to be considered for ATG status... Lets take holyfield. He fought a lot of the best of his era... Giving him a phenomenal resume, even though there are losses, and don't want to evaluate individual fighters.

          So would you mind me saying for number two criteria as stated below (number 2)?

          1. A fighter that would be great in any era
          2. A fighter where skill sets and resume correlate to a degree.

          Comment

            #6
            Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
            So I have started a second thread regarding a specific consideration raised by a fellow member. I want to thank both, Travisty for asking how I would evaluate Will's resume compared to Dempsey... whats known as a leading question... T I wish I had had you when I was teaching legal ethics... That is a high compliment.
            Ah, I think you at least slightly misunderstood me. I wasn't asking in comparison to Dempsey. I just meant in general, "What do you think of Wills resume?" I think your question asked, "What heavyweight besides Ali had a good resume?"

            I honestly wasn't thinking about Dempsey when I asked what you thought of Wills, but I get why you would think that being that they are so linked and that I've been very involved in the discussion between their connection.

            Just wanted to clear that up.

            Comment

              #7
              Originally posted by travestyny View Post
              Ah, I think you at least slightly misunderstood me. I wasn't asking in comparison to Dempsey. I just meant in general, "What do you think of Wills resume?" I think your question asked, "What heavyweight besides Ali had a good resume?"

              I honestly wasn't thinking about Dempsey when I asked what you thought of Wills, but I get why you would think that being that they are so linked and that I've been very involved in the discussion between their connection.

              Just wanted to clear that up.
              Duly noted.

              Comment

                #8
                Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
                So I have started a second thread regarding a specific consideration raised by a fellow member. I want to thank both, Travisty for asking how I would evaluate Will's resume compared to Dempsey... whats known as a leading question... T I wish I had had you when I was teaching legal ethics... That is a high compliment.

                I also want to thank Shoulder Roll... while he is being somewhat defiant, thick skulled, and not seeming to read posts that would answer many questions by not necessitating having them be asked in the first place... and no doubt he will think I am hectoring him with this thread... I am not... He raises a good issue:

                How would you define an ATG?

                I maintain the following position... we know through consensus. Just as 9 times out of 10, despite all our goofies here, the boards will pick the right winner in fights, people know and through various dialogues, we arrive with certainty that some fighters are great, others might be, and some are not...

                I think this is as valid as it gets. Prove me wrong, show me a criteria that demonstrates what at ATG is by definition.

                Go!!!!




                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

                Comment

                  #9
                  there is only 1 criteria for ATG consideration

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

                  it has always been that way



                  ATG is as simple as fcuk

                  P4P is the one that most fans cannot seem to get a grip with

                  Comment

                    #10
                    Originally posted by aboutfkntime View Post
                    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
                    Well... that is debatable. Who did some of the great heavyweights beat who we consider ATG?

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP