Almost an ATG But Not Quite

[Slugfester]

Which fighters (if any) might serve as the poster boy for "Almost an ATG?" Where is that non-existent cutoff line, and which fighter or fighters do you feel best represent the category?

One more question: In your opinion, can a fighter be great but not an ATG? Is there such s thing? I know it comes down to a matter of your personal opinion, not some scientific truth. But what is your opinion?

[Willie Pep 229]

We all thought (for about a year or so) that Livingstone Bramble could be an ATG.

[mrbig1]

Well, I always said if it weren't for Duran, we'll be talking about Esteban DeJesus being a great lightweight.

[IronDanHamza]

That’s a good and thought provoking question there.

Being an ATG is of course an opinion, there isn’t a set criteria. Most usually consider the Top 100 ATG list as exclusively for ATG fighters. But that will of course expand over time.

And you make another good point, there are fighters who looked “great” but aren’t great, or had “great”
potential. I think Reggie Johnson “looked great” in some of his fights, his problem has he only looked great for very short spells. Like for the first 6 rounds vs James Toney, or for 3 rounds against Steve Collins. His problem has he couldn’t maintain it, thus lost fight he should have won dominantly (Toney) amongst others.

[Hustle]

Miguel Cotto in recent times

[GhostofDempsey]

There are fighters who have touched greatness but weren't necessarily all-time greats. Almost but not quite in that rarified air.

Joey Maxim
Maxie Rosenbloom
Jimmy Bivins
Tony Zale
Joey Giardello
Rid**** Bowe

[QueensburyRules]

Which fighters (if any) might serve as the poster boy for "Almost an ATG?" Where is that non-existent cutoff line, and which fighter or fighters do you feel best represent the category?

One more question: In your opinion, can a fighter be great but not an ATG? Is there such s thing? I know it comes down to a matter of your personal opinion, not some scientific truth. But what is your opinion?

- - Many if not most of my contributions here are scientifically based on fighter timelines and results. Drives the typical lowbrows bonkers.

[Willie Pep 229]

There are fighters who have touched greatness but weren't necessarily all-time greats. Almost but not quite in that rarified air.

Joey Maxim
Maxie Rosenbloom
Jimmy Bivins
Tony Zale
Joey Giardello
Rid**** Bowe

I was about to write: Would you put Joey Giardello on that list? Then I noticed him on second look that you included him.

I think he is a fighter who came up two or three big wins short o being an ATG.

[DeeMoney]

This should be interesting as I can foresee lots of arguing based on semantics. Two people could have the exact same ranking of boxers, but one would only consider the top 50 as ATGs the other their top 150. They'll bicker back and forth over a given fighter, only to realize they have them ranked in the exact same spot.

FWIW I also think there are multiple ways to measure a fighter that could contribute to differences- peak vs career; in ring abilities vs accumulated accomplishments; could be fun.

[billeau2]

Which fighters (if any) might serve as the poster boy for "Almost an ATG?" Where is that non-existent cutoff line, and which fighter or fighters do you feel best represent the category?

One more question: In your opinion, can a fighter be great but not an ATG? Is there such s thing? I know it comes down to a matter of your personal opinion, not some scientific truth. But what is your opinion?

Great thread! Its an interesting question and as it pertains particularly to boxing makes it unique compared to other sports. In boxing there seems to be a general consensus that HOF does not mean much. The real conversation about greatness revolves around the ATG nomination. This category is debated time and time again, as it should be. The dialectic of greatness in boxing is fascinating and generally the more history receeds the more an individual is guaranteed to get a fair shake when their name comes up for discussion as an ATG.

For example, look at many black Fighters, many not well known, guys like Godfrey, C.C Smith. To be a Black fighter when the color line existed meant having to fight many fellow skilled fighters many times. So where Dempsey might be able to get away with fighting Tunney twice, many Black fighters had to fight a great opponent 3,4,5, or more times. This produced records where guys wins and losses seemed more spread out, kind of like how guys win and lose in MMA today. Like the fighters were more evenly matched. So how do we evaluate these guys? compared to the White fighters who fought each other sparingly?

To me fighters that were almost ATG fighters often are fighters we just do not know enough about, but we know they were highly regarded... Guys like Joe Choyinsky, Harry Wills, etc. To me, an almost ATG should be an ATG but for uncertainty.