I've thought about this for a time and have concluded its a bit of a trick question. Based on the criteria applied on most boxing forums one could have asked, What Greats did notfight in a week era? I mean even look at Floyd. The guy has fought about 3 atg's in 20 years, two of which were out of their prime. Sure he beat a bunch of belt holders but they were only belt holders because there are so many belts. Even Robinsons welter record. Who did he beat in his first 50 outside of Jake and carrying a tired Armstrong? Most of the atgs he beat had already lost about 20 or more times. Great fighters make good ones look weak because they are great. I think the question brings out the fact that you can’t just judge greatness on resume numbers. Too many variables. People in some eras lost because they fought 6 times a month. People routinely sum up someone’s career based on w/l and that’s it. Very few actually look into it. A guy like Burley is forced to fight his own stable over and over again as the rest of the Row and he might not make the cut and yet had that group of individuals been given the same opportunities as Robinson they would most likely have beaten anybody Ray fought from 47 to 75.

Calzaghe had a weak order
Hopkins had a weak middleweight era until a famous welter
Same with Hagler
Golovkin is in soft also.
People put Monzon in top 3 middle lists. Based on what exactly? Talk about a weak middleweight era. He beat a worn out Bennie Briscoe. I’ll give him that. Big stats and little substance.

Now the mid division and some of the champs came immediately to mind and 168 was pretty new but
I think its rare for greats to meet other greats in most eras. That is, greats on the same level at the same time.

There might be a couple of handfuls of great fighters that fought in great eras if one were to go back to 1865 and move forward division by division.