I think as I got older I get lost in the criteria and subjectivity that goes in all time stuff. Almost like the current p4p. In a weird way if I'm judging on something like number of belts and defenses it can much different than if ranked on best fighters defeated and competition. Off the top I'd set Usyk aside only as he's a still active fighter, maybe it's a copout but more of appreciation . Can see Ali, Louis, Lewis-Holmes (switch either) but then it gets interesting. Most certainly am putting Holyfield over Frazier, Foreman and Tyson with respect to vs-vs hypotheticals imo and well, he did beat two of them. Save all the "not in primes stuff" . But that's just me. Also we tend to go by what we've "lived" live and it's natural. It's like the old debates with Mick and I'm saying Greb was at the very top in different division . Good times. Meanwhile as much as we read and look over records fight per fight, and it has value and wish more fans kept at it, seeing is also believing. Our eyes do not deceive as opposed to something we've just heard about. Fair to say we all wish there was much more footage of the early greats. Ironic really. Today we have 24-7 coverage and almost too much exposure to below average guys, meanwhile the Johnsons, Dempseys, Wills, or Tunney's can be sparse on film. So for what's it worth and sure this will change when I think on it more, Ali-Louis-Lewis-Holmes-Holyfield-Foreman-Johnson-Tyson-Liston-Frazier.