I would ask you guys to make a 50 list, but that is difficult. How would you guys alter that list? I liked how one of the magazines a few years back rated the best boxers of the last 50 years.. Lists like that usually are terrible since we all have a favorite era and boxer. So the era we favor is going to be near the top, and then the fighter we liked in that era will be favored. It is hard to really rate fighters. And I think Foreman being high on an alltime list is not legit. Foreman in his prime should be the one rated. He knocked out alot of guys and wiped out Norton and Frazier which to me is impressive, but then he lost to Ali. He was like Tyson in his former career. He would win big or get wiped out. Does his second career from 87-96 or so warrant him going higher? I do not think so. He lost to Holyfield with a big weight advantage. Lost to of all people Tommy Morrison. Then finally wins when he knocks out a former light heavyweight with no chin. He fought good guys but does not warrant him top spots. I would rate George a great heavyweight I suppose. Just do not know where. And Hagler was a great fighter, but people are complaining how he should be higher. I always thought the fact that he did not move up and fight Spinks and test his skills the way his buddies Hearns,Leonard and Duran did should knock him down alot. Hearns tested his overall skills more than Hagler, and maybe he went down sometimes, he still tested them more with weight gains.