The criteria for an All Time Great?

[SimonH]

Hey Britkid, just wondering what you mean by redemption? Also with some of your intangibles does that mean Tyson can be included?

By redemption, I mean to redeem yourself. e.g. Archie Moore gets knockdown six times, by Yvon Durelle, but recovers and wins the fight. Or Lennox Lewis to Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman, but comes back to win the rematches.

And because of the intangibles, Mike Tyson can be placed in the all-time top 100, but I would not consider him an all-time Great.

So with quality of opposition Louis could only fight what was around, which was fair enough, but this is often a marker for all ATG. Should it be counted?

In that case Ali would probably be top of heavies, but he had flaws in other areas.

Yes; we cannot change history, Louis simply did not fight the quality of opposition Ali did, thus that goes against him...

How about how they would compete against champs from other eras. Should this be included?

I try not use that when working out my lists. It is simply unfair, boxing has evolved; how can you rate a Bob Fitzsimmons against a modern fighter on ability and technique?

But everyone has their own criterion, there is no right or wrong here, lists like this, are purely subjective.