Good point Britkid. But say for example Lennox Lewis, although he had a very successful career there remains for some a question mark against his chin, regardless of the length of time he was at the top.

Although I agree it is purely opinion, there must be something in common that sees the same names placed in these lists.

I think quality of opposition has to be taken into account, but is that outweighed by beating who is available to fight?
Also length of reign is a factor, but although Holmes had a long reign he is perhaps not as high as would be expected.

Could you say why Foreman is an ATG? and Tyson is perhaps not? Or even Liston? Also should heavies be rated as highly as the lower weights.

This isn't just directed at you Britkid