When I used to make "Greatest Ever" lists, I would just go off of what they did. It was much easier for me just to judge specifically what a fighter did and rank their accomplishments against each other. "Best Ever" was different, more pertaining to talent and ability in the ring. Because of the less fights we have these days, it's hard to make the case for many recent (post 90's) fighters to really be in the top 10 of greatest of all time. When you rank the best ever though, the most talented and skillful fighters in the ring, it's easier to include guys like Roy Jones Jr., Floyd Mayweather and Pernell Whitaker.

Kel seriously, how many guys had the talent of Jones? A prime Jones was simply electrifying. List 10 fighters who were definitively better and more talented then Jones in the ring. Sorry but I think holes will be picked in any list you make because the simple fact of the matter is that if Jones Jr. isn't the best ever (I don't think so) he is definitely at least in the conversation.

I no longer do "Greatest Ever" lists, because I think it's foolish not to include the talents of a fighter when ranking them on the greatest ever lists but I can't find an appropriate balance. I can see the argument that Jones Jr. isn't a top 10 "Greatest Ever" fighter because on paper his record really isn't anything that blows anyone else on the ATG list away. However, the thread title is "Best Ever" and I don't really think that's that outrageous of a claim.

BTW - I may be the only person who really differentiates "Best" and "Greatest" like I do but it seems to make enough sense to me.