Two Questions

[Mars_ax]

How do you define an "all-time great" and what is your criteria?

In your opinion how many have there been since John L. Sullivan?

I'll do my answers later. I want to see the gang's opinion.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Geezus Marb, you aren't asking for much of a reply are you. ( admit it, you're a glutton for punishment aren't you dude)

All-time is way to subjective there's hundreds of all-timers, may I suggest best ever in each division? For example: Joe Louis @ HW, Roberto Duran at Lightweight, Ray Robinson at Welterweight, et al.

As for a sensible criteria to use to create a list of the greatest boxers of all time. I'd say, the number of titles and defenses, longevity, dominance over contemporaries, how they represent the sport, and how they capture the imagination of the wider public would be a good start.

[JonesJrMayweather]

Well for me, all time great, I look at the era/decade in which the fighter is fighting. Then I look at how he performed against that era. Next I'll use the history of the sport as a reference for deciding if said fighter did reasonable things to make the most of being the best. Naturally as times change so do the politics of the sport. I don't penalize the modern era for not fighting 60+ fights because of how long it takes now to promote fights. And the old era fighters don't get extra credit just because they're old era fighters. I also look at all the circumstances surrounding each fighter's "defining" fights. Then I make a decision.

[marbleheadmaui]

Well for me, all time great, I look at the era/decade in which the fighter is fighting. Then I look at how he performed against that era. Next I'll use the history of the sport as a reference for deciding if said fighter did reasonable things to make the most of being the best. Naturally as times change so do the politics of the sport. I don't penalize the modern era for not fighting 60+ fights because of how long it takes now to promote fights. And the old era fighters don't get extra credit just because they're old era fighters. I also look at all the circumstances surrounding each fighter's "defining" fights. Then I make a decision.

Thanks! Shouldn't things like total wins count for something?

[marbleheadmaui]

How do you define an "all-time great" and what is your criteria?

In your opinion how many have there been since John L. Sullivan?

I'll do my answers later. I want to see the gang's opinion.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Geezus Marb, you aren't asking for much of a reply are you. ( admit it, you're a glutton for punishment aren't you dude)

All-time is way to subjective there's hundreds of all-timers, may I suggest best ever in each division? For example: Joe Louis @ HW, Roberto Duran at Lightweight, Ray Robinson at Welterweight, et al.

As for a sensible criteria to use to create a list of the greatest boxers of all time. I'd say, the number of titles and defenses, longevity, dominance over contemporaries, how they represent the sport, and how they capture the imagination of the wider public would be a good start.

See I don't think there are hundreds of ATG's. But I also can't prove why. I just like to keep terms like that more restricitve. Say top 50 or something.