There's no such thing as a Top 10 ATG list...so get over it.

Boxing did not exist 30 decades ago (in 1710). Wong! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing

If there was Omar Henry would be on it though. Just saying.

How can you compare a fighter 30 decades ago to one now? Boxing did not exist 30 decades ago (in 1710). it's impossible It's impossible to be definitive, it's purely opinion - but that doesn't invalidate the exercise. Without doing the exercise of comparing the achievements of modern fighters with the greats from the past, there is no context for what is happening now; and without that context, boxing would be a far less interesting sport. Is Usain Bolt a greater sprinter than Jesse Owens? If Owens were running today, with modern nutrition and training methods, would he beat Owen? Who knows? But most athletics historians would say they are probably the greatest 2 sprinters of all time, and would have a lively and interesting debate about which order to rank them in. But if you look at Bolt's achievements in isolation without any sense of history, then his career becomes far less meaningful. The more knowledgeable the compiler of the list is about boxing history, the more respect the list should be given, but only as an opinion, not as fact. In any case, fighters in ATG lists aren't ranked on the basis of who would beat whom. That is taken partly into account, but their record and level of competition is given much more weight than a simple fantasy match-up. do you take into account nutrition and science has made better boxers over the years? do you take into account the quality of the opponents they faced? Obviously you do. ATG should just be ATG, and there should be no Top 10. The usual definition of ATG is "one of the 100 greatest fighters of all time", based on a combination of ability and achievement. So you're arguing that a top 100 list is fine, but not a top 10 list! That's illogical. If either is okay then both are okay. If either is invalid then both are invalid.

It's speculative but with a bit of knowledge and perspective you can figure out a rough idea of who deserves to be remembered with greater fondness than who.

ranked fighters should be about resume alone in my opinion skill should have nothing to do with it

sorry, but even though what you say makes sense, where is your sense of fun? ATG lists are great fun, just like fight night on the xbox is fun. i dunno about some people but one of my favourite ever moments in videogame history was putting tyson against ali in the latest fight night. kinda the same things as with ATG lists. you're probably right in what you're saying but you're taking a lot of the fun out of being a boxing fan...

TS is right. Sure you can write a ATG list for fun and rank fighters but in the end it's nothing but speculation.

Of course there is, based on achievements / resume and skill level you can compare them to boxers of any era. Plus it's a bit of fun and opens up debates. Of course but what Pac has done, against the quality of opposition he has consistently done it against. He is top 10 ATG. Anywhere from no10 down to no1. Could fit in anywhere. :dunce:

You're wrong, some fighters you can say they would be great in any era. The fact that you say all time great only applies to a particular era is a juxstapostion, the phrase essentially says they would be great in any era of all time, so to say it only applies to their particular era is a contradiction of the phrase's meaning.

Of course but what Pac has done, against the quality of opposition he has consistently done it against. He is top 10 ATG. Anywhere from no10 down to no1. Could fit in anywhere.

Exactly. You should judge fighters relative to their era.