Chavez 2 and Louis 1. Some would want Marciano as 1, and some would like SRR. Not a troll. It's my list of the greatest. All Iv'e read are a bunch of other guys syaing the list is sh1t but not really justifying anything. My list and my rules! Where's your list?
It's the internal inconsistency that's as frustrating as anything else. You put Floyd at 14 because of his skills, despite a thin resume compared to, say, Hopkins, Armstrong (!! held 3 titles simultaneously, won 26 fights by knockout in a single year, defeated 16 world champions, and had 13 victories against future HOF-ers ........ just saying) or Monzon who are all above him -- but then you leave Whittaker totally off the list, despite him being more technically skilled and with a much better record. Or chronological inconsistency. Most of your fighers are from the last 60 years, but you make some surprising choices when it comes to older boxers -- you reach back to the early 20th century to include Willard, but leave out Willie Pep (injured in a plane crash, and then goes on to defeat Sandy Saddler two years later; casually wins rounds without throwing a punch), Harry Greb (mean SOB; only defeated by TKO twice in 300 fights, one of which was because he'd broken his arm), Sam Langford, who are stronger candidates than the Great White Hope. Who cares what funny criteria you use? But at least be consistent with them.
Your idea of consistency doesn't equate to my idea of consistency or criteria... a little inconsistent on your part I will argue! To be fair, I have no respect as much as others do for Willie Pepp. Not that he wasn't a good or perhaps a great fighter, he does not make my list because of him being far lesser known than some of the other fighters; his memorable fights that come accross many of the boxing analysts as average; and his fighting during a soft period at that time his weight division. Sorry... Pepp does not make my cut!