A 14-year old fan's terribly inaccurate top 50 list

OK, but what about my points that you should make explicit what weigh & balance you give to historical significance, success (peak & career) & head to head speculations.
After you decide & make explicit what you value how much in determining ATG status, Take someone off or put 'em on when the explanations made to you make sense, not group consensus.

What about amateur success? The Klitchkos must rank higher if you are looking at all aspects of fighting-or just boxing at all levels.
Even if you do not consider his many amateur titles, the Olympics, or 134 victories out of 140 fights...
And however you factor in competition & how the rules were enforced, I dunno how Wlad does not very easily make the cut.
While I am not a personal fan, he has...

• Klitschko has defeated [url]23 opponents[/url] for the World Heavyweight Championship, more than any other heavyweight in history.
• Klitschko has won 25 World Heavyweight Title fights, the second most in heavyweight history.
• Klitschko holds the longest combined World Heavyweight Championship reign in history. He was the champion for 4382 days (12 years).
• Klitschko held the IBF, WBA and WBO heavyweight titles longer than any other fighter in history, and he is the second longest-reigning heavyweight champion of all-time. Klitschko's reign of nine years, seven months and seven days is second only to the reign of [url]Joe Louis[/url], who was champion for 11 years, eight months and eight days.
• Klitschko successfully defended the WBO and IBF heavyweight titles more than any other fighter: he defended the WBO title 19 times (five during his first reign and 14 during his second reign) and the IBF title 18 times. Only Joe Louis (25 defenses) and [url]Larry Holmes[/url] (20 defenses) have made more.

Nothing against some of the other HWs & people you listed, but even without making H2H a huge consideration-or any special credit because the HWs normally can kick the butts of all other divisions-how is Wlad not well up on your list, let alone not even on it?

Your list is pretty good!
I am not giving you a hard time-I would challenge anyone how there could be such a disparity between formal success at all levels for such a long time, likely H2H prowess, & such a relatively low ranking.
If you can defend this great-but if so, just be satisfied that there are enough mitigating factors to seemingly downgrade him so dramatically from his qualifications based upon accomplishments.

 

it's a Great List as far as 'lists' go... loads of usual suspects in there.

I typically don't lean on lists, simply because they are virtually impossible to ever be 100% accurate, however if you list all great fighters throughout the years or decade - decade for instance, those names would certainly be among them.

Good work!

 

I have seen much worse lists from people three times your age.

It takes a very balanced view of different eras.

 

OK it looks like you are not very ego based, excellent. And I just edited my post after you replied.
Again if you disagree with us old-timers that is fine, just develop your criteria & philosophy far enough that you can explain to your satisfaction why you put who where.

 

Seen far worse from so-called "experienced " fans.

Not half bad.

 

You were born in 2007?
Man I feel old.

As a side note we have a member her ethat is 96 years old.
This forum is truly smazing!

 

This 14 year old is learning like we all did when we started having an interest in boxing.