Some initial statements: (i) Obviously I understand that the number of fights per boxer has, on average, decreased if we compare many of today's fighters with older ones. (ii) I also know that numbers don't tell us the whole story, as each competitor is completely different - largely due to the ultimate number one factor: quality of wins. (iii) I like lists But my question is simple, and broken down into three parts: 1) Is there a cut-off at which you would say, 'That's not enough bouts to be considered a true all time great'? 2) To what degree should the number of fights during prime years be factored in, when ranking? 3) How realistic is the possibility that greater number of fights during prime years (as opposed to 'going on to long') may detract, due to opposition available? Thank you.