Hmmm.... Not a bad idea. However, there would be some crossover. Major one would be Ali. Which would mess up my way of puting a HW near the top of a list... The "best Ali" was in the 60's but his best bits of resume are in the 70's.... my head is going to pure explode
The men are comparable. The sport itself is not IMO. Accomplishments that are mentioned and worded the same way do not mean the same thing. 3 Titles in 3 weight classes doesn't mean now what it meant in the 1940's or even the 60's. Multiple weight champion, Lineal title, even things like top 10 contenders beaten are vastly different from one era to the next. The men may or may not be comparable. But Boxing is not.
Judgement call really. Put him in whichever one you feel comfortable. I put him in the 70's usually. However, whereever you include a fighter, I include his entire resume. He is one fighter with one resume, which follows him to whichever list he is on.
I'll agree that it makes the job more difficult - how the facts are weighed are suddenly everything - but I still don't agree that boxing across eras is not possible. At the very least you should be proven correct by attempts to do so which fail. Now, you have your progressives like Amsterdam, your old timers like Janitor, but what about the guys like me? My theory - that the outstanding athletes of 1900 would exceed at boxing today because the core attributes - toughness, will, atheleticism, bravery - never go out of date and the great fighters of today would excell on 1900 for exactly the same reason - what do we do? I am interested in the history of boxing, and i won't break it into peices for convenince sake.
We are fundementally talking about different things. I see P4P lists and ATG lists as different things. P4P lists for me, weigh H2H heavily in their criteria. ATG lists weigh accomplishments and resume more heavily, giving less credence to subjective H2H skills and ability. In this instance, accomplishments and their context become impossible for me to cross value. They don't weigh the same across era's. Convenience doesn't always mean deteriorating the state of the message. Sometimes it's done so that things are more clean cut, so that less subjectiveness is involved. I have tried making the cross era lists. You saw my top 10 a page ago, or maybe you didn't. But I don't feel comfortable with that list based on what I just said.
There's the MAJOR flaw with your reasoning, and the reason he doesn't even rank among the top 30 all time P4P.
Ranks much higher head to head than he does in terms of greatness. The problem is not hitting him hard enough, it's hitting him at all.
1. Sugar Ray Robinson 2. Muhammed Ali 3. Henry Armstrong How Armstrong is not in a top 3 is proper criminality, :good.