We'll keep it to a top 20. I don't consider myself educated enough to make one of these lists as I'd have total disregard for a lot of old timers...if only because I've not seen them in action. I look forward to seeing yours lists, I'd probably expect every list to have Sugar Ray Robinson, Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Leonard, Pernell Whitaker, Willie Pep, and Roy Jones Jr on it. Let's see the lists.
I don't get it though, i rate technical ability very high, but is this just a handspeed/reflexes/power type thing? Like Hector Camacho and Ismael Laguna getting in because of speed? Because if so i'm not really in favour of it. But if i can go by my own criteria of 'ability' i'd e going for guys who can control fights and are great generals. Schooling opposition (in various forms) is the aspect of boxing that i relate most to this type of thread. Just asking Addie,so i don't go ahead and do a list that doesn't fit.
We disregard resumes, longevity, and titles...so you rate fighters based on what they can do in the ring, that includes everything...speed, power, stamina, ring generalship, foot work, defensive ability, versatility, etc. Every single facet of the sweet science should be considered I feel. Perhaps you'll find that your list will have a lot of usual suspects because ability and success go hand in hand, but there are a few exceptions..fighters who didn't fulfill their potential.
I can see where you're coming from Addie, but I don't think you can to be honest; it's a bit of an illusion. Skills and abilities should be only be held in the highest regard when they've been proven consistently against the best, so a fighter's record HAS to be taken into account. And as for the definition of skill, it gets misinterpreted in my book. I'd say that Joe Frazier was just as 'skilled' as Leonard in his own way. He'd perfected his own style as much as Leonard had perfected his; they just had a different aesthetic. And like teeto says, ring generalship is the main thing, as is effectiveness within a certain skillset rather than speed or flashyness. Sorry to sound nitpicky.
Okay, so it's basically head to head. I'll consider the best versions of what i've seen; 1. Sugar Ray Robinson (i really think that this is his spot if anybody's outright, there's debate to be had for his alltime greatness spot, but this is a list where i really like him at the top of) 2. Muhammad Ali (he's not stylistically complete, but he proved he could handle various styles from great fighters, he's not a guy you could say 'that style always beats him', about, please, no Ken Norton Devil's advocate stuff) 3. Roberto Duran (for ability he's on a level that is hard to fathom, the proof in the pudding that substance>flash, the only reason i have Ali above him is because Duran was beating convincingly in his prime) 4. Pernell Whittaker- (just so comfortable in the ring, and implied with that almost every action he took in it) 5. Jung Koo Chang (basically a nighmare to fight or box) 6. Sugar Ray Leonard (can't be denied, simply, resume doesn't play a part here but i can't hide from what he did against special fighters) 7. Carlos Ortiz- (all round technician, could do it against anyone, comparisons to a Bernard Hopkins could be made) 8. Willie Pep- (sue me for having him low) 9. Yoko Gushiken- (this is my list and is based on perception, in my perception this is a master, the epitome of the thread, i.e disregarding resume) 10. Gavin Rees This was just off the top of my dome but i could do one again.
Tapia was great in his prime though, my favourite as the best 115 man i've seen. I know it's not too deep but there's been some great talents. For me to consider him possibly/likely above Watanabe in a thread of this nature is high praise.
I think on a topic like this you're going to get a more generic top few than in a resume sense to be honest. It's in the resumes lists that you get forgotten greats of years gone by who beat loads of top fighters but never had much of a championship career. Like i just had to give way to the usual suspects at the top of my list.