There was a classics thread on this awhile back but I thought the general forum should have one too. I picked this up this issue yesterday, it was a great read. The list itself wasn't great, although it wasn't terrible either. Except for leaving Max Schmeling out and including Bob Fitzsimmons, everyone who belonged in the top 20 was there, just some should have been in the top ten who were lower and vice versa. However, I was really impressed with the article itself and the qualities it used to evaluate "greatness". They used what I've always said should be used, a combination of resume, in era dominance, impact on boxing and on general history, as well as other features, with h2h evaluated less than the other traits. One interesting thing is that it seemed like the entire expert panel recognized that old time greats from 40 years ago etc wouldn't be able to compete h2h against modern ATG SHWs. Wonder why forum goers have such a harder time with separating h2h from overall greatness.
I bought the magazine from a store, may 2017 edition, don't think it's available online, or at least I couldn't find it just now when I looked.
For my own thoughts on things, I tend to work with a formula of H2H 45% , Resume 45% + other 'intangibles' 10%. Tho. over-all I'm happy to defer to the knowledge of others re all time top 10/20 lists. One thing I do consider tho. is that say a Tyson/Ali prime for prime scenario ... both fighters would never go in less than absolutely prepared. A lot of fights that contribute to legacies ... Tyson/Douglas, Lewis/his losses etc. involved fighters not taking the fight as seriously as they could have done.
