Yes I can see the logic of this. To be candid I don't think Joshua is going to be what I would call an all-time great neither he nor the other two champs nor Tyson Fury. Time will tell.
Fair enough and, again, interesting. I too appreciate the showing from Wlad, against Joshua, to an extent - just not enough for it to have made an impact on my overall rating of him. Given that, before their fight, I thought Joshua was a relative novice and would most likely lose, at this stage (even to a 41-year-old version of Wlad), I was perhaps just not as impressed as some were, by the valiant defeat. Essentially, Wlad still lost a bout that, at one point, seemed there for the taking. That said, in my view, the lack of impact on Wlad's rating works both ways, in that Wlad gets a pass for losing, as well, on the basis of the stage he is at, in his career. In a somewhat different way, I think the reference to Walcott is quite in keeping, here. Walcott, in his penultimate bout and himself aged by the time he faced Marciano, was up against a comparatively seasoned pro, in Rocky; the Brockton Blockbuster having stacked up a bit of a record and recently been in with Ring ranked competition. Walcott had Marciano down and was winning the fight by the time of the late KO. But, in what it is considered a great fight, I do not think it impacts, either positively or negatively, Walcott's ATG ranking.
Lennox Lewis should not be in the top 10. He was knocked out cold by Rahman. His best win was over Holyfield who was past his prime and Vitali would have knocked him out if the fight wasn't stopped because of his cut.