I have been trying to come up with a system for evaluating ATGs across eras so I can put together my top 50 and have something to stand on in arguments and discussions. I came up with the following criteria which I’m trying to determine how to weight (hence the poll)... I put my order of importance in parentheses: Legendary victories over ATGs (3) Quality wins or title defenses over top contenders (1) Overall record / consistency (6) (ranked lower to account for padded records) Titles, records, accolades (5) (ranked lower to account for alphabet belt ****ery) Eye test, skills, dominance, etc. (2) Mythical h2h matchup (4) Outside of the top 4 who have it all (Robinson, Armstrong, Ali, Greb), there are question marks about damn near every guy which makes them difficult to rank... Some examples: Willie Pep is #5 with a bullet for me... possibly the most skilled boxer ever and perhaps the best record ever, but relatively few wins over top 100 types (Wright, Saddler) which makes it hard to rank him higher as other have done Gene Tunney and Sugar Ray Leonard are matchup nightmares for anybody in their divisions and have got some of the best scalps in boxing history but didn’t fight often enough to notch the # of defenses of say Joe Louis Champions who fought in weak eras for their divisions like Louis, Monzon and Pep don’t have as many ATG wins but it’s hard to knock them because that was no fault of their own H2H is important but styles make fights... there are cases (Saddler-Pep, Mayweather-Pacquaio) where the guy with a less impressive resume would probably win 2/3 of the time, but how much of the other criteria should that trump? I’m leaning toward placing more importance on quality wins over top 500 type guys and eye test/dominance (which would benefit a Marvin Hagler, for example) but am in no way certain. What do you all think?