What is the appropriate way to rate fighters across different time periods?

It's pretty difficult and basically just depends on one's opinion.

I try to take into account the fighters' resumes, abilities, achievements, the era and circumstances in which it took place.

It is very difficult when you do H2H with the really old-time fighters. Boxing made major strides in technique in the 30s and 40s. That's where a lot of boxing when from "primitive" to much more scientific (with some exceptions of course).

The last couple decades have seen a decline in overall quality. Particularly in the last decade or so. There's a serious decline in technical skills as a whole. In-fighting and proper footwork being two very noticeable declines.

All the politics and alphabet crap make it hard to compare since you have to look at everything in context, and that can take a lot of time. Boxing had less divisions and two recognized titles from the 20s until the 80s. It wasn't until the 60s and 70s when divisions became more commonly split in champions. Usually one fighter had both titles.

Now you have a "Big 4", like it's a ****ing public accounting firm. Way more titles to choose from. WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, super and regular champs and all this other ****.

I may seem like I'm overcritical of Miguel Cotto. He's actually one of my favorite active fighters, it's nothing against him, but moreso the way boxing is nowadays with all the alphabet crap. People were saying him winning titles in 4 weight classes makes him an ATG. But you look into the context of whom he beat for those vacant titles from 140-154, it is far less impressive than fellow Puerto Rican Wilfred Benitez winning titles in 3 divisions because of whom El Radar beat and how many titles he had to choose from.

Floyd Mayweather won titles in 5 divisions, Manny Pacquiao is on paper the most decorated champion with titles in 8 divisions. You look at the context in which they won the titles and whom they beat....there are fighters with less titles who most would consider better fighters in their peak than Floyd and Manny, and greater fighters overall. And I think both Floyd and Manny are ATGs.

One thing I do not rate on, which some people do, is impact due to popularity. Jack Dempsey was VERY important to the sport of boxing and its growth, but that doesn't boost his all-time rating for me.

 

Resume. How great their opponents were and how they did against them.

Difficult to gauge and even harder to stay consistent, though.

 

quality of opposition