why is the list made up of a majority of old time fighters why are great fighters always one from years and years ago what makes a top fighter of the 1950's so much better than a top fighter of the 1990's????? From the list I got to go for Lennox Lewis Naseem Hamed was exceptional as well - more exceptional a talent than Joe Calzaghe
The top fighter from the 50's fights more often, more meaningful fights and hence has a deeper resume. In general. This is why "old timers" make the majority of ATG lists.
The names are actually spread over the last 120 years or so... 1993-present Joe Calzaghe 1989-2003 Lennox Lewis 1965-1982 Ken Buchanan 1946-1964 Randy Turpin 1931-1938 Benny Linch 1909-1929 Ted (kid) Lewis 1910-1923 Jimmy Wilde 1901-1919 Jim Driscoll 1983-1914 Bob Fitzsimmons
This content is protected + This content is protected + This content is protected = 75 Looks OK to me.
And? Valuev was 46-0. Calzaghe is 45-0. Is he the best because his record looks the greatest? Turpin obviously deserves his place in a top 10, purely for that win. But look at some of the guys he lost to, his performances were not consistent. His overall record does not grant him a place in a top 5 IMO, much less #1. Terry Downes beat SRR too. Turpin has more than just that win, but nothing like the depth of Fitzsimmons, Wilde or even Lewis.
fitzsimmons by a fricking landslide. read in the ring with bob fitzsimmons by adam pollack earlier this year. great read about a truely magnificent fighter.
Fair enough I could well be wrong but I only judge fighters on what I've seen not on what I've read. You can't really compare boxing now to what it was like a hundred years ago. In reality the correct answer to the question is that it's impossible to answer.