Great list of 19th century champs, Rapaire, but how about Daniel Mendoza? He put some science into boxing. Today he would be considered a middleweight, but there were no weight class distincrions when he fought., so he did fight against those that would today be heavyweights.

Tyson is on my list because in his prime, 1986-89, he was awesome. The manner in which he completely dominated his opponents puts him on there. He was way, way past his prime when he was knocked out by Lennox Lewis. When he fought Buster Douglas he was by that time under new management and trainers, and was, by all accounts, not well-managed. It's as if he had forgotten all the good training and technique that earlier mgmt taught him.

I'm also a big fan of Marciano, but just want to note that the 1950's is generaly regarded as anything but the golden age of boxing. it was considered one of the less talent-laden decades. This is no rap on Marciano, though. Maybe he could've beaten Dempsey and others above him on my list, we'll never know.

With my list, and anyone's top list, with such great boxers, who's to say that Foreman might not have creamed Marciano, or that Dempsey might not have gotten some early licks into Joe Louis that would have kayoed him, and on another night Louis done the same to Dempsey? There are so many variables, any list should be taken with a grain of salt. Sometimes there's the matter of one boxer's style being a weak point against some opponenrts, and a strong point against others. But I think lists are good for speculating based on different variables. We'll just never know for sure. I'm glad you all are responding and opening discussion on great boxers. Let's keep it going.

Pound for pound, I'd put Roy Jones, Jr. somewhere up there, but probably Sugar Ray Robinson at the top.