I beleive that i placed the donald at no. 12 alltime for his longevity,ranking ( at least top 3-4 since his breakout yr. in vancouver) and success ( w/l record which i incorrectly thought was mildly deflated due to his time in montreal). After reading this comprehensive analysis of his career, i tend to think that he has a STRONG case for breaking into that group just under the generally recognized top 6 or 7 guys that we all have on our lists. Maybe we all have to evaluate our own criteria for how we rate these guys, for example fight card, no. of fights/longevity and consistent top 5 types, which factors matter the most? myself i included at least 3 guys with far fewer accomplishments on their resume in my top ten: nick fotiu, barry beck and dave richter. You could easily argue that "the Donald' deserves to be rated ahead of all three. All 3 gents have one thing in common: a far inferior fight card. To answer my own arguement/ question I guess that i just feel that those three fighters all have a REAL chance of beating the lower rated guy semi-consistently. For example i figure most of you disagree with my placing dave richter over joe kocur ( #12 alltime for me) but i just happened to be exceptionally impressed with richter's actual w/l record but more with his "theoretical potential" to actually be the alltime great that i rate him as. In fact i talked myself out of placing richter in my top 5-6 because of the reasons that support brashear's case for high alltime recgnition: longevity, # of fights, especially during his prime and consistent recognition as a true title threatt. What do y'all think?