Not sure that his inclusion is strange, I believe McGrain includes him in his as well . To me I think 25 is quite a bit to high? But that he would flirt with the final 25 spots or so, or an honorable mention just missing the cut.
Who says so? You? Or the old timers? I am not of the modernista camp either, but I do think a place exists between those 2 extremes.
how proven do you have to be? why did you place Marco Barrera & Carpentier over Foster? the way I see it, Bob would make short work of Georges
I think it's odd he rates Dempsey that highly, and Fitz relatively low. I know Callis put him the top 10, so such a high rating isn't unprecidented, but I don't rate him as highly. From the reports I've seen of him, some fights he seemed way more impressive in some fights than others, which already makes him hard to rate, then add in the incomplete records.
literally every single HOF'er since the 60's would eat benny leonard alive. the best fighters on earth at his time were like 100-75-20. imagine respecting a record like that.
Random bump but might as well chim in. Your list is your own not going into the usual modern vs old timers debate. But I really don't see a criteria for having Ali higher then Charles, Robinson, and Armstrong while having Louis at 19. Kinda makes me wonder what your criteria is.