I'm gonna presume, Mr. Callis is an honest man, and that these lists actually represent what he truly feels. I think, it may be a case of studying the old-timers TOO intensively. I mean, if you spend decades going through thousands of contemporary newspaper articles, you could brainwash yourself into believing, that boxers from the late 19th/early 20th century were superior to those of more recent times. That's the only explanation I can think of.
Everybody has an unconscious bias towards the eras that they know the most about, if only because they know the merits of the lesser known fighters, who are faceless men to most people. Callis is well respected among historians, but I have always found his logic a little odd. My attempt to argue the case for Jim Jeffries, would look very different from his argument for example.
He probably respects guys who were great at bareknuckle and gloved rules, fight to the finish and 15 round s, etc
I don’t agree with his lists but I do respect the hell out of the research he puts in. I do think it’s clear where his sympathies lie with regards to certain eras and generations.
Tracy Callis has been smoking the peace pipe. But with PCP as an addition. Jeffrey's the greatest heavyweight? J.Johnson the greatest Cruiserweight in a division created almost 70yrs after he died? No Marvin Hagler or Carlos Monzon in the top 10 at Middleweight? He obviously had too see Mounzon and Hagler since he had Whitaker in the top ten at lightweight. But it is his opinion and he's welcome to that. But in my opinion he has no clue.
Can’t say I particularly agree with any of these ratings. And his cruiser weight top 10 consists of men who fought before the division’s very existence.