Liston is in my 10, & I agree with you - but I will just say that before anyone posts a list, they should clarify what their criteria is (Merchant did), since different people use different selection methods. Personally, I completely ignore who would beat who in my rankings, but many people don’t. So it may all come down to disagreements centering not on the fighters, but the criterias in use by disagreeing parties.
What are the defenses worth when he mostly missed out on the best of his era? How can anyone judge his head to head ability when his best fight was nearly 35 year old Norton? His senior career--besting a guy who was beaten by Jesse Ferguson and got a split D over ancient Ossie Ocassio? Really, there is no justification for #2. None. No case can be made.
He even openly stated he was going after easier opposition as he neared Marciano’s record, & entered his mid-30’s. Now in the context of a long run as Champ, or even just that this is your line of work, I regard that as understandable. But in the context of ranking greatness, that hurts you, no doubt. It hurts double when you’ve left some of your best contenders on tenterhooks & your reign has been during a particularly weak era. Top two is frankly outrageous, though as others have said, there are far, far worse overall lists out there.
Can't complain about the list since all of the guys have a good argument to be there and Merchant had the luxury of seeing all of the guys fight in person with the exception of Dempsey.
Holmes went into the Norton fight with a torn left biceps muscle. How can anyone judge Marciano's head to head ability when his best fight was a 38 years old Walcott?
Aside from the Holmes/Louis thing, it's a pretty standard list. Not too much egregiously wrong with it.