Excellent and interesting video, Rummy. My big 2 x takeaways reaffirm beliefs I already held: 1. I don't rank fighters all time until a few years after they retire. When active fighters are ranked all time, they're often either significantly over or underrated. Best to let the dust settle, the careers of the key opponents play out and allow time to put their careers into proper historical context. 2. Burt Sugar was famous for his style and excellent story telling abilities, not for his depth of knowledge on boxing history.
Great job as always! I think you didn't get the 2017 ranking, based on the survey made among boxing historians, promoters and trainers.
First Class breakdown, thank you, Rummy. I rarely if ever Rank Fighters, simply because a) it is near impossible to be 100% accurate and b) perhaps more to the point, there are too many variables & unknowns, to say nothing of preferences leading to leaving, overlooking or scratching other possibles out. what I will say and honestly believe is, Boxing should be divided into 3 Distinct Era realities... 1) the Pioneers or Prizefighters, up to say 1920, most of which were hard tough durable men indeed, though not yet the Athletic Stylists generally speaking, in which Boxing would soon become... 2) the Classic Era up to the 1980s, where we had literally hundreds & thousands even of 1st Class 'athletic stylists' and absolutely beautiful Boxers, the Greatest of Years. 3) the neo–Modern Present, where the proliferation of Weight Divisions, Belts and Sanctioning Bodies have absolutely obliterated Boxing and 'Watered the Sport Down' significantly. Especially with the Giants Super-Heavyweight Division... Subpar overall. Thanks Rummy, a great & impartial breakdown and informative piece of Boxing History. Brill !!!
It was great! One thing that struck me is that they don’t always give the actual criteria for rankings either. Some go purely on achievement, some on historical or cultural impact, but increasingly I see people basing on fantasy…H2H matchups etc.
For a bit of added context, Fleischer's top 10 in 1943: 1. Jack Johnson 2. Jim Jeffries 3. Bob Fitzsimmons 4. John L Sullivan 5. Tom Sharkey 6. Jack Dempsey 7. Joe Louis 8. Jim Corbett 9. Gene Tunney 10. Tommy Burns https://ibb.co/zQsDDPq (The newspaper cutting lists Jack Sharkey at #5, but Fleischer later clarified that he'd picked Tom, not Jack.) And in 1949: 1. Jack Johnson 2. Jim Jeffries 3. Bob Fitzsimmons 4. Jim Corbett 5. Jack Dempsey 6. Sam Langford 7. Gene Tunney 8. Joe Louis 9. Tommy Burns 10. Tom Sharkey https://ibb.co/G3JxpgTL Louis, oddly, coming out even worse in 1949 than in in 1943.
Great video! Thanks Rummy! A few things stand out to me. Time makes everyone a footnote sooner or later. It may be unthinkable for us that Ali isn't a top ten, but those in Jeffries era likely thought that of him. Related to the above, this makes film preservation important for those that want to keep the greats of our lifetimes remembered. I mean, how could we ever rate Jeffries (for example) against someone like Usyk when one has such high quality fights filmed and numerous breakdowns on his amazing skills. Jeffries on the other hand... Comeback beat down is our best view of him... Again, related to the above, maybe now that is fans of boxing history see how easily careers are forgotten with the lack of footage, maybe footage that exists now will be more carefully kept and maybe the all time lists will begin to change less dramatically cause fans will be able to still witness the great performances of Ali, Louis, and the like.
Really interesting video Seeing the great Joe Louis at 6 had me questioning things Would love to see the comparisons through other weights Great video
I think it’s about time we bestowed Mr @Rumsfeld with Classic Forum’s version of reverence as those in England once did for Henry Cooper and dub him ‘Our Rummy.’ Great analysis of an interesting topic backed by solid research to find significant milestone heavyweight top-10 lists to track the evolution of those rankings over the years. I found it a fascinating watch/listen as the narrator dug into not only the names on the list but how perceptions change — it’s one thing to add an Ali or Holmes or Lewis to the list after they’ve made their impressions and finished adding to their resumes to supplant mainstays of bygone eras, but to see how those earlier guys on such lists have jumped around to pass or fall below each other regardless of more recent entries is fascinating. Another winner from Our Rummy. May he forever remain in the Classic Forum top 10 … a true heavyweight boxing historian.
Good stuff as always. It's really hard to take Fleischer's lists seriously. And in my mind, they do cast a shadow on his actual understanding of the sport, at least so far as he was willing to comment on it. In the end, I find him a buffoon.
