Charley Rose top 10 in the 8 Traditional divisions

Rose was British, and a manager in boxing. He lived to be something like 100 years of age. I wish he was here today to explain his picks. Even if I disagree with them, I'd learn a lot.

 

People tend to dismiss lists by guys like Rose and Fleischer because they disagree with the consensus among people who never even saw most of these fighters.

 

FLeischer crushed his own credibility with idiotic comment after idiotic comment imo.Not that you aren't right in many cases though.

 

Also surely if you grew up in say the start of the MoQ ruleset you would have a different take on things than a fan today.

Fleisher does make some excellant points and did alot in the way of publiscising th history of boxing

 

The middleweights and heavies are just horrible. No Ray Robinson or LaMotta. Marciano behind Sam McVea? Sam Langford over Joe Louis... may pound for pound but not at heavyweight head to head or by resume.

 

Of course, but his lists were pish.

 

True although most lists are debateable, his was terrible

 

How many times did Marciano go past 20 rounds?

 

How many fighters Marciano faced would have lasted 20 rounds with him?

Don't feed me this McVea ****. I've read enough coming from those who fought him, from those who saw him fight, and seen the available footage. Sure, he was fine for his day.... but his day was largely ****. He knew one punch, threw it leaping in and either clinched or backed up in a straight line after he threw it. Even Langford spoke of his predictability. Newspaper accounts spoke of his relative lack of boxing skill and imagination. McVea should be remembered as a pioneer, a guy who didn't get the opportunities he deserved... but a rather limited fighter in the ring who was beat by the cream of his paltry times.

I hope someday when I am gone that someone will afford me generosity of judgement that these crude, early brawlers are given today.

 

Opinions are just that. I know people call them experts and they are to a degree because of the time they put into the sport. I happened to know Nat Fleicher and I used to go up to Ring Magazine as a young man. I was amazed by Primo Carnera's fist mold. You got to remember the fighters of the 50's were the new breed to him and he did not think much of the 70's. Nat Loubet was basically a wrestling editor until his Bro-in-law(N.F. died) then Loubets son-in Law...John Ort started excepting Money off Don King to Rate Tom Prator (Holmes opponent ) higher among others to make there fighter look good. I do not agree with Roses opinions but everyone is entitiled. Nat Fliecher was fair (biased to his era to a degree) but he had an open mind and loved boxing.

 

And if Tony Galento got 40 shots at Joe Louis, he would have KO'd the Brown Bomber a couple of times... So what?

Those guys fought, what, 15 times? According to the newspaper accounts I can recall, Langford beat him convincingly over and over. Langford was far superior to McVea... however, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

That argument rings a little hollow if McVeas win happens to be the first or the second of the series.

 

This list intrigues me. The Original Joe Walcott was something like a sawed off Mike Tyson, except he had far better heart. Rose was alive to see him. There are no flims of a Joe Walcott in the ring. Was he really that great? Rose thinks so.