Just spotted this, and I think it's interesting. http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/callis-rankings.htm For P4P, Ezzard Charles has been added at 9, and Harry Greb and Philadelphia Jack O'Brien are now tied for 10 (before O'Brien was 9, and Greb was 10 At Light Heavyweight Archie Moore and Michael Spinks have been swapped, with Moore now at 8 with Spinks at 9.
Moore at 8???? Top 3 LOCK at light heavyweight. How can someone have Charles > Greb P4P? Jeffries #1 HW? I'd like to point out not one of his top 10 CWs were CW Charles Mitchel #5 P4P... Oh dear dear dear dear dear @The Malibu Mauler, Greg I'm sorry for the mean things I said about your list
Are these the only changes… I don't recall having seen the #10 tie between Lavigne and Whitaker before at lightweight. Or is my memory letting me down?
Callis rates Philiadelphia Jack O'Brien extraordinarily high. Also not sure about rating old school heavies at Cruiser and then also rating them at HW. I personally wouldn't rate anyone in a division they never actually fought in. It's a strange choice that's only overshadowed by the extremely questionable rankings. I consider myself more of a classicist than many, but even I wouldn't go so far as to rate Jeffries in my top five for HW, let alone placing him, Johnson and Dempsey over Ali and Louis and Corbett anywhere in the top ten.
Neither am I. He's about as biased (in favor of the old-timers) as Nat Fleischer - so I don't take his rankings too seriously
Wow...those are atrocious! I must have seen them before but Jesus Christ. Even his definition of pound-for-pound is ****ing crazy. Best bit: "Generally, as a man gets larger, he gets heavier."
Without exaggeration, I'd give more gravitas to the average posters ratings here than Callis' opinions.
I know we could be here all day if we start picking holes, but WTF is Pryor doing ranked at lightweight?