Tracy Callis has slightly changed his All Time rankings

What confuses me is that Gene Tunney was a better heavyweight, cruiserweight and light-heavyweight than Ezzard Charles but not as good pound-for-pound.

 

I'm sure, many of you have come across this 2012 interview with another historian, Tony Triem:
http://www.doghouseboxing.com/DHB/Tyler021512.htm

I have always found it weird, that Triem's list of all-time Top-10s is an EXACT replica of Callis' Top-10s (as of 2012). One historian simply stealing this from another - and passing it off as his own opinion! Or maybe the two have collaborated on these rankings? What do you guys make of this?

 

That's reminded me of this video interview with boxing historian Tony Triem.

“(Muhammad) Ali's a bum”.

On James J Jeffries - “He never hit as hard as he could for fear he would hurt somebody or he would kill them.”

This content is protected

 

I met this guy once and found him to be argumentative and obnoxious, not to mention having a mouthful of rotten teeth. That aside, note his obstinence in referring to Ali as a bum. Yet, in his ratings, he rates Ali 6th of all time. Yeah, I do that too. I rate total bums as the 6th greatest of all time.

 

Jesus these lists are beyond bad. His best cruiserweights ALL retired decades before the division even existed. Hes got Mike Gibbons rated as a welterweight despite the fact that Gibbons only made the welterweight limit a few times during his career (The limit being lower then than it is now) and typically weighed in the low 150s. If you are going to arbitrarily shoehorn guys into weight limits that didnt exist when they were active like every cruiserweight he ranked then Gibbons should be at 154 not 147 but even that would be ridiculous. His pound for pound ratings are ridiculous but ranking Ketchel that high is moronic. Ketchel's prime was very short, and while he cleaned up his division in a similar manner to Tyson his reign was also fairly short and meteoric like Tyson's as well. His P4P chops are non existent. He fought only fought one guy who would have significantly outweighed him, Johnson, and was dominated in one sided fashion. He didnt even move up in weight much during his career overall and cerainly not once he entered title contention. Hes got Armstrong as the best featherweight. Armstrong's accomplishments at featherweight are relatively meager as well and it wasnt his natural weight. He killed himself to make that weight once he hit his stride which is why he rarely ever fought there. Ughh, I could be here all day but suffice to say this list makes my head hurt.

 

Triem is also racist as hell if you find some of his previous interviews. Hes a ****ing idiot.

 

Jeffries-mania has got to stop. Of all the old time guys, he was one of the worst. A stumbling oaf. I don't care how many muscles he had, the guy couldn't BOX. Even in fights he won he got beat up by guys like Choynski who could move around well. An 87 yr old, bald, skinny Fitzsimmons cut him up badly.

 

lol! Wow.

 

This is hilarious! It would be amazing if anyone believed this.

He just wants attention for being "different" imo.

 

Although, in reality, he wasn't better at any weight...

 

Tbh, I think that sort of opinion would teach someone the difference between being "different" and being "wrong".

 

I think you're absolutely "right", George!

 

And there is this hum-dinger of a binary that he lovingly knitted from whole cloth:


"Those who favor the modern fighters argue that the men have gotten bigger, faster, and stronger over the years. They also point out that techniques have improved with the passing of time.

Those who favor the fighters of the earlier years contend that the men grew up in tougher times and were 'hungrier', more rugged, better disciplined, and better conditioned."



...okay, Trace, or how about bollocks to all of that and we don't treat any era like it were monolithic and instead rate individuals on their own merits (as if transposed not just up and down in weight but also back and forth in the stream of time), when puzzling out p4p historical rankings?


"Different periods of history impart certain attitudes and practices due to the 'temper of the times' and the conditions under which the people live."

'Temper of the times' is as dumb and hackneyed a concept and attempt at wringing profound truth from bad poetry as "the story of the fight" or "you have to take the belt from the champion". There is no temper of the times; there are individuals (among whom, sure, you can make observations and plot out some generalized patterns, but they still remain a collection of individuals in the chaotic context of prizefighting, and thus defying felicitous mass categorization). There is no "story of the fight", there's who won each round in a vacuum and then you tally up. There is no "take the belt from the champion", there's who won it overall round-by round, whether each be by an inch or a mile.

Sick of these pretty-sounding axioms that only serve to confuse the casuals. Some of them have been festering and stinking up the joint for nigh a century.

 

What you have written here, is every bit as ridiculous as what Callis has written about him, the difference being that Callis is at least informed!