Best and worst boxing historians...

Exactly my point. Louis only #6 by that stage is a travesty. Jeffries, Fitz and Corbett all ahead of him. :verysad

 

Nat Fleischer had strange ratings.

I don't like Sugar, although he is knowledgable.

I was a fan of Jack Newfield.

Mike Silver seems cool from what I've seen of him.

 

How Bert Sugar can rate Ezzard Charles as the 6th greatest heavyweight ever is a complete joke. No disrespect to Charles, who was a tremendous fighter throughout his career, but strictly looking at his heavyweight achievements he's doesn't belong in the top 10.

Sugar rated Lewis around 20, yet Charles gets inside the top 10. I'll tell you why he rates Charles so highly, because he fought 60 years ago and was an old timer.

 

At least he rates Langford (too high, but still).

 

You cannot judge sombody to be biased based on their list. That is circular logic of the worst kind.

What if the list is right?

 

I am not saying that you are wrong but what makes you say this?

 

Here's my top10 list:

1. Lennox Lewis
2. Wladimir Klitschko
3. Mike Tyson
4. Michael Moorer
5. Chris Byrd
6. Ike Ibeabuchi
7. Evander Holyfield
8. Vitali Klitschko
9. Muhammad Ali
10. Joe Louis


Now don't call me biased towards modern fighters, that would be circular logic. What if my list is right?

 

Then I will ask you to defend it and you dont have the advantage of being dead.

If you had seen all these fighters and I had not I would be asking whether there was something in it.

 

top ten lists are worthless I think. the criteria is so vague and based on what criteria it's certainly mutateable. everyone who does a top ten list only lists certain guys, but if you were to do a true top ten list based on importance to the sport then why doesn't anyone include jack broughton? he ****ing wrote the rules that lasted for over a hundred years that was a blueprint for the rules to follow, was dominant in the ring as a fighter, and was the leading promoter of the day to boot. so it's always to me what criteria is being used?

 

Because pretty much every biography he has written contains tens of factual errors. As an example, one I mentioned recently. According to him Jack McAuliffe retired after the fight with Ziegler, except for an exhibition with Lavigne. While at the end of the book he gives a record of McAuliffe and lists 1896-11-20 Jimmy Carroll W10 fight.

Nat Fleischer - Jack McAuliffe - The Napoleon of the Prize Ring
Shortly afterwards he announced his retirement, and entered the ranks of ex-champions. He never again engaged in a serious ring contest, although he did box a six round exhibition with Kid Lavigne on March 11, 1896, a friendly affair in which no hard blows were struck, and sparred three light rounds with Dick Burge in London, when he visited England a few months before the outbreak of the first World War.
Kid Lavigne was McAuliffe's choice as his successor, a choice universally okayed by the sporting press and permanently stamped correct when the Saginaw slugger kayoed Dick Burge in 17 rounds at London, on June 1, 1896 in a world title bout.

1896-03-07 The Philadelphia Inquirer
NEW YORK, March 6.--The statement made by Lavigne and Fitzpatrick to the National Sporting Club that the "Kid" was lightweight champion has made McAuliffe angry. The champion has sent a letter to England denying the story and challenging any man in the world for a $5000 or $10,000 contest. The message concludes thus: "If this offer is not accepted by any American I shall challenge Burge and fight in America or England."

So Lavigne was McAuliffe's choice, eh?

No hard blows were struck by Lavigne and McAuliffe? Here's a round by round report:

This content is protected

 

Well, I personally can't see the logic in rating Johnson, Jeffries, Fitz, Corbett and Dempsey over Joe Louis. Nor can I understand the rational of having Schmeling over Marciano. I also find it questionable that Sam Langford at #7 despite how good he may have been. The real injustice here is having the Bomber at #6. He had accomplished a far better feat than anyone on that particular list. I don't know if Fleischer based his ratings on who he felt was best head to head or what he saw as being the better legacy. I would certainly like to read his justification for these ratings.

 

Yes i have seen all these fighters, the ones from the 30's and later on good enough film to objectively asses their abilities and i did so and came to the unbiased list i just posted.

 

Clearly in terms of resume Louis deserves to be rated over everybody above him on the list.

If however we take this as a head to head list then the people ranked above him might theoreticaly have beaten him, though I am more than sceptical. We have to recognise that Fleischer has a better idea of how these guys fought than we do having seen them at ringside.

That is why I say it is not sound practice to argue that the list is wrong because it runs counter to what we would expect. Much better to go back to the original source material and test it.