I just don't understand it. Does he rank them for their skills ( P4P ), or does he rank them as ''greats in their eras''? Thanks
Nobody understands it. This guy is some kind of genius*, though: http://www.boxing.com/the_100_greatest_fighters_of_all_time_part_one_100_91.html *he had some help
Bert used to rank fighters by how colourful their anecdotes were, SNV bless his soul. I miss the goof.
It's a bad list. But I give him some credit. He has most of the right names and he first put it together in the 80s. I don't think anyone was really doing that sort of thing back then outside of all-time divisional rankings. I could be wrong. Read McGrain's top-100. It's like the culmination of this entire forum's knowledge.
that's an accurate and respectful way of looking at it. I don't even put that much weight on them, because they are virtually impossible to be precise in, because there are far too many unknown quantities. they are good guides though but that's it. the old understanding before ratings and even long after they were more regular are the old adages " a fighter Enhanced his reputation, and only as good as your last fight "... the latter not being exactly correct, but it meant fighter A might gain a victory over fighter B, based on B's last showing! anyway Sugar's list was undoubtedly early days in such attempts, and as BigUnit said has a lot of the right names among it anyway. so respect for effort and reasonable considerations!
