Is this heavyweight list good, or bad?

All 10 names are reasonable, but I dont like the order.

Sonny Liston doesn't necessarily belong in a top 10.

 

Who's list is it? I'm not a fan of a top ten without Holmes in it. Johnson's too high, Sullivan?

 

You're right about Holmes. I missed that. Holmes belongs.

 

It's interesting and unique, I'll give him that, but not good. Kind of a Bert Randolph Sugar type effort. That's why I asked who's it was.

 

You can't just put up a list with no sort of context. It's an exercise for simpletons.

 

Glad you could join ;-)

 

Seriously, these lists mean nothing without qualification. How is author weighing head-to-head estimations, quality of opposition, record, legacy, importance to the development of technique, importance to the development of the sport as an economic entity....

Jack Johnson, for example, might not make my top-50 in a head to head sense. However, in regards to legacy and technique, he is top-10. I grade him differently in relation to the context.

A request for criteria really should not be necessary every time someone posts one of these lists. Yet, here we go again.

 

What about his ten year rein or cleaning out the divsion before the likes of Jackson and Corbett came on the scene??

 

I'd find it very hard in deciding where to place Sullivan. Boxing was a very different sport in The Boston Strongman's day. As I've said on previous threads,it was going through a transitional phase between old time prizefighting,and boxing as we've come to know it today.

 

Yes,Sugar was very keen on the early fighters.

 

:good

 

Hell boxng is a differnet sport from the 1970's and back.

Boxing was way differnet in the era of Jack Dempsey with the lack of rules.

 

Pretty weak. No Holmes or Liston? Sullivan #3? Johnson #1 ahead of Ali & Louis?