Boxing history depends heavily on contemporary observers. Which old time historians, promotors, fighters etc, who lived into later eras were the most reliable. I will kick of by suggesting that Jack Dempsey was a more reliable observer than Gene Tunney later in life.
Well Dempsey picked Louis and Schmeling to win their second fight. He also picked Baer when both Willard and Sharkey saw that Braddock's time had come (and Dempsey had almost unrivalled access to the two camps), although he did say that Braddock had a in the week before the fight.
Yeah, and both thought very highly of him. The Baer/Dempsey relationship made me chuckle, Dempsey was just so furious with Baer all the time and his pisisng about.
Dan Daniel of The Ring. He wasn't stuck in the past like Fleischer. Even when Sugar took over in 1979 he immediately said he was embarrassed by the Ring's previous all-time rankings. People like Ort and Loubet just voted for their favourites too. Sam Taub wasn't too bad but Daniel was clearly the staff writer that had moved with the times (without totally forgetting the legends). Herb Goldman was a good, old time writer too, who acknowledged contemporary fighters, as were Gilbert Odd and Ron Olver.
Hank Kaplan, who just passed away, rated Tyson's defense extremely high in the late 80's, while he was in his 70's himself.
I dont mean who were the best predictors. I mean who were the most balanced observers. As wanabee historians we should ask this.
I'm guessing Ray Arcel was very measured in his observations and descriptions and assessments of fighters old and new. I have a feeling Rocky Marciano would have been a favourite expert of ours if he had lived. He rated Liston and Ali very highly and was always graciouos and honest in his appraisal. I think he respected all fighters.
its too bad sonnys jab because i suspect marciano would still be alive if not for that fatal plain crash. he was hilarious to listen too as a commentator during fights
I would say Ted Carroll. He was always balanced about the old-timers, except perhaps Louis, who was a close friend. I was impressed by his prescience prior to the first Liston-Ali fight. He pointed out that Ali was much bigger and faster than Patterson or Machen, replete with drawings. I don't remember if he actually picked an upset, but he certainly left the impression that Ali had a strong chance. There were plenty of writers who went on record as saying Ali could not get out of the first round. When they were embarressed, they began crying "fix" to save face. Dan Daniel was another who seemed balanced.
I still don't know how to do the really cool, put peoples' quotes in a box, thing. Someone mentioned Godd earlier. Did that someone mean Odd, as in Gilbert?
I do have a 1966 article comparing Ali to the all time greats, Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, Louis, and Marciano--He felt Ali should be a big favorite over Tunney and Johnson, and seemed to think he would beat Dempsey and Marciano, although he caviled that it was too early to pick Ali over such heavy hitters until his chin was more proven. Louis was the only old champion he clearly picked to win. This article was written right after the Chuvalo fight. I don't have the evaluation of the Liston bout, but it would be in the Ring sometime in the late 1963 or early 1964 issue.
I mentioned Daniel earlier too. He had great perspective and was very well-balanced. Easily preferable to to Fleischer.