How many other polls could be produced claiming the exact opposite? How many could be found that comfortably include Liston and omit Charles all together?
A reader poll from a boxing magazine readership from the 1970s is as pretty exclusive boxing audience as you could get then. There was no internet. Fans today with a passing interest can come up with a wealth of information in a very quick time, an over night expert if you like then dump boxing altogether for another interest. Back in the 1960-1970s subscribers to trade magazines were much more hardcore fans. By comparison I think it inarguable that a higher ratio of people buying the magazines had more of a personal investment in boxing history than folks who can log on and vote on internet polls.
I would like to know how many polls included Sonny Liston and omit Charles altogether before 1978. I do know that many all time lists omit Sonny altogether before 1978.
I am inclined to believe that this “coming to their senses” has more to do with fight fans who closely followed boxing though the 1940s to the 1970s who rated Sonny below Ezzard began to die off. I am very interested to see if any changed their minds after 1978. After all what did Sonny do after 1978 to raise his stature in all time lists?
You believe whatever reflects the worst for Liston every time. Your opening post in this (your own) thread already aims to herd people away from Liston. Many a time you have put up film telling people who picked Liston or Foreman that they need to watch this film alluding to them not having much of a clue.
I back Liston over many champions head to head actually. On a best fight by fight basis not many beat him. Making a case for the odd champ is not hating on Sonny. However, Do you think many who followed boxing closely from the 1940s changed their opinions on Sonny after 1978?
The problem with this premise is Charles wasn't even a ranked heavyweight until 1948! No one alive saw Dempsey fight,how many pick Charles to beat him? How many oldtime boxing experts even put Charles in their top ten? 'plenty of 50's Ring magazines and I can tell you nobody thought him a great heavyweight when he was fighting!
There is much to unpack here. Fans today or less trustworthy because they have access to MORE information?! People magazine readers from the 70s was more trustworthy because the participants had a personal interest? Magazine readers were as an exclusive of a group as you could hope to find?! . . . .what about people wrote them?
This is a good point. The people who wrote them like Nat Fliescher? I have a few top ten lists from before the internet generation days. And let me tell you, Sonny and Charles did not feature much. I presented the big book of boxing poll because it was one of the few that did.
I also think there is almost a negative honeymoon period. Some time needs to pass before a fighters legacy can be appreciated. Perhaps the immediate memory of their all to often diminished final performances.
This is the honest truth, and why I figure it probably takes at least five years after a fighter's last outing to even begin to properly rate them historically. I don't mind comparing current fighters to the past greats, but I also know that doing so will never result in an accurate, relatively unbiased result.