Ron Jackson's All Time Top 10 Fighters In Each Weight Division!!

South African historian/analyst.

 

Ok, missed that, especially Napoles, strike welterweight as well.

 

Haha. Maybe someone can invite Ron to the board? I have never heard of a South African boxing historian before. I'm sure they are out there. He might have some insight into SA historical informaion we have not seen before.

 

Bert Blewitt?

 

Almost as bad as some of the lists I've seen posted here. Almost!

 

First of all, I respect anyone who's looked into the history of every division.

Secondly I'm unsure as to what his criteria is.

But thirdly I don't think there's such thing as a good nor bad list. A list for me is a window into the soul of a boxing fan. It shows what they appreciate most about a sport. It shows their understanding of the sport.

There should be lots of discussion and many disagreements but no criticism imo.

For example, those who do lists on here have different weightings as it is. I rank skill level above all else, does it mean I'm wrong? Or does it mean I value skill level and footage more than records and news reports?

If you disagree with a list post your own and explain the differences, don't just dismiss it as ****.

I've not actually read this thread yet because I haven't had time to disseminate his lists myself so my post could be aimed at no one.

 

I assumed that this list was done before Lewis' and Holyfield's careers were over.

 

As though calling yourself a boxing historian is some kind of legit accreditation.

 

Agree with Seamus. What is it about someone calling themselves a "boxing historian" that impresses anyone so much? In our own way, we all are, and have every right to claim that supposed title as anyone else. And quite frankly, I've seen far better lists from average everyday posters here.

Goes to show what little good being a "boxing historian" does for you.

 

Can't knock the guy for calling himself a "boxing historian". Anyone who knows a bit or studies boxing history, or can relay personal history in the sport, is entitled to be described as such. In the real world.
Unless he's going around saying "I'm a historian and you're not!", putting on airs, acting like a pompous twit, then it's fair enough, imo.

 

Cerdan's place would have to be explained to me, that and no napoles the only things that really stick out to me.

I wouldn't call myself a historian because i don't have a history degree(or more) and am not doing research or earning from the subject, if he has or does those things then he is entitled to the name. but like unforgiven says, it doesn't really matter anyway.

 

Bert Blewett is a good call. The late Chris Greyvenstein as well.

 

Do you have Greyvenstein's "The Fighters"? One of the finest historical books I have seen to date!

 

I'm a historical fan, or should that be hysterical?