Well the list is not polluted by Internet opinion, and although not all to my taste, it is comes across as an honest attempt, and fair comment for 1996.
Well that seems reasonable when trying to decide who was the finest from a 95lbs man from 1946 to a 400lbs man from 1996, with every shape and size in between...
you may not be far off BP. I have an old ring from the mid 70s where a fan reprimands the editors to a reponse to some fan letter that read "How is Ezzard Charles and what his he doing nowadays" to whcih they responded "Ezzard passed away in May 1975 and doesnt seem to be doing much of anything". Something I happened to notice
The editors of the time were corrupt and ignorant; tarnishing the name of the Great Boxing Magazine. But in the article (for this thread) Charles is recognized as the finest 175lber ever. Charles in this era is an Internet darling. He does rightfully deserve an awful lot of this love, and this list helped people to start to recognize how good Ezzard actually was. I suspect the editors were panned for not putting Foster and Spinks above Charles, which was the general feeling of the time.
Dire, diabolical, thoroughly despicable list. Pernell Whitaker so many places below Julio Cesar Chavez?? They should've closed that publication down for producing such offensive bull****.
He was never even rated as the best fighter in his division. During his reign as WBC titleholder he was no. 3. :nut http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine%27s_Annual_Ratings:_Bantamweight--1970s
What ever you may think of him having the #11 spot, he clearly was the best Bantamweight after beating Zamora. Unfortunately politics got in the way and it was (by a couple of pounds) an over the weight limit match, thus Zarate was not crowned champ.