Tracy Callis has slightly changed his All Time rankings

This dude's lists are such a load of sht it can not be properly described.

I despise these nostalgia fetishists. F them and the horse they rode in on.

 

Excuse me ! leave the horse out of this.....
that aside, he is a talking out of his bum.

 

This is why the self-adhered title of Boxing Historian is essentially an admission to being a hack and a charlatan.

Imagine ranking Jim Corbett above Larry Holmes at heavyweight. You simply can not create reasonable criteria for this.

 

The anomaly being, he is fêted and still revered by some , not computing that anyone who has Mitchell in their top 50 let alone top ten, is seriously out of touch, and will also not revise and enlighten their thought process, a dinosaur if there ever was.
stay safe buddy.

 

He also said Cus D'Amato is the greatest trainer but Ali beat his guy twice.

 

Do you think Jeffries could have beat the Ali of the Berbick match?

 

Don't be shy. Tell us how you really feel.

 

I’ve read the lists and I don’t understand them.

 

I think the guy is entitled to his opinion. Personally we can quibble with his reasoning..but with the same information that we have access too this is his choice.
So it’s up to him.

He says he believes certain times make better fighters. They’re just better. Just the time itself rather than anything to do with the competition in the time. Or if it was filmed or not.

To him bigger faster and more skill won’t eclipse “better”. Or being from a better time.

I think each time makes as great fighters so long as you have enough great fights. To get through a great fight you have to be a great fighter regardless of time. And whilst speed and size and skill changes with time, it’s really only ever enough to adapt for the time and rule set that it’s being used for. You put the big guy from the bigger time in the smaller time (without enhancements) he has to be smaller to compete as well he did in his own time and vice versa. The smaller guy from the smaller time (with access to advances in bigger times) has to be bigger in the bigger time and so forth.

 

The Jefferies of the Johnson fight could not defeat the Ali of the Berbick match.
In his "prime", probably yes he could manage a grueling, bloody decision over THAT Ali and ONLY that Ali.

 

Seems like an idiot

 

Look Jeffries fight in another era under a completely different rule set than the one Ali fought under. I give Ali a GREAT chance to win under the rule sets of the 60's-70's, but make it a outside venue in the heat with the large rings of the day with fights going 20 plus rounds with wrestling rulesets?? I may have to give Jeff the edge.

 

I just finished looking at Callis' ratings for the first time. I don't mind his ratings, they are his choice and opinion. What I mind is the inane, insane bias toward pre-1950 fighters by a man who holds votes and positions in major boxing organizations. He is so enamored with the past you would think he was the notoriously biased Nat Fleischer reincarnate. He does not have one cruiserweight fight among his top ten cruiserweights. They are just a bunch of lighter heavyweights from long ago. The man is the very definition of an intelligent fool.

 

Fleischer I tend to give a bit of a pass, because he saw a lot of these old fighters from ringside, and died before the time of many more recent fighters, or while their careers were unfinished works.

In the case of Callis I just don't get it, and if anybody on this forum was going understand if not agree with him, then it would probably be me.

 

I appreciate your take on Fleischer. He just sort of stopped ranking guys after 1940 unless they were truly amazing such as Louis, Robinson and Pep. Overall, his rankings are extraordinarily American and extraordinarily white.