Previously on, “Raskin is going away for a couple of days this week and needed to get both of his columns filed early, so he came up with one double-length idea he could write in its entirety over the weekend” …

In Part 1, I shared some of the most compelling reader comments on my articles from January to June and responded to them.

Now, it’s time for Part 2, a mailbag of sorts made up of reader comments from July through December (edited for grammar, spelling, clarity and length):

Comment from Hooded Terror:

A good article. But Jack Dempsey? The guy that held up the heavyweight division for years? The same guy that didn’t face Black fighters? Sorry, Jack doesn’t even make my top 20 all-time great heavyweights. He was good at NOT doing his job, his highlight moments aside, in my opinion.

Raskin’s response:

As explained in the article, my selection of Dempsey for a spot on the Mt. Rushmore of boxing was based far more on his crossover fame than on his achievements as a heavyweight champion. And ultimately my desire for a little ethnic diversity, ironically, pushed the champ who wouldn’t face Black challengers over the top.

That said, it was a selection I immediately felt uneasy about, and disagreement is very much welcomed.

However, you’re going way too far when you claim he isn’t one of the 20 greatest heavyweights of all time. As you get toward the bottom of the top 20 on typical lists, you see names like Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Mike Tyson, John L. Sullivan, Floyd Patterson and Max Schmeling. I just don’t see how you can rank Dempsey, who reigned for seven years and defined a generation – not just in boxing, but in all of sports – behind anyone in that group.

Comment from factsarenice:

We need to thank Eric Raskin for another piece of crap article that reads like a phoned-in Timberlake concert. The insulting headline was especially a nice touch and consistent with Eric’s long list of hate-a-thon letters.

Raskin’s response:

Jeez, what did Justin Timberlake ever do to you?

Comment from The D3vil:

It’s crazy that Jake Paul is kind of like the “Robin Hood” of boxing – he steals from the men to give to the women. He’s done great things for Amanda Serrano and all of the women he's promoted. But man, he’s burying men’s boxing. He's making it look worse than WWE.

Raskin’s response:

I love this way of phrasing a concept that I’ve expressed in other ways several times – that Paul the fighter has been lousy for boxing, but Paul the promoter has elevated the sport. The “Robin Hood” bit about taking from men’s boxing and giving to women’s boxing is clever and accurate.

And while Logan Paul is actually part of WWE, it’s younger brother Jake who is bringing WWE-style absurdity to boxing. It took six dreadful rounds, but eventually Anthony Joshua gave Paul his Bart Gunn against Butterbean moment. On the bright side for Paul, while AJ rearranged a bunch of his teeth, at least none were coming out Jake’s nose, Mick Foley-style.

(You wouldn’t know it from the above paragraph, but I am capable of making WWE references that don’t fall in the narrow window from November 1998 to March 1999.)

Comment from vitruvian:

You are making this way too complicated and the answer emphatically is the second GGG fight. Canelo did not win the first one. Let’s be real here: He was gifted a draw, and this led GGG and fans to throw shade all over Canelo running and not fighting like a Mexican, which seemed like suicide against a killer like GGG, who before that second Canelo fight hadn’t really shown a crack in his armor. So when Canelo came in that second fight and gave GGG and the fans exactly what they asked for, standing in front of him and fighting him and ultimately backing him up and winning those toe-to-toe exchanges, he absolutely made fans (including myself) eat crow and won the event and gained the respect from a lot of detractors (again myself included, only to lose it again with his duck job with David Benavidez). But he clearly impressed me more in this fight with GGG than any before or after, no question about it.

Raskin’s response:

To an extent, you’re right. I probably did overcomplicate things, and I learned from the responses to that column that, indeed, most people feel the second fight with Golovkin stands out as Alvarez’s best win.

But it remains complicated for me personally because I was ringside for both the Golovkin rematch and Canelo’s fight with Miguel Cotto, and my personal scorecards impact my perspective. I scored Alvarez-Golovkin II a 114-114 draw. (Which is the same score I had from ringside after their first fight, which also impacts how impressed I was or was not with Canelo supposedly fighting better the second time.) Meanwhile, I had Canelo outboxing Cotto widely, 118-110, right in line with the judges.

Can a fight in which it is not clear-cut that you deserved to win, and in which you arguably lost the last three rounds, be your greatest victory? I suppose it can. But the fact that it may be for Canelo speaks directly to my column angle that, as magnificent as Alvarez’s career has been, it lacks a standout, signature win.

Comment from JRPELTZ: 

I am shocked by the number of comments that agree with the Turk and TKO. Sounds exactly like that is going on at Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C.

Raskin’s response:

Hey, when the Hall of Fame promoter J Russell Peltz offers the final posted comment on your most-read story of the year, and it’s a comment reacting to many of the previous comments, and it ties in the politics of the moment in an appropriate manner, you’d better believe it’s making its way into this article.

Among the many unfortunate things to which my eyes have been opened over the last decade or so is the reality that no matter how clearly on the “wrong” side of the “right/wrong” divide someone’s attitudes and actions are, there will be people who voice support for those attitudes and actions. As crazy as it may sound, if someone began a political campaign on a platform of “we need to murder all puppies,” and then started murdering puppies, a not-insignificant number of people would focus their energies on justifying puppy murder.

Bringing it back to the topic at hand: It is a fact that BoxingScene was blackballed from covering Riyadh Season events in person. It is also a fact that some readers reacted with various versions of “that’s what you get for not kissing the ring.” I guess I don’t share Peltz’s shock over this. But I do share his dismay.

Comment from The D3vil:

A lot of us old-school boxing fans have been talking about this for years. Joe Louis, Mike Tyson, Joe Frazier and Evander Holyfield would destroy a lot of "good big men" in this era.

Raskin’s response:

The success of Oleksandr Usyk at heavyweight is a testament to the reader’s point. Maybe “destroy” is too strong a word, as Usyk’s four wins over the duo of Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua were each competitive decisions and not destructions. But, yes, despite giving up anywhere from four to eight inches in height and 30 to 70 pounds in weight, if you matched each member of the above foursome, in their respective primes, against Fury and Joshua in theirs, the “little guys” would have more wins than losses.

And I think they’d probably have more wins than losses in a similar series against the Klitschko brothers, and might even do so against Lennox Lewis. (Consider that Lewis barely came out ahead at the end of 24 rounds against a Holyfield who was considerably more faded in 1999 than Lewis was.)

It is normal and natural to look at a man built like Anthony Joshua and a man built like Joe Louis and begin with the gut instinct that Louis can’t win. But if you watch boxing long enough and you pay real attention, you will eventually be disavowed of the notion that size routinely decides fights.

Comment from felinoboxing:

Hi Raskin, share your thoughts on one of last year’s boxers, Vinny Pazienza. What do you think about his inclusion? That’s taking the shine off the Hall of Fame.

Raskin’s response:

I’m starting to feel bad for Vinny Paz, as ever since his International Boxing Hall of Fame induction was announced in 2024, he’s become the new go-to example of the extent to which the IBHOF bar has been lowered. But … he’s become that example with good reason. Paz is in the Hall of Fame because he achieved plenty of fame, has a big personality, had a moving overachiever’s story and campaigned effectively for votes. He’s not in the Hall of Fame because his in-ring accomplishments merit it.

I feel bad saying that, because I’m happy for Paz that he got in, and I generally love the idea of honoring and celebrating ex-fighters.

So let’s look for a silver lining: Ever since Paz got voted in, fewer people have slagged the likes of Barry McGuigan or Arturo Gatti for being unworthy Hall of Famers.

Comment from Curtis2:

Eddie [Hearn] told the Phillies, the only way Boots would throw out the first pitch for a home game was the ball had to be a softball.

Raskin’s response:

Solid one-liner. For the second time in this mailbag series, I’ll invoke Adam Abramowitz’s #QualityHate designation.

Comment from factsarenice:

When I started reading I was only mildly interested and didn’t know much about Jimmy Lange, but his story was so well-written that I couldn't stop reading. Great read, and now I know that Jimmy Lange is a regular people’s champ type. I'm a fan.

Raskin’s response:

This is my favorite comment on any of my articles in my 11-part Contender anniversary series, because it gets to the heart of (a) why I embarked on this series, and (b) what I experienced in interviewing several of these largely forgotten ex-boxers.

I can’t tell you how much I enjoyed getting to know most of these guys. With the exception of Sergio Mora, I’d either never spoken or barely spoken to any of these alums of the show. Lange was just one of many who delighted me with his friendliness, his ability to tell stories and his insights after 20 years of processing everything. The fact that someone began to read Lange’s story and thought they’d quickly close the tab but instead read to the end and developed an appreciation for Lange – that’s as good as it gets for me as a journalist.

Also, naturally, I’m reprinting the comment because it praises the quality of my writing. Flattery goes a long way with a needy writer like me.

Comment from Dorrian_Grey: 

Lennox avoided southpaws for a reason. He hated fighting them in the amateurs and there are sparring stories of him not being able to figure out southpaws and getting whooped by them. Usyk beats Lennox.

Raskin’s response:

Of all the picks I made in this 2000 vs. 2025 article, I got the most pushback on picking Lewis over Usyk. And I’m sharing this mostly just to quiet the hate I may get from Lennox fans for writing earlier in this mailbag that the smaller heavyweight champs who came before Lewis could have done well against him.

Comment from Boxingfanatic75:

Always wanted to see Tank against the top fighters at 135. He just chased paydays and no glory, a disappointment in avoiding all the available marquee fights he could have gotten. At this point he was fighting a circus fight that no one asked for, and now legal troubles. He can retire and go away, since his heart is not into the sport anymore and he can’t save himself with his domestic issues. Depending on how large that civil suit is and its payout, he may not be able to retire.

Raskin’s response:

I agree that Davis’ heart is clearly not in boxing anymore, and you make a good point about his legal problems potentially translating into financial problems that would in turn potentially translate into a comeback.

I highly doubt we’ve seen the last of Tank in a boxing ring. I’ll set June 2027 as the over/under line for his return.

(By the way, if recent reports about Mayweather’s finances are accurate, I may have to retract the “Floyd Mayweather figured it out” half of my headline.)

Comment from PittyPat:

A good read and well-written. I enjoyed the smooth weaving from one fighter's story to another. Another example I’m reminded of is Mike Alvarado. He went from one of the coolest hard-hitters to absolutely shot by the time of Rios III (so, about two years). Brandon Rios himself would look shot overnight against Tim Bradley.

Comment from Bennyleonard99:

Trinidad vs Winky. Pernell vs Trinidad. Oscar vs Pacquiao. Norton vs Shavers. Spinks vs Tyson. Golota vs Brewster.

Raskin’s response:

Some good examples I missed, some examples I disagree with. Alvarado is a strong one – even though he’d lost two straight coming into the Rios rubber match, he really fell off the cliff in that one. De La Hoya is a perfect one (which I did include in the story). Golota is a solid one I didn’t think of.

But sometimes it’s not so much that you’re “suddenly shot” as it is that you get drilled by an overwhelming puncher, as was the case for Spinks and Norton.

Comment from kafkod:

What an absolutely ridiculous article. Paul Butler went 11 rounds with prime Naoya Inoue. Did that mean Inoue “wasn't all that vastly superior” to Butler? No, of course not. Butler went 11 rounds with the vastly superior Monster because he never, at any point in the fight, tried to win it. His only focus was to keep as far away from Inoue as he possibly could, without actually jumping out of the ring. Jake Paul got to the sixth round against AJ for the same reason. He wasn’t trying to win, he was simply trying to avoid getting stopped, by whatever means necessary, including throwing himself to the canvas and trying to drag AJ down with him multiple times.

Raskin’s response:

It is correct that Paul was thinking defense far more than offense and that his main goals were to go rounds (accomplished) and not get brutally KO’d (epic fail).

That said, do you really think prime AJ would have needed six rounds to catch up to him? A younger, more confident version of Joshua, with faster reflexes, gets this job done in half the time, at worst.

And let’s say it had been Usyk in there with Paul. Regardless of how much Paul uses his legs, do you really think that fight goes more than two rounds?

I recognize that Joshua was up against an uncooperative opponent. But I also recognize that AJ’s performance against him was dismal and a clear indicator of how far he’s fallen.

Comment from SteveM:

Fun read. Get your prostate checked if you haven't already – 50 is too young for all those symptoms.

Raskin’s response:

Don’t you worry, Steve, I’ve had the displeasure a couple of times now of an unexpected intrusion at the doctor’s office that led to me singing “Moon River” in my mind.

I’ve also had a colonoscopy, and here’s my review: prep, like taking an Anthony Joshua right cross to the jaw; drugs, like delivering a perfect right cross to Jake Paul’s jaw.

I can’t imagine a better note on which to end this two-part column. Keep the comments coming throughout 2026, so that I may celebrate you or ridicule you in a year’s time.

Eric Raskin is a veteran boxing journalist with nearly 30 years of experience covering the sport for such outlets as BoxingScene, ESPN, Grantland, Playboy, and The Ring (where he served as managing editor for seven years). He also co-hosted The HBO Boxing Podcast, Showtime Boxing with Raskin & Mulvaney, The Interim Champion Boxing Podcast with Raskin & Mulvaney, and Ring Theory. He has won three first-place writing awards from the BWAA, for his work with The Ring, Grantland, and HBO. Outside boxing, he is the senior editor of CasinoReports and the author of 2014’s The Moneymaker Effect. He can be reached on X, BlueSky, or LinkedIn, or via email at RaskinBoxing@yahoo.com.