Ring Magazine's greatest fighters by division.

[Bundana]

Indeed you did. A discussion is here:

https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/s...d.php?t=728577

Ah, yes... now I remember!

[chrisJS]

The Charles ranking is strange. Perhaps because he was never champion whereas overtime his resume has been appreciated more?

Looking at the others granted 135 is stacked but Carlos Ortiz is underrated. Jofre is the clear #1 at bantamweight.

[New England]

20 years is a long time. you probably had guys voting in '75 who were dead in '95. guys who watched older fighters live voting in 75 versus guys who were not even born yet.

no great surprise, really. just imagine how unlikely it would be that all of your colleagues at work were still there in 2038, or that they'd all agree with the new blood in '38.

[The Old LefHook]

I reckon a single influential article or book is sometimes the catalyst for a change in the public perception and appraisal of a celebrity. It could be that the change in the perception of Charles was preceded by such a book or article. The poster joeandthebums has sometimes been aware of rare information like that.

The rise of Charles's legacy could also follow the rise in esteem of Burley (who he beat at least three times) and was not always widely recognized as great.

Ezzard did the same with Archie Moore, whose reputation may also have been late to the party.

[Eff Pandas]

I'd argue it just goes to show how nutty the whole concept on ranking "greatness" or "superiority" among a bunch of great & superior cats is. Its far too subjective a thing with far too many unconsidered if not unconsiderable variables in play.

I always say all anyone can be is the greatest of their time & I standby that when it comes to great boxers if not great most other things as well.

[The Old LefHook]

I'd argue it just goes to show how nutty the whole concept on ranking "greatness" or "superiority" among a bunch of great & superior cats is. Its far too subjective a thing with far too many unconsidered if not unconsiderable variables in play.

I always say all anyone can be is the greatest of their time & I standby that when it comes to great boxers if not great most other things as well.

A short post, but well put and right on target I would say.

[billeau2]

Yeah. That was also my observation. Still I would think that the body of work/resume should land any particular fighter not far apart in various experts rankings. At least that would/should be true for rankings made at the same time. Here we are dealing with discrepancies where time is a parameter also. Somehow the resume of for example Ezzard Charles has been upped significantly.

It might be generational changes. For example: When we had men who were around, cogent, and had seen Johnson, Dempsey all the way up through to Mike Tyson, there were a lot of trainers who would swear Dempsey was far and wide the best heavyweight. As more of this generation died, gradually Louis and Ali became the most cited "Best."

I interpret that to mean that we have two overlapping generations of pundits: they are like two sets that overlap each other. So its not so much that there is a logical order to their picks that speaks for everyone, rather it is a professional class of trainers, writer, etc and when the first overlapping set of those who thought Dempsey was the best ever, died out, the other dominant set of trainers, writers... those who may not have even seen Dempsey fight, and had in their mind a different progression...came to fruition.

This group/set declared that heavyweights peaked in technique when Louis was trained by Blackburn and that he was bookended by the most gifted athlete who ever fought, Muhammed Ali. It remains that way still and will change again. One day Tyson, Holmes, and others will be declared as such.

With Ezzard Charles I don't know the reason one group has him prominent and another not so much. I only know it is the same dynamic I just explained with the heavyweights. One can detect a certain attitude that guys like Burley, Moorer and Charles were workman like fighters, even journeyman like to some perhaps... And then others seeing the skills and competition fought by these men having a completely different opinion, no doubt based on the estimation of other fighters at the time.

[IronDanHamza]

GJC saw Ezzard Charles fight live in the flesh (when he was shot) and he said he performed terribly, and that had was always a big thing for him when ranking him. I never agreed with him on that perhaps that gives some insight on people's opinion on him from his era.

I dunno.

I always held him in high regard.

[hhascup]

Back in 1975 they rated Charles as a Heavyweight as he was the Champion in that weight class! In later years they rated him as a Light Heavyweight!

[Tom Cruise]

Could Charles boost be due to the raising in profile of the 'black murderers row' and other black fighters of the era?

His relative dominance over that scene is seen a big part of his resume now. Was it always regarded that way?