Ring Magazine's greatest fighters by division.

[Zaroku]

Check this very interesting link folks:


http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Di...rs_of_All-Time


It raises so many questions. Of course there's the standard question whether one agrees on the rankings or not, but the real puzzle to me is how some fighters have a very significant change in their ranking from 1975 to 1998.


How about these weird placings:


1: Ezzard Charles from unranked in 1975 to no. 1 in 1998. I mean wtf?


2: Battling Nelson from no. 3 in 1975 to not in top 20 in 2001. It's not like he was leapfrogged by fighters having the majority of their careers between 1975 and 2001 so that's really weird.


Now these are just a couple of oddities, I'm sure there's many more, but it shows how much so-called experts differ in opinion when making these all-time rankings.


A note regarding Ezzard Charles: I seem to remember how some poster on this board actually mentioned how the general perception of Charles's body of work has changed in recent decades and that he wasn't highly regarded among his contemporaries. Whatever. It's just weird.


Any thoughts on the rankings in particular or comments on the oddities that is so prevalent (not limited to the couple I mentioned).

Sometimes greatness needs time to shine...

[Dempsey-Louis]

Check this very interesting link folks:


http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Di...rs_of_All-Time


It raises so many questions. Of course there's the standard question whether one agrees on the rankings or not, but the real puzzle to me is how some fighters have a very significant change in their ranking from 1975 to 1998.


How about these weird placings:


1: Ezzard Charles from unranked in 1975 to no. 1 in 1998. I mean wtf?


2: Battling Nelson from no. 3 in 1975 to not in top 20 in 2001. It's not like he was leapfrogged by fighters having the majority of their careers between 1975 and 2001 so that's really weird.


Now these are just a couple of oddities, I'm sure there's many more, but it shows how much so-called experts differ in opinion when making these all-time rankings.


A note regarding Ezzard Charles: I seem to remember how some poster on this board actually mentioned how the general perception of Charles's body of work has changed in recent decades and that he wasn't highly regarded among his contemporaries. Whatever. It's just weird.


Any thoughts on the rankings in particular or comments on the oddities that is so prevalent (not limited to the couple I mentioned).

Funny how that happens. For decades Buster Keaton's The General was ranked among the Ten Best Films of All Time (sometimes even ranked number one, ahead of Citizen Kane and other great films.) Then in the 1980s it disappeared from the lists. Today it's almost impossible to find anyone who has seen it.

As 'Left hook" suggested the fan base got old and died off; but that does not explain Charles resurrection.

I am of the mind that if one thinks of Charles as a LHW he looks like an ATG. (He was only 166 for his first UD over Joey Maxim at 184.) His HW campaigning looks less impressive but this may be only because he had been so dominate at the lesser weight.

Plus he stayed around much too long and at the end allowed himself to be used as a 'named opponent. I think this helped discredit him with his contemporaries. When he finally left the game he was being viewed as a 'ham and egger' not an ATG.

Also other than the second Marciano fight (where he almost took Rocky's nose off) his fights lacked drama. It is hard to come up with exciting stories from his career.

Added to that he was surrounded on both sides by popular (exciting) fighters, Louis and Marciano.

Even Walcott who got stuck in the middle with him had a more dramatic/controversial career, e.g. getting robbed Louis-Walcott I; needing five tries to gain the title; catching 'the prefect right hand' from Marciano, and even being accused of laying down in Marciano-Walcott II. All this made Walcott, for the newspapers, better ink.

I think as the decades passed critics have been better able to see more clearly his achievements and capabilities despite this lack of drama and dismal ending.

[mickey malone]

Who's ever taken that much notice of Ring Magazine anyway?

Most of their rankings have been pretty absurd for a helluva long time now

Wish I'd kept the copy, but during the mid 90's, they listed Rocky Sekorski (yes him !) as one of the top 20 punchers in history.

That was enough for me

[The Old LefHook]

Funny how that happens. For decades Buster Keaton's The General was ranked among the Ten Best Films of All Time (sometimes even ranked number one, ahead of Citizen Kane and other great films.) Then in the 1980s it disappeared from the lists. Today it's almost impossible to find anyone who has seen it.

As 'Left hook" suggested the fan base got old and died off; but that does not explain Charles resurrection.

I am of the mind that if one thinks of Charles as a LHW he looks like an ATG. (He was only 166 for his first UD over Joey Maxim at 184.) His HW campaigning looks less impressive but this may be only because he had been so dominate at the lesser weight.

Plus he stayed around much too long and at the end allowed himself to be used as a 'named opponent. I think this helped discredit him with his contemporaries. When he finally left the game he was being viewed as a 'ham and egger' not an ATG.

Also other than the second Marciano fight (where he almost took Rocky's nose off) his fights lacked drama. It is hard to come up with exciting stories from his career.

Added to that he was surrounded on both sides by popular (exciting) fighters, Louis and Marciano.

Even Walcott who got stuck in the middle with him had a more dramatic/controversial career, e.g. getting robbed Louis-Walcott I; needing five tries to gain the title; catching 'the prefect right hand' from Marciano, and even being accused of laying down in Marciano-Walcott II. All this made Walcott, for the newspapers, better ink.

I think as the decades passed critics have been better able to see more clearly his achievements and capabilities despite this lack of drama and dismal ending.

Excellent perceptions. Counter punchers are not usually thought of as excitement factories, are they?

[BattlingNelson]

I think this thread deserves a little bump given other discussions here.

[QueensburyRules]

Who's ever taken that much notice of Ring Magazine anyway?

Most of their rankings have been pretty absurd for a helluva long time now

Wish I'd kept the copy, but during the mid 90's, they listed Rocky Sekorski (yes him !) as one of the top 20 punchers in history.

That was enough for me

- - Doogie and Oscar are quite tight you know.

For me it was single belt holder in a multibelt era he helped to create,Tubby Lar. When Gerrie Coetzee was his hottest after being the first to KO Leon, Lar ducked the career purse offer to fight Gerrie in South Africa with a WBA belt thrown in, citing civil rights that he was never a leader in and too dumb to discuss anyway.

So Olympic medalist hero Big John Tate took the fight and beat Coetzee in SA. Then in Tate's homecoming, he's beating up Mike Weaver easier that Lar before Weaver knocks out Tate late. Ring in their boozy haze sez: Hey, Larry already knocked out the guy who just beat up the guy that Lar ducked for a career purse and WBA title, so lets give him our Ring Belt!

Voila!!!

[IronDanHamza]

Well you are probably on to something. Fleischers influence was obviously huge back in the day. Maybe that also explains the Ezzard Charles case? Maybe Fleischer didn't have a great opinion on him (why??) and that got rectified in later rankings.

Charles had a poor ending to his career similar to Roy Jones, I think that’s why.

The poster GJC, rest in peace, went to one his final fights in attendance and he said he was unbelievably poor.

I think that might be why.

Charles was before my time, only ever read about him in the magazines before seeing his tapes. But for me definitely one of the greatest fighter that ever lived.

[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.

Oh wow would you look at that

I said the same thing 5 years ago.

My brain still works then clearly.

[BattlingNelson]

Oh wow would you look at that

I said the same thing 5 years ago.

My brain still works then clearly.

Even though you forgot you already said it.

[IronDanHamza]

Even though you forgot you already said it.

5 years ago come on