John McCallum's Survey of Old Timers-What were they thinking?????

[Great John L]

In the 1975 book called the Encyclopedia of World Boxing Champions, Author John McCallum does a brief summary and biography of each boxing champion from each weight class, the heavyweights going up to George Foreman. The book has McCallum's numerous interviews with the old time managers and they display extreme bias towards the old time fighters, believeing them to be first class. At the end of the book, McCallum had conducted a survey of the top 10 fighters based on the opinions of old time fight managers. The top 10 list of Heavyweights is really quite poor. Many will wonder how anyone could possibly have produced this. Anyway, here is the list, and I am eager and interested in hearing your thoughts on this highly unusual list of the top 10 heavyweights according to the old timers.

Top 10 Heavyweights according to Survey of Old Timers:
1. Jim Jeffries
2. Jack Johnson
3. Bob Fitzsimmons
4. Jim Corbett
5. Jack Dempsey
6. John L. Sullivan
7. Gene Tunney
8. Joe Louis
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Muhammad Ali

[bklynboy]

In the 1975 book called the Encyclopedia of World Boxing Champions, Author John McCallum does a brief summary and biography of each boxing champion from each weight class, the heavyweights going up to George Foreman. The book has McCallum's numerous interviews with the old time managers and they display extreme bias towards the old time fighters, believeing them to be first class. At the end of the book, McCallum had conducted a survey of the top 10 fighters based on the opinions of old time fight managers. The top 10 list of Heavyweights is really quite poor. Many will wonder how anyone could possibly have produced this. Anyway, here is the list, and I am eager and interested in hearing your thoughts on this highly unusual list of the top 10 heavyweights according to the old timers.

Top 10 Heavyweights according to Survey of Old Timers:
1. Jim Jeffries
2. Jack Johnson
3. Bob Fitzsimmons
4. Jim Corbett
5. Jack Dempsey
6. John L. Sullivan
7. Gene Tunney
8. Joe Louis
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Muhammad Ali

I certainly have a problem including so many pre-WWI fighters. The fight game has changed too much and good film is close to non-existant. I have a hard time including Jim Jeffries, Bob Fitzsimmons, Jim Corbett and John Sullivan. Very few people living in 1970 would have seen Jim Corbett and John Sullivan in their prime.

But I can see them excluding Foreman. He was lumbering and throwing wide punches in his first incarnation. Muhammad Ali would have two strikes against him - his draft/NOI/"I'm the Greatest" and the fact that he relied more on reflexes than "craftiness," so I can see him rated by them lower than the TOP 3 (but being placed at 10 I can't see it). I'm OK with Gene Tunney at #7.

[sonnyboyx2]

I certainly have a problem including so many pre-WWI fighters. The fight game has changed too much and good film is close to non-existant. I have a hard time including Jim Jeffries, Bob Fitzsimmons, Jim Corbett and John Sullivan. Very few people living in 1970 would have seen Jim Corbett and John Sullivan in their prime.

But I can see them excluding Foreman. He was lumbering and throwing wide punches in his first incarnation. Muhammad Ali would have two strikes against him - his draft/NOI/"I'm the Greatest" and the fact that he relied more on reflexes than "craftiness," so I can see him rated by them lower than the TOP 3 (but being placed at 10 I can't see it). I'm OK with Gene Tunney at #7.

i have to disagree with you and your claim "the fight game has changed too much".. it has changed for the worse not the better, today's fighters are not in the same league as fighters pre1975 and film-footage of pre1940 fighters simply does not do those guys justice, old black & white flicker-film of Jack Dempsey does not mean that he was limited in the art of boxing compared to today's fighters, in 1920 a fight was filmed using one camera fixed at the back of the arena, whereas today as many as 50 camera's are used around ringside with zoom lenses and super-slow-motion etc.. today's fighters lack the knowledge of the sport which old-time trainers of yesteryear passed on to their pupils because those great old trainers have all passed away and we are left with young trainers who do not know the art of the sport or have the knowledge to pass on to today's pupils.... Here is a link which i have put up on the forum in the past which is of interest in this topic.

[Great John L]

Of the pre WWI fighters, I would only include Johnson, and possibly Jeffries were I to remove Sonny Liston. Not to say they aren't great, or that the Klitschkos and Lennox Lewis are superior, but compared to the ebst of the other greats, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Sullivan, and most of the time Jeffries just don't match up. Jack Johnson absolutely. I think that pure bias made up the old timers' list. I mean, Sullivan and Fitz above Ali? Or Louis? Or Dempsey? Fitz, John, and Corbett were good fighters, but I just think it's wrong to place them above first tier heavyweights like Dempsey, Louis, Ali.

[Barn]

They are going to be biased towards there own era, as The Pacquiao and Mayweather fans will be in 10 years time. The only way I can see this, is a possible H2H list but, it's ridiculous having Ali that low no matter your criteria unless, it is modesty.

[StarshipTrooper]

They are going to be biased towards there own era, as The Pacquiao and Mayweather fans will be in 10 years time. The only way I can see this, is a possible H2H list but, it's ridiculous having Ali that low no matter your criteria unless, it is modesty.

Don't have to wait 10 years for it: You already see it. Posters in their 20s and teens all think that this era (ie. theirs) is light-years better than all the previous ones. The problem is too many posters make their posts from the perspective of a fan rather than as an objective observer (in other words they're thinking with their d1cks rather than their heads). They have an emotional investment in the fighters they're fans of and emotionalism destroys all objectivity making it impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who's posting from that perspective.

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

i have to disagree with you and your claim "the fight game has changed too much".. it has changed for the worse not the better, today's fighters are not in the same league as fighters pre1975 and film-footage of pre1940 fighters simply does not do those guys justice, old black & white flicker-film of Jack Dempsey does not mean that he was limited in the art of boxing compared to today's fighters, in 1920 a fight was filmed using one camera fixed at the back of the arena, whereas today as many as 50 camera's are used around ringside with zoom lenses and super-slow-motion etc.. today's fighters lack the knowledge of the sport which old-time trainers of yesteryear passed on to their pupils because those great old trainers have all passed away and we are left with young trainers who do not know the art of the sport or have the knowledge to pass on to today's pupils.... Here is a link which i have put up on the forum in the past which is of interest in this topic.

I'll post that article in a separate thread.

Poet

[sonnyboyx2]

Don't have to wait 10 years for it: You already see it. Posters in their 20s and teens all think that this era (ie. theirs) is light-years better than all the previous ones. The problem is too many posters make their posts from the perspective of a fan rather than as an objective observer (in other words they're thinking with their d1cks rather than their heads). They have an emotional investment in the fighters they're fans of and emotionalism destroys all objectivity making it impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who's posting from that perspective.

Poet

spot-on buddy

[StarshipTrooper]

spot-on buddy

Just made a new thread posting that Monte Cox article

Poet

[bklynboy]

i have to disagree with you and your claim "the fight game has changed too much".. it has changed for the worse not the better, today's fighters are not in the same league as fighters pre1975 and film-footage of pre1940 fighters simply does not do those guys justice, old black & white flicker-film of Jack Dempsey does not mean that he was limited in the art of boxing compared to today's fighters, in 1920 a fight was filmed using one camera fixed at the back of the arena, whereas today as many as 50 camera's are used around ringside with zoom lenses and super-slow-motion etc.. today's fighters lack the knowledge of the sport which old-time trainers of yesteryear passed on to their pupils because those great old trainers have all passed away and we are left with young trainers who do not know the art of the sport or have the knowledge to pass on to today's pupils.... Here is a link which i have put up on the forum in the past which is of interest in this topic.

I see a continuity in the sport from WWI on for several reasons. Boxing was legal in all/almost all states (professional, record judging of bouts) and there is reasonably good film.

I would, without hesitation, include Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey as among the greatest of heavyweight fighters. My problem in including John Sullivan was that he was brought up in the bare-knuckle era. London Prize Rules included throwing opponents and other fighting skills that are closer to MMA than today's "front-of-the-glove" rules.

The same is true with Bob Fitzsimmons and James Corbett. They are, in my mind - and maybe I'm wrong - transitional fighters. As kids, as teenagers London Prize Ring rules was the way of the world. Yes they fought with gloves but early training, early thinking about the sport was was LPR.

Jim Jeffries grew up after LPR rules were long gone. How to place him in the panthelon of greats? If we rate Jack Johnson great, I suppose we rate Jim Jeffries him up as well.

BUT ... we have no film, very little film pre-1910. Look at the issues we have rating Greb. How good was he? He beat Tunney, embarrased Dempsey in training. The man was fantastic, and yet can we truly say he was the best middleweight ever?