More merit due to boxings badasses!

What am I on about? This is in reference to the way some of our greatest ever boxing talents are judged, or misjudged, in my opinion. Just occurred to me that when ranking some of the all timers people's subjective judgements seem to consciously or sub-consciously slightly devalue the essence of some of the more brooding/mean champions we have had.

So I find that when judging the likes of Hagler, Tyson, Dempsey, Liston, Foreman, Hearns, Duran e.t.c, two things happen. At times the menace of the presence they brought to the ring is overplayed to the detriment of some of the unique skills they possessed. So for example people wax lyrical about Haglers chin and cast iron will, and forget to realise that he was about the most complete boxer in the history of the game. People all too quickly fail to realise the that technically Dempsey and Tyson were transformational boxers, i.e they took it up a notch technically for the bigger men. To differing extents all the others above suffer variations of the same affliction.

Secondly the boxer/movers like Ali, Robinson Leornard e.t.c seem to profit more in comparison as their styles and other factors like charisma seem to bring a special glow to their accomplishments.

To be clear I think many of the positions occupied by the boxer/movers are entirely justified. However on the flip side I think the same technical appreciation of the more brooding/menacing champs is severely lacking. For example i was shocked when perusing this forum to come across Trussy's excellent article on the Heavyweight jab, only to see people question the great Liston jab!!! We need to get more clued up and enjoy the rich history and technical aspects of the sport!

Good read, I think Jeffries deserves a shout too. Crude style but perfect for the era, totally overshadowed by Johnson though.