I have actually never seen fighters ranked in this way before. And i think it might give us one very subjective way to rank fighters on a pound for pound basis. I am sure i will miss a few on the way through so feel free to add anyone i have missed. I am looking for fighters that were considered the best fighter in the world in the weight division that they were actually fighting. 1. Floyd Mayweather (1998-present) -Feather, Welter, MIddle 15 years 2. Bob Fitzsimmons (1891 to 1905)Middle, LH and heavy - 14 years 3. Manny Pacquaio (1998 to 2011) Fly, light, welter, bantam, feather 4. Muhammad Ali (1964-1978) Heavy - 14 years 5. Ray Robinson (1946-1958) Welter, Middle - 12 years 6. Joe Louis (1947-1949) - Heavy 12 Years 7. Pong Wonjongkam (2001-2012) - 11 years 7. roy Jones Jr 1993-2004) - 11 years 9. Tommy Ryan (1894-1904) - Welter, Middle -10 years 9. Archie Moore (1952-1962) Light heavy - 10 years 11. Jimmy Wilde (1914-1923) - Fly - 9 years 12.Willie Pep (1942-1950) - Feather - 8 years 13Carlos Monzon (1970-1977) - Middle - 7 years 13Marvin Hagler (1980-1987) - Middle - 7 years 13Sot Chitalda (1984-1991) - Fly - 7 years 13Jack Dempsey (1884-1901) - Middle - 7 years 13Tony Zale (1941-1948) - Middle - 7 years 13Jack Johnson (1908-1915) Heavy - 7 years 13John L Sullivan (1885-1902) - Heavy - 7 years 20 Benny Leonard (1917-1923) - 6 years 20Jimmy Barry (1893-1899) - 6 years 20 James Jeffries (1899-1905) - 6 years 20 Lennox Lewis (1998-2004) - 6 years 20 bob Foster (1968-1974) - 6 years 20 Gene Tunney (1922-1928) -L heavy, Heavy 6 years 20 Panama al Brown (1929-1935) - Bantam - 6 years 20 Pacaual Perez (1954-1960) - Fly - 6 years 20 Michael Spinks Heavy (1981-1987) I have gone pretty much straight off CBZ with these years of dominance, so there is room for a lot of discussion and some obvious glaring errors and ommissions, which i am sure the ESB faithful can help fix up. Some of the mordern records in particular when weights and govenring bodies were common place, as well as the Moore Charles situation and the colour line do bear further investigation but, still even now there are some very interesting results
I think you are right, bit of a typo sort of. Hopkins is an interesting one that could have almost snuck in their but his loss to Roy Jones Jr really means that he was only considered the second best middleweight of his era, which is why i left him out.
Yeah, i definitely missed him. 1972 to 1980 sounds right, at lightweight and Welterweight. 8 years. is that agreed.
I don't see how you can have Pac and Mayweather on the same time period, especially since Floyd retired then came back; so he can't be consecutive. A 21 month layoff between fights is why The Ring took him off it's pound 4 pound list. Why not include Foreman's retirement while we are at it? I also think you might be revising history a bit. Morales and Barrera were both rated above Pacquiao until 2003-2005. Mosley and De La Hoya were bigger stars around those weights than Floyd until about that time too. Whitaker was on top from around 1989-1995 unless you count the years Chavez was rated just above him. But I guess you could play the same game there you did with Mayweather and Pacquiao. Also, even if Muhammad Ali was the best fighter in the world when he was retired for three years, if he ain't active he ain't dominant. And how can you have Bob Foster being continually dominant until 1905 when James J. Jeffries knocked him out in 1899 and then again in 1902? Either rate the men by the total amount of time between losses, or for weight climbers split the dominant years by weight division. It makes no sense to say that a man remained dominant for fifty years if he just switched to another weight class whenever his division got tough. A guy who stays at the same weight not ducking anybody like Hagler, Louis, or Monzon, is doing a very different thing than the weight climbers. One other thing, can you really claim that Larry Holmes was dominant when he ducked all the best guys in his division, even if he probably would have beaten them?
they were at different weights, werent they? I havent had a chance to look through and consider. Floyds reign and Pacs reighns surprised me in their length, though with modern fighters you have so many different belts and weights it is hard for them to be as dominant as older fightres. Pernell probably would have that 6 year period. When i get time, i will look into it a bit harder. There is the Frazier issue, who he eventually defeated and proved dominance (arguably) but there is no other fighter from that 3 years period really who you could say was a better fighter than Ali, is there (at heavyweight of course). I think you mean Bob Fitzsimmons. When James Jeffries knocked out bob Fitzsimmons, Bob was a light heavyweight and he promptly won the light heavy title soon after losing to jeffries to continue his reign as the best light heavy of his time. (he was no longer the best heavy). Fitz is interesting. In about 1914 he went to court and got an acknoweldgment that he was still New Yorks recognised World Middleweight champion! and he won the title by beating a guy who had been middleweight champion for 6 years. A guy, whose career and age started around about the same time as Fitz' if you take that dominance as extending for the length of Jack Dempseys reign (For this time, Fitz was pretty much the top dog in his own part of the world) then there is an argument of longevity that is clearly unsurpassed. I didnt do that but it is interesting. This is a serious question. Who split the reigns at weight division just because their division got to tough. Nearly everyone went up in weight or down in weight to increase competition and challengers, not the other way around. I think you can. He was the best heavyweight in the world. Others might have been beat him from the time, but noone knows. If you have already proved you are the best then until you are beaten you must remain the best. The onus is on someone else to build an unarguable case (arguably like wills and Langford or orginally Johnson did). No one in Holmes era did this, and it is unlikely that any can be seen in his class. I think he was universally considered the best even if a couple of guys might have been considered a chance to beat him. None of them actually did.
you cant make an inactive boxer the best in any weight.... (ali 67-70).....you say "who was better?"....well, whoever was best in those years (68/69/70) (frazier) was....and of course you'll have to give 71 and 72 to frazier too....71 cause he beat him, and 72 cause nothing had changed in how they could be viewed
Just like Ali, Ray Robinson was inactive for three years from mid 52-55. I agree with dougie, Frazier was the best Heavy from the time of Ali's exile to the time he beat him in the second match. I also have to question whether Ali was the best boxer up to 78 like you have him. Larry Holmes was better from around 76 on though he had yet to beat Ali, and George Foreman probably would have beaten Ali in a re-match. 73-77 George Foreman is the most feared man in the division, in spite of his fluke loss to Ali in 74. 2009-2012 Floyd is a welterweight the same as Pac. But how can either be considered dominant when they never unify belts or stay in the same division long enough to fight a sampling of top contenders? In 2005 Floyd has his 3 fights at junior welterweight. He fights Demarcus Corley, Henry Bruseles, and Arturo Gatti. According to The Ring Rankings that year the champ was Ricky Hatton. Mayweather is the #1 ranked contender followed by Cotto and Tzsyu. In 2006 he's a welterweight who fights the #2 and #4 ranked welterweights instead of Cotto and Margarito. In 2007 he's still a welterweight and he fights Hatton but he's still ducking his top 4 contenders in Cotto, Margarito, Paul Williams, and Shane Mosley. If he were dominant, he'd have beaten them too and put all doubts to rest. You can't be dominant if you are perceived to be ducking your top challengers at the weight class. Same goes for Holmes. -wikipedia You can't fight tomato cans and be the best. Being the best is only proved through competition with top contenders. Dropping belts because you don't want to fight someone the way that Holmes, Bowe, or Mayweather did instantly disqualifies you. Holmes needed to fight Page, Thomas, and rematch Witherspoon. And how can Tony Zale be dominant from 41-48 when he lost to Billy Conn in 42 and didn't fight again until 46?
At some point I'll post my take on this as I've been working on something very similar myself only I didn't use cbz. An interesting point I wanna make though is the war champions. At first I disqualified the war years from their totals as they weren't active but recently I've become much more sympathetic. I believe the stance at the time was correct that their titles were to be frozen until they returned. It now gets me thinking about the case of Ali-Frazier also. Should Ali keep his crown until 71 even though his number 1 contender was blitzing the division, unifying the titles and actually defeated him? Did Ali consider himself the champ going into that fight? I need to consider that.
By your standards Benny Leonard dominated the lightweight division for 7 years and was called "King of the Lightweights" for good reason, should be at the top with Ray Robinson as WW...
Pongsaklek Wonjongkam shouldn't be considered the dominant champion at flyweight during those 11 years because he only held a piece of the title and never unified anything. In 11 years he never fought the other champions, which in another time would be considered his top 3 contenders. Ditto for guys like strawweight Ivan Calderon who just sit on a piece of the title and can't be compared to guys like Monzon or Hagler who held unified titles for long stretches.
I could be sympathetic to this type of reasoning. But if he wasnt teh best, who was? Were there any standouts during this time? I definitely agree with your point about top 3 contender and differenttimes. In fact i dare say it is worse when you consider the additional weight divisions as well. You used to be able to do the same thing in 1 fight, that it takes modern greats 10 fights to do. I suppose the flipside is that it might be hard for someone like Greb to prove just how good he was if he was only allowed to fight every now and then.
This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
It really surprised me that Benny Leonard was only there for 6 years when i looked at his record. But i guess he really stacked quantity and quality in those years, like virtually none before. Even if you lift him up to 7 years, he doesnt seem to make the top 10. It just shows to go how many really great champions their have been over the years. And i think it is also goes to show just how great Joe Louis was in a pound for pound sense. Not only was his dominance of his division longer than everyone else, but i dare say that of the long dominant champions, when you look back at his fights, he is the one who was furtherest away from being beaten. Even prime Robinson has some controversial split decisions. The closest Joe Louis came to a loss, once he hit his prime is probably a fight where he knocked his opponent out (Billy Conn).