All the information shared about the Cervantes fight in this thread is on Boxrec. And your detective skills or dirt as i didn't move, or even see your thread about the site. wtf is wrong with you guys?
It's important to make plenty of room for over-the-weight matches. Weirdly, I find that poundage during the process, you sort of get a feel for what is reasonable and what isn't. tbf, 137 is around 140. Yes, I think that's OK. I do agree with you that he was about as good as it got and I do see him high; but terrible injustice is strong. I don't think he would rank higher than #5 a number at which he could certainly be regarded as "as good as any lightweight in history". Of course, this would be of enormous benefit. I am dreading exploring Blackburn and his weight issues so this has been very interesting for me. It genuinely is one of the more difficult aspects of that era's lightweight division.
The point is 137 pounds may have been just an estimate of some person at ringside. Local newspaper gives no impression that exact weights were announced. If I were pressed to name the winners of Gans-McFarland and Leonard-McFarland, all in their prime, I'd have chosen Packey to win both fights. He was that good. Sure, Gans and Leonard had better resumes, but if you going that route, then neither Duran or Whitaker should be ahead of Packey based on resume, and arguably not on head-to-head ability either (as neither were hard punchers per se, and that's basically the only thing you can count against McFarland from being a complete package).
Updates are: Sam Fuller in for Joel Casamayor. Jack "Kid" Berg in for Jack Blackburn (provisionally until I can get the weights as sorted as they get) Julio Cesar Chavez moved down That's a very soft bottom dozen. Contenders to replace them are: Juan Zurita, Diego Corrales, Juan Manuel Marquez, Miguel Angel Gonzalez, Oscar De La Hoya, Jose Luis Ramirez, Lew Tendler, Ray Mancini, Mando Ramos, Duilio Loi, Freddie Dawson, Enrique Bolanos, Ray Miller, Young Peter Jackson and Steve Johnson.
Appraising him head-to-head is absolutely murderous because of the dearth of footage. I would probably pick against him in the fights you mention which probably helps in some small way to explain our different perspectives on him. I did rank him very highly on the all-time list and expect him to place highly here. But i'm not as high on him as you (having read much of the stuff you've re-produced on him on your blog).
Up to you. What I have posted on Packey on my blog is maybe 1% of the contents of my sc-rapbooks on him, probably less than that. Same with Joe Gans, although I need to fill some gaps using two other Baltimore newspapers beside the Sun. Benny Leonard I need yet to sort out what I have gathered during last couple of years, but I think I know quite a bit about him to be more or less confident in my pick.
Probably from how many times you've mentioned "against ranked men", despite how many times I've said, "end of career losses". I don't have to be an expert on anything to see that is how you are formulating your list. I'm just reading your text.
Noted, but I don't expect him to be in the top five if i'm honest; best guess he'll wash up at 6 or 7.
No need to employ the "f" word, albeit in abbreviated form. First, I put a smiley emote there, and it was obviously in jest. Second, I don't think it was that unreasonable to think the way I did, given 1) you have been by far the most prolific poster among the mods in the times I have visited this site; and 2) it seems like you do put a lot more emphasis on a fighter's raw won-loss record than most and hence may not have liked my post. (Sorry, if this is a hasty judgment; but I did say "seems" - I generally tend to not make absolute judgments till I know for sure.) Generally-speaking, arbitrary enforcement by mods is a frequent problem in a forum of this nature, and I genuinely do not understand why my thread was moved. My thread was in general about what occurred in the past, and I think every specific example was also about the past. The problem I describe there is also obviously less applicable now, because contemporary Asian fight scene is now more widely and extensively covered in the West, and fight footages are usually readily available. Moreover, some of the more flagrant examples of corruption or incompetence no longer happen, precisely because of that international scrutiny. It just seemed to me that it was a subtle message that I am not wanted here. But then intentions are hard to determine online.
I've never seen you post before; it's likely that none of the other moderators are aware of your existence either. It seems unlikely that anyone has sent you this subtle message and i've no idea what the thread you are complaining about being moved was, so am unable to comment. I can tell you, as a sometime poster, that a thread about lightweight history is not the place to complain about one of your threads being moved, even with the addition of an emoticon.
McG I love these threads you do. These days mainly from the browsing point of view though. I could start giving my opinion but we both know why it's of little use I will say this though, the early advent of the light welter division it muddies the waters a bit because some top talents were able to have fights amongst themselves outside of the divisional limit. It's a cracking division that has unfortunately fallen by the wayside in recent years imo. Pretty much since Pea left. In terms of achievement and quality resume at least anyways, the talent that's passed through has remained top notch with Hoya, Mosley, Floyd, Marquez, Pacquiao and more recently Crawford.
You are right about the 140 division. But it started hurting the lightweight division a long time ago. I think that's probably why Middleweight is the deeper division, which I reckon it is. Head-to-head is definitely a part of the equation and a pure h2h point of view would do no harm at all.