Top 35 All Time reveal - Boxing Survey Series

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Rumsfeld, Aug 2, 2020.


  1. Saintpat

    Saintpat Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,503
    24,638
    Jun 26, 2009
    \

    I didn’t have Lopez in my 15 but I completely understand it: if you look at this list with only the Original 8 divisions (or whatever you want to call them) then anyone between two fo them (or below the fly limit) is eligible. Just like they would be to fight for that division’s championship in the days of eight divisions.

    Hell, some of these flyweights spent as much or more time at bantam anyway. And probably get credit for some of their accomplishments above fly in ranking them ... so why not below fly? This exercise by its parameters boxes us into eight divisions and anything below the flyweight limit under those constraints is, by definition, a flyweight.

    If not for the Sanchez result — say he had never stepped up and retired undefeated at 122 — I damned sure would have had Wilfredo Gomez in my featherweight rankings. I did have him in my P4P 25.
     
  2. Saintpat

    Saintpat Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,503
    24,638
    Jun 26, 2009
    The only solution would be to throw out the high and low vote for each fighter, which basically nullifies someone’s opinion. If it were done that way, I wouldn’t participate — Sandy Saddler is my No. 1 featherweight. He stopped everyone else’s No. 1 feather 3 out of 4 times they met so I feel like I can make a pretty substantial case. If you throw out my vote for him, throw out all my votes and just erase my entries.
     
    Webbiano and lufcrazy like this.
  3. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    79,855
    20,430
    Sep 15, 2009
    That one I could live with.

    It would be like someone putting Bob Foster in at number 1.
     
    Webbiano likes this.
  4. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    79,855
    20,430
    Sep 15, 2009
    You would have put Gomez in FW? If he'd have never fought there? What?
     
  5. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    79,855
    20,430
    Sep 15, 2009
    The system is what the system is, I don't feel angry about the result, just intrigued.

    But as Rummy said, all in its a pretty good list.
     
    Webbiano likes this.
  6. Saintpat

    Saintpat Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,503
    24,638
    Jun 26, 2009
    Yes, because if we’re only considering eight weight classes then anyone above 118 and 126 or below is a featherweight.

    So he did.
     
  7. PhillyPhan69

    PhillyPhan69 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,059
    15,488
    Dec 20, 2006
    not sure I get this logic? But, everyone has a right to their opinion. I don’t see how you can rate a guy at 126 who never really fought the best at that weight....fortunately we have Sanchez and Nelson and personally I feel like Lockridge deserved the decision (but maybe that was SFW?) Gomez was found to come up short at FW, I imagine most guys who didn’t find success at or attempt to, did not for a reason.
     
    JohnThomas1 likes this.
  8. Saintpat

    Saintpat Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,503
    24,638
    Jun 26, 2009
    Because before there was a super bantamweight division, anyone who weighed above 118 and at 126 or below was a featherweight. And we’re choosing guys in those ‘original’ weight classes only so the ‘tweeners’ count in there.

    Did you notice that some of the heavyweights who got votes were actually ... cruiserweights? So they shouldn’t count, right? Sorry Dempsey, Rocky, you didn’t weigh enough.

    Have you never seen discussions on here about whether Dempsey and Marciano are among the greatest cruiserweights of all time? I have. And they never once fought in that division because it didn’t exist in their day.

    So if we’re saying there’s only eight weight divisions, I don’t think the intent is to eliminate anyone who competed in a junior/super division.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2020
  9. Jel

    Jel Obsessive list maker Full Member

    7,735
    12,859
    Oct 20, 2017
    I think they come into it in the p4p 25 rather than attempting to shoehorn them into weight classes they never fought in. That's my view anyway...
     
    Greg Price99 and lufcrazy like this.
  10. Saintpat

    Saintpat Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,503
    24,638
    Jun 26, 2009
    Well we should have picked EVERY division if we’re going to do it that way — otherwise the eight divisions encompass all the junior divisions in between like they did in the old days.

    Sugar Ray Robinson fought a lot at junior middleweight. We not going to count those fights when he wasn’t over 154 when looking at his middleweight resume? Look at some of Henry Armstrong’s weights — let’s wipe those fights off the books, too.

    We shouldn’t count any of those if we’re going to create gaps in weight that are some kind of zone where fighters don’t exist.

    (And don’t get me started on Jake LaMotta, who fought most of his career above 160 but still gets rated there because he made that weight a few times for title fights — including some against a guy who wasn’t a middleweight.)
     
  11. Jel

    Jel Obsessive list maker Full Member

    7,735
    12,859
    Oct 20, 2017
    Well, maybe Rumsfeld will do a separate junior and super weight class one as well (think this may have been mentioned in one of the earlier threads as a possibility?) in which case Ricardo Lopez will be making my Strawweight and Junior Fly lists.
     
  12. Saintpat

    Saintpat Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,503
    24,638
    Jun 26, 2009
    I need to ask Rummy if we can do a recount on anyone who voted for LaMotta at middleweight — his best win here he weighed 160 1/2, which is light heavyweight in his day, and it was over Ray Robinson at 144 1/2, so he was a welterweight.

    That result should not be considered for historic purposes unless we’re rating Jake at light heavy. And Ray’s win in the rematch cannot count as a middleweight win either since Ray was below 147.

    In fact, Ray’s next three wins over Jake, Sugar was a junior middle and we’re not counting junior divisions so those fights also should not be considered.
     
  13. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,364
    15,321
    Jul 19, 2004
    I assume you mean Canto?
     
    lufcrazy likes this.
  14. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,364
    15,321
    Jul 19, 2004
    Interesting. I've often had thoughts along similar lines where certain guys are so highly regarded for so long, it just kind of becomes accepted "fact". I didn't have LaBarba specifically in mind, however. I'm sure there are probably more examples of this sort of thing. Any others jump to mind for you?

    On the other end of the spectrum, I believe certain guys reputations take some time to marinate, where contemporaries might be less appreciative than future observers.
     
    McGrain likes this.
  15. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,364
    15,321
    Jul 19, 2004
    I was a little surprised, mostly because Lopez wound up being the first name I officially revealed (as my plan all along was to do a quick top 10 countdown, show the Top 30, and talk about some things that jumped out). But I don't really have a vested interest in the outcomes one way or another. I meant every word I said regarding the vast wealth of collective knowledge here. And already, I can tell this experiment is far superior to the one I did a few years back with the Ring Mag rankings.
     
    lufcrazy likes this.