Barney Ross is a top ten all-time great

He's always been considered an all time great....

 

Even taking into account the weights he covered, Fitz over Ali? I can't understand, though as you're not the kinda' guy to say something without extensively researching it, please xplain :good

 

It's arguable, but just sticking to Gans, I think he definitely has a better resume than Ross in any one weight class he competed in. At or around lightweight Gans has wins against the likes of Young Griffo, Jack Blackburn, Dave Holly, Battling Nelson, Frank Erne, Jimmy Britt, Kid McPartland, Wilmington Jack Daly, George Elbows McFadden, Dal Hawkins, William Kid Parker, Bobby Dobbs, Mike Twin Sullivan - many of these guys being beaten multiple times.

Ross on the other hand has wins against Tony Canzoneri, Sammy Fuller, Billy Petrolle, Ray Miller, Battling Battalino, Frankie Klick and Henry Woods at or around lightweight and wins against Jimmy McLarnin, CeFerino Garcia, and Izzy Jannazzo at or around welterweight.

I think even taking their resumes as a whole I'd give Gans the edge, even though Ross has the better single wins (Canzoneri & McLarnin). Gans' quantity is hard to deny for me. He beat everyone and then beat them over again.

As far as dominance goes I'd say they were fairly equal.

Ross did better in more weight classes, but I'd counter that argument by saying Gans did better in a single weight class than any weight Ross was in. Also, by and large the argument about Ross doing well across multiple weight classes doesn't hold THAT much sway with me because by and large he wasn't fighting big natural welters there anyway.

 

With the exception of one punch dynamite, Barney Ross just about had it all, and was one of the most complete, well rounded, TOUGHEST fighters of all times...long live the Jews..Barney Ross spit in the eye of antiSemitism!

 

McFarland is a bit light as far as resumes go, but as far as dominance goes, he's way up there. I have him in the 20-30 range myself.

 

valid explanation, but then I expected nothing les from you :good

However, I'm still not convinced. This is mainly down to the footage of Fitz-Corbett (not great, admittedly, and Fitz was old) really NOT impressing me.

But then, opinions are what these lists are all about :good

I think there is a certain contingency (on this forum) who make Fitz to be superhuman. Not suggesting you are Manassa, the post of yours I'm quoting shows that you're objective....hmmm hard to explain, even with all the explanations I've read bigging up Fitzs competition and his high KO percentage.....dya know what I mean?

I go on resume plus skillset (I.e despite his half-decent resume I'm not big on Ottke, for a rather obvious an time-saving example) but despite Fitz's impressive stats (especially considering the weight he often gave up) I don't feel he should be given allowances due to the time he fought in (referring to your point about giving him kudos for being first man to win three titles) whilst tougher I don't feel the fighters then were as good as say, from 25-50. The likes of Charles, Johnson, Moore etc etc were for me the pinnacle of the sweet science, and I feel Corbett would lose to all of them. Notsure how Fitz would fate, though I'm sure someoe will come on to tell me je could beat Foreman, Kid Dynamite and Ali on the same night

Am I being unfair?

 

Kid Kaplan and Young Corbett III would definitely be in a top 200. They wouldn't make a top 100 for me, but I've never even tried to systematise a list past about a top 120, so I can't really place fighters that rank outside that range with any solid justification.

Benny Bass and Pedro Montanez would be in the ballpark of a top 200 too, though i can't say they'd definitely make it.

 

Anyone here have Kid Gavilan in their top 20? He's number 15 for me, and seriously, I wouldn't mind moving him up a bit either.