Honestly, I find McFarland massively hard to rate. I don't know whether to put him in a top ten or not - I think I should. And on Gans - he's #11.
Hang on, just remembered Gans is #14, not 11. Because Fitzsimmons has that spot. 11. Bob Fitzsimmons 12. Muhammad Ali 13. Joe Louis 14. Joe Gans 15. Mickey Walker 16. Tony Canzoneri 17. Jimmy McLarnin 18. Jimmy Wilde 19. Sandy Saddler 20. George Dixon Order changes a bit (just earlier I said Canzoneri and McLarnin were 14 and 17 and that Gans was 11 - got mixed up) but not on purpose. This is more or less set.
The problem I have is that Fitz and Walker and Gans are all above Ross on my list...maybe that needs to be looked at, but I do consider those boys a clutch of fighters. Also, I have Leonard in my 20. Ali is in my 10.
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!
Some people even rate him #1. Can't knock the first man to win three titles - he'd be higher if I thought his average level of opposition was higher, although as it turns out, for his time, Fitzsimmons was fighting some very good boxers. And as nothing more than a small light heavyweight (champion at forty), he was faring very well as a heavyweight. In his prime it was only really Jim Jeffries who beat him. If you speak to the right people, they'll tell you Fitzsimmons was a top twenty heavyweight, a top five light heavyweight and a top ten middleweight. Ali was great - he beat four top twenty heavyweights, and that's why he's rated as high as he is. But I think certain opponents such as Ken Norton get highly overrated. Freddie Dawson, an opponent of Ike Williams, was relatively as good or better than Norton and Williams went 3-0-1 against him. But of course, Norton is more noteworthy for whatever reason. But this about being as objective as you can within a highly subjective area. I know, it's hard to rate Ali outside of the top ten - but certain fighters, less famous fighters, accomplished more.
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.
Here's a tricky one for you - where, roughly, would you rate these all-time greats: Louis 'Kid' Kaplan Young Corbett III Benny Bass Pedro Montanez I don't expect you to answer definitively, I'm not certain 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.