Fine lines, indeed... but, it's Joe Gans, for mine. I base this, primarily, on resume. Although, it's also hard to ignore the sheer reputation Gans earned as the 'Old Master'. He was the phenomenon of his times - so much so that, despite prejudices and his perceived fall from grace, in 1900 (vs. Erne and McGovern), he would go on to dominate the first decade of a new century, as the preeminent lightweight (defending the title more than a dozen times), with defenses against Erne, Griffo, McFadden and Nelson. However, Mcfarland makes some ground on Gans, in terms of opponents beaten, since he was seen as having bested some great names, including Gibbons and Britton. McFarland was also himself being written about as if some kind of mesmer (and I get the impression, although I am not certain, that McFarland was being seen as the heir apparent of Gans). The challenge with rating McFarland, regardless of how great his resume and reports of his performances are, is the fact he never lifted a World Championship - even though he probably deserved to do so. Both Lightweight and Welterweight honors eluded him. Whereas, in addition to his epic run as Lightweight Champion, Gans also picked up the Welterweight title. For these reasons, I think Gans should be favored.
I’ve always had Gans higher until recently, when he dropped out of my top 10 and top 15 in fact. Packey rounds out the top 10. Main reason being consistency against the very best. Not that Gans is lacking there, by any means. But, for example: Both faced 3 different men I have rated in my rough draft of the top 100 pound for pound greats. McFarland had 7 total fights against his opponents, going 4-0-3. 7 fights with no defeats. Gans had 3 total fights, going 0-2-1. 3 fights with no victories. McFarland really beat some outstanding opposition, even outside of what’s listed above. Didn’t lose to any of them. Very underrated in that regard, and superior to Gans, in my opinion. No problem with Gans rating higher. There’s obviously a lot more to it than that little tidbit. I’ve got to put some real thought into it.
I pick McFarland for his greater consistency. McFarland cut his career very short though and his resume does suffer for it. I think the difference largely comes down to what you value when doing an all time ranking.
That's not really true ...He was avoided and the the LW title with Wolgast was all but a done deal until the city officials cancelled it in the 11 th hour ... Not his fault ... Anyway, It's Gans for me but it's close ..
I'm biased in favor of Gans, who's one of my outright favorites, but McFarland was an exceptional fighter in his own right, and I think a good case could be built either way.
Joe Gans and Peter Jackson, masters of cleverness and self defense. Armstrong disregarded cleverness for punching power, and didn't possess a powerful punch.
