People’s criteria’s are different but I have him in the top 10. I am definitely a huge fan and have a personal connection, so I can see someone having him between 10-20 also. Highly skilled, versatile, great consistency, longevity, dominance etc; I’m happy with where I place him.
Conceivably top 20, although I’d probably have him just outside but I haven’t made a list recently. Top 10 is a little too high imo. But he’s undeniably a great fighter.
If you consider him number 1 at bantam there's an argument he should be in the top 10 considering the amount of weights there are. He's even got a title a featherweight. Why would the bantamweight division not carry as much merit as other weights? 19 years as a pro, 78 fights and only lost to 1 man.
Good points. Being a clear no 1 in one of the traditional weight classes should mean you're a cert for a top 15 or 20 place p4p. Then you add the detail such as winning at featherweight, longevity, number of fights. He took three years out as well and just resumed where he left off - winning. We have seen how even men of the calibre of Ali and Tyson were affected by a layoff of this length so that's no mean feat. Like how you stick up for the bantamweights. Anyone would think you had a personal connection.
Around 30 - 40 imo, though I don't have a specific list. A great, great fighter but he doesn't get into 11 - 20 tier which is for the bonafide extremely proven freaks of the sport. Top 10, for me, is for Boxing legends who cannot be surpassed in resume. Him and Harada are the same tier imo and I actually think you can make the argument Harada is slightly above him (as Fleaman makes a good case for in his top 10 bantams of all time). Also, I don't think he is the consensus number 1 bantam (though he obviously has a very, very good argument). Others would pick Olivares, McGovern, Ortiz.
Very fair response, particularly putting other bantam names forward. If Eder were absolute no 1 at bantam a la SRR at welter, you would really struggle not to have him top 15-20 at worst but given that there are for or five other possible names, that muddies the water somewhat. Your point about 'bona fide freaks' is great. Would you not think that having a three hear hiatus then coming back at age 33 to win the featherweight strap and beat Vicente Saldivar, a possible all time top ten feather albeit a much faded version, at the age of 37 then going unbeaten until the age of 40 doesn't put him in this elite bracket? I do. Given the context, it's arguably on a par with his very considerable achievements at bantamweight.
I do, actually, especially H2H. I just feel there are others who are more deserving due to their resume and the depth of their historical divisions ala 30's lightweights etc. There are just too many guys deserving the second tier spots to put Jofre over them - guys like McFarland, Welsh, Canzoneri (arguable top 10), McLarnin etc etc. I don't think Jofre was proven at their type of level, but he was there in a pure H2H sense. I was never big on lists or rankings though, so I'm not hard-nosed about it. If I saw the right argument it could change my view. In my eyes there are fighters near the level who, H2H, could upset people much 'greater' than them. For example, I think a guy like Midget Wolgast would upset most top tier bantams and gives them all a hard time, but no one puts him as a No.1 ATG 118lber. I really went off any type of 'greatness' debates as you're more likely to see others devalue certain fighters / eras to 'own' the argument rather than just appreciate what they see. I just see it as useless argumentation beyond a certain point.
I agree really, I don't like doing lists. No no.1 would beat everyone in their list but they might beat more of the other fighters on the list. Also the "owning the argument" problem throwing in someones worst defeat like Camacho over Leonard. Having said that I don't mind reading other peoples list like McGrain and Fleaman when it promotes good debate. The thing with their lists is the depth of research and arguments they put forward.
