I was thinking the other day 'There must be far more men in the world who's natural fighting weight is Welter-Middleweight than any other class'. Heavyweight also traditionally has a huge number of fighters, some huge some natural middleweights competing in the premier division. It is hence harder to be a dominant HW champ than any other division. Then I thought if smaller weights have a far smaller number of fighters then surely it is less of an achievement being the numero uno in that division. I remember a boxer on here who fought at Flyweight (I believe that was the weight) to find a fight he had to travel all the way because there were so little American fighters in his weight class. It dawned on me 'If Zab Judah was shrunk to light flyweight would he be a dominant champ like Calderon' So basically in terms of Greatness in boxing, on average the denser deeper weight classes are harder to but is this taken into account in assessing greatness? Obviously this varies depending on the period
I agree. It needs to be considered. By the same token, middleweights, for example, who dominated in the days when there was no well-accepted 168 division, and before 154 division too, must have had a larger pool of competition to rise above. I think it's actually been a noticeable phenomenon since the super-middles became popular. How much we should weigh these things I dont know.
There is a certain truth to this, though i wouldn't say heavy has any great depth. competition can often be a big issue for fighters in the lower weights, made worse by it being so rare for unifications to take place.There have been a lot of ordinary fighters in recent years that had decent reigns as champions. The sixties through to the eighties was the golden era for the Flyweights and Bantams.
I agree fully. Not just with weight classes, but with eras as well, and other extenuating circumstances must be taken into account if neccessary. It's why rating fighters is so difficult, and IMO is becoming more and more trivial the deeper I get into it.
Yup. Would Carmen Basilio be the same tough s.o.b if he grew up in the 90's and fought in this era or would he be a Malignagi look alike with average skills?
Orlando Canizales, a prime example. He never unified the division, but defended his IBF title sixteen times. Underrated and seldom talked about fighter around forums, etc. Fighters below featherweight don't hold marquee value with the networks. Lopez could easily make anyones top 10 greats of the last 25 years. Certainly when it comes to skill level alone. It's amazing that he fought on a Tyson undercard and recieved $50,000, which was less than Christy Martin's purse on the same bill.
And such a well traveled fighter aswell. Defended his title in something like 4 or 5 different countries. His brother had two fights against one of Canizales main rivals, Raul Perez, not sure if that anything to do with why they didnt fight. The WBA title changed hands like 5 times in his reign, so that wasnt his fault there wasnt someone else there he could have unified against.. 1 guy I thought he could have fought was Khaosai Galaxy..Galaxy could have fit into Bantam nicely and it was obvious Canizales had no problem traveling. Having a bloke like this on his resume might have help to justify the ridiculous accolades Galaxy would end up getting.