Greatest fighter?

After delving deeper i don't think Arrnstrong could reasonably be rated a top 10 Featherweight or Lightweight. He's a shoe in top 10 at welter.

He just didn't get the work done in these two divisions. McGrain actually had to make divisional decisions on where to credit for example welterweight defenses where both came in at lightweight. He quite fairly chose to consider them welterweight fights. Realistically you shouldn't be credited in both divisions. In this case it would help his welter ranking whilst hurting his lightweight ranking.

He also admits to feeling a bit shaky about Hank at #13 in the featherweights resume wise.

 

I think it is fine to credit some of those welterweight title defences as lightweight wins, and I think it is fine to credit some wins for both divisions.
McGrain's set of criteria is fine too.

 

Personally i'd credit them at 135 but i am pretty pedantic. One of my thoughts is that if Roy Jones Jr came back to 175 after Ruiz and fought guys at 175 then he's hardly defending the heavyweight title and it could never be billed as such. Different times i know.

 

My view is that if Roy Jones weighed in at 175 against Ruiz and beat him, it would definitely add to his light-heavyweight rating, while also counting towards a heavyweight rating.
McGrain's view is that Ruiz's weight makes it a heavyweight fight (correct) and Jones' being under the light-heavy limit is not to be used for his rating at light-heavy.
Both are valid, I reckon.

Armstrong did quite a lot under the lightweight limit, against lightweights (some of whom were masquerading as challengers for the 147 crown) and against full welterweights too.

 

We might be a bit crossed here.

I am not sure that is quite what i put across or what Mac follows. I would agree both are valid.

Mac put defences of the 147 title where both were under lightweight at welterweight. I'm not sure what he did with fights where Hank weighed lightweight and others were heavier. I should know by now but am having a blank lolol

 

Yes, I know. He counted them only as welterweight fights, if Armstrong was 134 and the challenger was, say, 135 or 136, because they were of course, welterweight title fights.

But, generally, across the board, his criteria is to only credit a win in one division and it is dictated by how much the heavier man weighs ..... ..

... whereas my criteria would be to credit a man based on his own weight.
A man weighing 135 beating a man weighing 147 can be credited as a lightweight achievement, in my opinion, and also as welterweight too. Since he's inside the limits of both divisions, fighting inside both and against a man who is in a heavier division, it can count for both.

 

I would agree with that.

*If Armstrong was 134 and the challenger 135 that is technically lightweight.

 

I will admit, the flaw with my proposed citeria would then be that "giant killers" would be over-credited for a division in which they might have performed less well against persons of equal weight.
They are rare, but, say, MIckey Walker and Joe Walcott come to mind.
And some lesser ones too.

 

It's a fine line. Going back that far bigger men were easier to beat than later era's imo. So yes some may have struggled more agaisnt faster men their own size vs slower bigger men.

 

The greatest fighter has to have a career like Leonard, just longer. Ray beat greats, but his resume is not too deep because he pretty much retired early and came back handpicking. Fighting the best and beating the best in different styles, and that is Ray or Ali. There are guy who fight great one style and they are great, yet someone always finds the key to that style. If you look at Ray. Hagler and Hearns and Duran were great, but they were not as versatile as Ray. No matter what. The wins Ray had over them prove that. That is a great fighter.

 

Tommy Burns is a big one IMO

 

Muhammad Ali without any question ,look what he did for boxing,USA.people

 

Pound for pound Roy Jones Jr.