Question for those that make all time lists

Not sure if I knew what you meant....... I think, as of today, that Chavez should be rated higher than Arguello, for example. It´s more based on a H2H comparison though, I just think Chavez is a better well rounded fighter with less flaws.

 

I've made top 20 lists in the original 8 weight divisions, based purely on fights contested in and around those weight divisions.

When I got to WW I'd barely heard of Jackie Fields and if you'd asked me to name 25 candidates right at the start of my research, he wouldn't have been among them. He washed up at #10.

 

Jackie Fields? He fought 90-100 years ago.

You couldn't find 10 better fighters in-and-around the welterweight division in the last 90 years than Jackie Fields?

Who did you rank below Jackie Fields? Floyd Mayweather, Sugar Ray Robinson, Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas Hearns, Manny Pacquiao, Felix Trinidad, Oscar De La Hoya, Sugar Shane Mosley, Wilfred Benitez, Pernell Whitaker, Henry Armstrong, Barney Ross, Kid Gavilan, Jose Napoles, Emile Griffith, Roberto Duran, Donald Curry, Marlon Starling, Bud Crawford, Miguel Cotto, Carlos Palomino, and on and on and on and on ...?

Jackie Fields seems to be a bit of a "reach."

 

And Sam Langford fought over 100-years ago, but yet this forum voted him #4 on a p4p ATG survey. Greb (a little earlier than Fields) was #3 & Armstrong (a little later) was #2. Btw, you've listed Barney Ross whose debut was 94-years ago, almost to the very week, and 4-years before Field retired.

As was the case with that p4p ATG list, my WW all time rankings, entirely exclude my predicated outcome in cross era fantasy fights, but rather concentrates only on fights that actually happened, so that I can make an estimation of how good they were and how great their achievements were, relative to the evolution of the era in which they competed. My list is based only on fights contested in & around WW (e.g. I have BJW ranked way higher than Fields P4P, but just below based on fights contested at WW):

1) SRR
2) SRL
3) Napoles
4) Armstrong
5) Britton
6) Griffiths
7) Gavilan
8) Hearns
9) Mayweather
10) Fields
11) TKL
12) BJW
13) Ryan (my #9 at MW based on fights contested in that divison)
14) Trinidad
15) Walker
16) Ross (my #14 at LW)
17) McLarnin
18) Burley (my #10 at MW)
19) LMR
20) Cokes

Of the other fighters I considered, I ranked Duran the highest (so, I guess he's likely my #21), his wins over SRL & Palomino exceed the best 2 wins of most of the above, but his WW resume is very thin thereafter, simply because he had so few fights contested in & around that division (non-title fights where the heaviest competitor weighed, for e.g., 136lbs, count towards a fighters standing at LW by my criteria).

 

Sam Langford? Jackie Fields didn't have 20 fights with one guy in the Hall of Fame and nine fights with another (or whatever).

"In and Around" Welterweight includes a TON of fighters in the last 100 years.

Who did Jackie Fields beat "IN AND AROUND" welterweight who was better than say ...

Wilfred Benitez (who you don't even have in your top 20) beating Antonio Cervantes (when Wilfred was 17) for the light welter title, Carlos Palomino (when Wilfred was 20) for the welterweight title, and Roberto Duran (when Wilfred was 23) in defense of a junior middleweight title ... not to mention fighting Ray Leonard close (when Wilfred was just 21) and fighting Thomas Hearns close (when Wilfred was 24) in other title fights?

Forget the very top welters, hell, I'd rate Cotto higher "in and around" welterweight than Jackie Fields. He won titles in four divisions. Cotto beat Shane Mosley, Zab Judah, Mayorga, Margarito and even won the middleweight title from Sergio Martinez, and lost competitive fights with Floyd, Manny and Canelo.

The welterweight class has been so loaded at different times since Jackie Fields was around.

You admitted you didn't think much of him before you made your list. What were Jackie Fields' monster fights or amazing wins that were better than beating guys like Duran, Palomino and Cervantes "in and around welterweight," for instance? You left that out.

I'd be curious to know what swayed you.

 

I respect your opinion and I will just give mine aswell.

At the age of 17 Jackie Fields faced Jimmy McLarnin. Lost, as expected, but this was at that tender age and in his only 7th fight of his career.
At the age of 19 he beaten Sammy Mandell. Sammy avenged the loss 1 year later but in between Fields also beaten no more no less then Vince Dundee.
At the age of 21, he had beaten Vince another 2 times, plus Joe Dundee and Gorilla Jones.
Then you have wins over Tommy Freeman, Lou Brouillard, Meyer Grace, Bucky Lawless, King Tut and Clyde Chastain, along with great performances against Young Corbett III ( a genius Southpaw) and Jack Thompson, all that till the age of 23.

I understand your point but Fields also had an extraordinary career.

 

Lots of people in and around welterweight have had extraordinary careers in the last century, though. The key words being "in and around."

The names in the last 100 years who went on big runs in that general weight range are deep and long. Bud Crawford's currently on one, for example.

That's why I said "you couldn't find 10 who were better?"

King Tut wasn't exactly Antonio Cervantes or Roberto Duran. (Or Shane Mosley or freaking Zab Judah, for that matter.) I purposely left off names like Ricardo Torres, Joshua Clottey, Randall Bailey, Paul Malignaggi, Carlos Quintana, Oktay Urkal, Daniel Geale, Maurice Hope, Randy Shields, Bruce Curry, Harold Weston Jr., Pete Ranzany, etc., because I didn't want to bring up every quality name they fought. But, if we're going to include them, everyone has a bunch.

I'm not saying Jackie Fields was bad or anything. I'm not trying to be a jerk. I just don't see him that high ... AT ALL.

Anyway, gotta go. I only commented because I never heard Jackie Fields being rated above most welterweights of the last century before. Was curious as to why. (Still am.)

 

As I said, my divisional rankings are based solely on fights contested in that weight division. "In or around" means an allowance for slightly over the weight contests is given. I.e. a contest between 2 x 148lbs fighters seems better attributed to their WW resume than MW. A key criteria in my divisional rankings is that no 1 fight can count towards a fighters ranking in more than 1 weight division.

What HOF'ers did Langford fight 20 and 9 times in fights contested at WW?

Allowing for slightly over the weight non title contests, Fields went 43-3-1 in fights contested at WW.

Those 43 wins included WW champion Lou Brouillard, WW champion Joe Dundee, WW champion Tommy Freeman, Joe Gans x 2, future MW titlest Vincent Dundee x 4 (in fights contested at MW), Joe Cooper x 2, WW champion Jack Thompson x 2, Sammy Baker, Gorilla Jones, Peter Jackson, King Tut, Jackie Brady and Jimmy Belmont.

Fields wins over titlests and ranked fighters in fights contested at WW outnumber anyone not in my top 11 at that weight. I can see no credible argument for ranking Cotto over him if fights contested at WW are the sole criteria. Fields beat more champions in fights contested at WW than Duran beat ranked contenders in that division.

Fields is unheralded and underrated. Tbf to you, I've never seen anyone rank him top 10 at WW. When I see him ranked highly, however, I know the person ranking him as such really knows their boxing history.

 

To clarify, in and around means a non title fight contested at 148lbs is considered a WW fight by criteria. LWW and LMW world title fights contribute to a fighters standing in those divisions by my criteria, not their standing at WW.

 

Oh boy. (Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.)

Really knows their history or someone who doesn't count Wilfred Benitez's win over Antonio Cervantes at age 17 to win the junior welterweight title as being "in and around" welterweight.

So that would only count if you were rating him at lightweight? Lots of people can get ranked and dismissed depending on how you set the rules.

So two wins over Baby Joe Gans (who weighed 137 and 140) count because Fields was heavier but beating Antonio Cervantes for the junior welterweight title doesn't count? Got it.

Well, it's your list. Enjoy it.

I don't see any of those wins as any better than Cotto beating three-division and welterweight champion Shane Mosley, three-division and Welterweight champion Zab Judah, two-division and welterweight champion Ricardo Mayorga, welterweight champion Antonio Margarito, welterweight champion Carlos Quintana, welterweight contender Joshua Clottey, and middleweight champions Sergio Martinez and Daniel Geale (when Cotto weighed 153), or Cotto fighting fighting close with Pac at welter and Mayweather, Canelo when Cotto was 153 pounds.

And I wouldn't even rate Cotto among the ten best "in and around" at welter in last 100 years, let alone Fields.

But thanks for replying. To each his own.

 

You're more than welcome.

Benetiz win over Cervantes for the LWW title contributes towards his ranking at LWW, not WW, by my criteria.

Only Cotto's wins at WW contribute towards his ranking at WW, by my criteria.

The heavier fighter determines the weight division the fight is being contested at. A fight between a 147lbs fighter vs 135lbs fighter, is contested at WW.

I don't claim my criteria, of only fights in the weight division in question contributing towards rankings at that weight division, is definitive, but it seems reasonable to me.

 

Best to separate boxers by era- those we have film of and those we have little or no film of.

 

Sometimes there is a lack of footage of a fighter from an era where there was plenty of footage of other fighters from the same time, so it’s not always that neat.