If this WAS to be the correct answer....in which order would you rank them? Bear in mind the criteria—115-118lbs fights only. McGovern is in my top 10 fighters of all time P4P, much higher than Olivares, just to throw that out there!
Consider my criteria: McGovern would have Forbes, Palmer, Dixon, Leon, Ritchie, all counting towards his ‘bantam’ resume.
And Olivares' bantam resume includes wins over Burruni, Gomez, Medel, Sakurai, Rose, Rudkin, Pimentel, Castillo.
Of course. But does he have the standout victories like Terrible Terry has over Dixon and Palmer? Bear in mind my mind is already made up, as I’ve nearly finished the writing. And of course, it might not be McGovern and Olivares.....
I think McGovern will be next followed by #1 Olivares I think you said there would be no Memphis, I don’t envision Bud Taylor Johnny Coulon or Lynch making the cut but they will be my dark horse candidates
I kind of assume that Olivares is in your Top-2... I would be really shocked, if he isn't! And since you have real old-timers like Williams and Dixon on your list - I strongly suspect that McGovern must be in there too. Also, I believe beating Rose and Castillo is at least as impressive as wins over Dixon and Palmer.
Not trying to second-guess you here, Flea, because you may not be even considering McGovern. But the thing that bothers me on the subject of Terrible Terry is the same that bothers me when Jeff Fenech or Tony Canzoneri gets mentioned at 118. And that is, yes, they experienced a bit of success at the weight, but they blossomed at the higher weights. They were still somewhat in an incubation period at 118. indeed, McGovern was done with Bantam by the age of 19. Of course he is eligble to be included, but I think he was a better feather than bantam. Hey, just me chiming in. You're doing an amazing job with this.
If you read the intro piece mate I said that ‘featherweight’ fights that meet the weight criteria would count. So McGovern’s win over Dixon for the ‘fratherweight’ title counts against his bantam ledger for me.
Flea Man follows to the beat of his own drummer. I have often said these type of writers / historians are interesting because they often find obscure information. You might disagree with them, as well as a the majority, but you can learn something. For example, Jofre at #5 to me is a bad interpretation, however I'm thinking not everyone was aware of the Brazilian scoring system pointed out by Flea Man, which explains his draw with a decent Manny Elias. Jofre won that fight, but only by three rounds, so by rules you get a draw. This " draw " was later avenged. Leaving McGovern out would a mistake, and not listing Olivares at ( which I highly doubt would happen ) would DQ the article all together.
Tim Austin followed by Happy Lora - got to be, hasn't it?! If Olivares isn't there in one of those spots, I'll eat my hat.
Thanks for the kind words. But what other types of historians are there? The ones that follow what everyone has said before without doing their own research?