The best “SHORT” fighter

In a way Jack Dempsey. Not that he was a short fighter but he was good at beating up way taller and heavier boxers quickly.

 

For a middleweight who was probably only 5ft 8 inches, Marvin Hagler was a fantastic out-boxer.

He was helped by an unusually long reach and the way he would leap in with his jabs and hooks.

 

On a lesser note there's quite a few very good middleweights of average height. Graziano, Zale, Antuofermo, LaMotta, Fullmer, Carter etc.

 

Jimmy Wilde was an undersized flyweight.
Tommy Burns at heavyweight.

 

Perez should not be top three.

 

I disagree.

Perez went on an astounding 53-1-1 run, in fights contested at or around Fly (I don't give fighters any credit for fights not contested at or around the weight in which I'm ranking them), before losing to Kingpetch past his best, 1-month shy of his 34th birthday. His only loss during this time was to the excellent Sadao Yaoita, aged 32 on points in a non-title fight, which he avenged by KO in a title defence.

His 10-2 world title numbers, with both losses past prime vs Kingpetch, are way better than any other serious contender for the number 3 slot. I don't consider Chitalada, Wonjongkam or Arbachakov as serious contenders for the top 3 and the only other fighters with double digit wins in Flyweight world title fights are my # 1 & 2, Wilde & Canto.

Ranking fighters per decade in Rummy's sticky thread, if anything, enhanced Perez's standing in my eyes. Based solely on fights in the 1950's I had him #3 P4P in that decade. He went 54-1-1. 10-0 in Fly world title fights. Beating the brilliant Yoshio Shirai x 2, Dai Dower, Young Martin and Sadao Yaoita. This is an astonishing run of total & utter, consistent dominance, over a very strong field.

Ulitmately, where you rank him at Fly, comes down to your criteria. If your criteria is solely and exactly correlated with who has the most recognisable "great" wins, in an historical context, taking nothing else into account, then you'd have Wolgast, Genaro, Lynch, Villa and Kingpetch ahead. If you balance win resume from an historical perspective, with being impressed by sheer and utter dominance against the best in the world over a substantial period of time, in their own era, then Perez has an extremely strong case for top 3, imo.

 

I completely disagree with the notion that having a pretty record with scarce good wins being more important than the opposite. Perez reigned in a weak era against weak challengers. Sure, that's not his fault but that's not my problem. He's essentially the Bob Foster of the flyweights. A killer in-between eras, with nobody around to truly test him. Foster suffers for it, and so should Perez IMO.

Despite the palatable numbers, he didn't claim anywhere near the level of those which Villa, Genaro, Wolgast, Brown or Lynch. Shirai & Yaoita are decent enough wins, but compared to Wolgast beating Dado, Bill, Davies, Schwartz and Pancho while not only being the youngest champion in flyweight history AND having beaten the most ranked fighters of any flyweight. And that's one of a potential four who should definitely be above Perez IMO.

Also, I'm not one for conspiracies or blanket labelling, but I've found it odd for a long while that fighters from South America seem to have sparkling records in era's where that wasn't the norm. EG: Jofre, Locche, Perez, Accavallo, Monzon, etc. I think a fair amount of benefit of the doubt was given too them and the scoring system which meant you could only lose by several points or more definitely did. Perez's claim to a top three flyweight placing is more based on traditionalism and pandering moreso than his actual résumé.

Overall, Perez's résumé is nowhere near good enough to be top three. If Canto, Wolgast and Wilde are on a level playing field, then Perez has been on the bench all season.

I'll frame my entire view of how I personally rank fighters with a comparison. What's more impressive? A lion who hunts sheep for ten years, or a lion who hunts elephants for two?

 

To an extent, with a long reigning, dominant champion, it comes down to which you believe is more likely:

1) 1 x boxer in that era is better than their counterparts in other eras; or
2) Several years worth of top 10 contenders are ALL worse than their counterparts in different eras

Isn't it funny how ultra dominant champions compete in eras with no other truly great fighters? Is that because they are so much better than the best in other eras, that no one in their era could emerge as close to their equal, or is it simply impossible for any fighter to reign, with longevity and without blemish, if other truly great fighters are competing when they are? Either viewpoint is reasonable, in my view.

I don't consider that dominance over your own era, on the presumption all eras are equal, as definitive. Dominance in one's own era isn't my sole criteria, but it factors heavily.

Midget Wolgast is my #4 and I've no problem if you rank him top 3. If you'd made a post claiming him as top 3, I wouldn't have responded with a definitive "he shouldn't be top 3". I do think Perez can be credibly argued as top 3. The research I completed that led to ranking him there was pretty comprehensive, but I suspect less so than that completed by Matt McGrain, who also ranks him top 3.

My conclusion = I've no problem with someone having Perez outside their top 3 at Fly. There is a credible argument for him being top 3, dependant on your criteria and how highly you value dominance over the field in their own era.

 

Jimmy Bivins - competed against Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe Walcott, Archie Moore, Joey Maxim, Bob Baker, Lee Q Murray, Lee Savold, Coley Wallace, Tami Mauriello and even beat the 6'2 Mike DeJohn in his last fight. And he did this at 5'9.

 

I like how A J Liebling described everything. The man was incapable of writing an unmemorable or unenjoyable sentence.

 

Has anyone ever broken down qawi's style? It's astounding how well he did at 5'6. Tyson was around 5'10.