The Fifty Greatest Lightweights of all Time

Again, this is where we differ. Your just looking at numbers, whereas I take in consideration what I have seen and facts beyond the numbers. Such as the losses to Suzuki were end-of-career losses at a weight he could no longer attain. And the Cervantes loss was a cut in a fight that El Gato was ahead on points and a fight where both fighters were down. Since you're going by numbers, when was the next time Cervantes was down? Aaron Pryor 10 years later. So again, I don't go by "well it says here he beat so and so, so he must be the greatest". I go by what I have seen and take into consideration facts along the way. I saw a lot of Gonzalez in the late '60s and early '70s in L.A. and he was a monster. I would pick him over a lot of the fighters you have on your tier. But again, we have different criteria. You have numbers I go by the old baby blues. Not everybody picks the same.

 

Kat, Diaz and Casamayor were all solid at lightweight. Casa was lineal champ when he met JMM.

In comparison, Chavez met Rosario, Ramirez and Aguilar at lightweight. And that was pretty much it at the weight.

Not really all that much between the two in terms of quality or quantity.

At the very least, I think he might be fit to replace Casa, whose most substantive work was done at 130lbs.

 

And I clearly brought an objection to your choice of 2 end of career losses rather than prime. See, this is where we differ. It's just numbers your looking at. You never put any thought into what may have happened in a bout. I said Sammy Angott was way too high and you immediately said well he holds wins over so and so so he must be that great. Sammy Angott was poison at the gate. He was called Sammy the Clutch not because he had another speed he was shifting into but because he grappled like Strangler Lewis. Davey Day once told me he was "a bum". I said to him, probably a lot like you, "really, he has a great record...". He said they fought 3 times and all he did was hold. See, there is a story beyond the numbers. You've been on here a long time so I know you're a smart dude. It's your criteria I find fault with. It's time to stop looking at the stats at boxrec and watch some fights on youtbe to form a proper opinion. It was when I actually saw some Angott fights that I realized the truth in what Day told me all those years ago. Anyways, it's your list, suffice to say we have different criteria.

 

Hmmm, I think I now have a good idea regarding which mod moved my long thread on the pitfalls of BoxRec-gazing to the dustbin - I mean the "General" section!

 

Cervantes hadn't really won at the world level when he fought Gonzalez. And he was knocked down by Josue Marquez in their fight supposedly.

I mean look at that last tier. You talk about looking at guys and seeing how good they are- Shane Mosley is there and Floyd Mayweather and Jimmy mcclarnin. Those guys looked just about unstoppable. Rosario was supposed to be the next Duran. A lot of people considered petrolle the best guy to not win the lightweight title.

And as for Angott yeah he held a lot and was cautious. But he could throw that out as when he beat bob Montgomery (who he owned) or outboxed willie Pep (ask Senya about that one) or that time he put a beating on Ike williams. I respect your opinion but unless you saw angott live as well you need something more to say that rodolfo gonzalez (who was a hell of a lightweight) was better than angott who is in both the international and ring hall of fame.

 

Again, guys, it's opinion. And we all have one.

 

I'm not arguing your opinion (and certainly any reasonable human being would want to watch gonzalez over angott who fought like john ruiz's grandfather). But you're the one who came and said that McGrain was making a list totally based on numbers without any other facts taken into consideration.

But if McGrain did that Duran wouldn't be that high on the list.

 

You know who I liked. Orzubek nazarov.

 

When he attempted to make the commonly accepted ( not your personal choice of 137-138 ) lightweight limit once (not when he was a novice, that is, we don't know what his weight was in his Indiana bouts) he had no stamina or punching power left. The earliest bout where his weight was reported that I know of, was his Dec 15, 1902, bout where he and his opponent were within 136 pounds. Boxrec lists him weighing 133 pounds on March 2, 1903, but none of the three local newspapers I have mentioned any weight limits for that preliminary. A colored Indianapolis newspaper said he weighed 138 pounds for Joe Gans bout later that year, weigh-in at 6 PM, not at ringside.

 

Kid Ferry bout on April 5, 1904, Blackburn is listed at 137 pounds, but next-day Allentown Leader reported that "In size, weight and reach Ferry and Blackburn were very much alike, weighing in at about 140 pounds."

 

The other fight, supposedly at lightweight limit, on January 31, 1906, only one non-local wire reported Blackburn weighed 132 pounds, the local New Castle Herald mentioned no weights (and scored the bout a draw), and neither did several other non-local reports, so the 132 figure is very doubtful.

 

And if you think it acceptable that a fighter can weigh-in at 135 pounds not at ringside, but at certain point during the same day, then ranking McFarland in tier 2 is a terrible injustice. He was as good as any lightweight in history, even if never given a chance at the title.

P.S. I'm pondering doing a list of most clever and skillful boxers of 1890s, that might be of help as it is including several outstanding lightweights. But my list won't be just 1,2,3,..., I'd let contemporary writers do the talking, the way they described it next-day after this or that fight.