Cheers for the feedback, I could see an argument for Nelson being too high. But he'd still be in my top 25, his résumé alone puts him in the top 150 imo. I don't really rate Fitsimmons as high as others do, I put alot on résumé and his isn't as good as the people above him
It's nice that you're enthusiastic about such an interesting figure, but who else would you name from your list, who was outfought, in his prime by a fighter like Mick Macintyre? Or Rudy Unholz? Also, if BN is one of the greatest fighter to have ever breathed, where is Ad Wolgast, who conclusively proved himself a superior fighter? Where is Jimmy Britt, who put a beating on him and dominated their series 2-1-1? What are these numerous losses telling us about Nelson do you think?
I'll have to read more into them before I assume but in beating Nelson did any of them beat the same caliber of fighters consistently? That's the thing about these lists they more people you add in, the more you need to add
When you're throwing your list together be wary of the man who lets others in. Is it really likely that Britt, Wolgast and Nelson all breathed the same thin air? It is not. What is more likely is that fighters like Wolgast and Britt are signalling you, clearly, that Nelson doesn't belong. So do the other two dozen or so fighters who defeated him. But one of the following things is true: Wolgast, Nelson and Britt all belong in the top 30 ATGs or none of them do.
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/where-does-jimmy-britt-rank.623407/ I posted a number of fight reports of Britt's. Interesting overlooked fighter IMO. He had a short career. Britt beat Lavigne and Erne, both were past it but he looked great doing it. He stupidly tried to out fight Nelson in his loss to him. He had a good win over Young Corbett II. It's very hard to know what to make of his first Gans fight, on the face of it he was battering Gans but fouled him repeatedly for a DQ. Possible there was some sort of fix or something going on. IMO Britt was better than Nelson H2H, but not overall considering logevity etc.
I had a flick through myself, he couldve been even higher had he carried on longer How much do you have on the best fighters from the 1800s? I'd love to read more into them.
I take it you mean gloved? It's just a random smattering really, the threads vary in quality, Senya and others have posted good info too though Kid Lavigne Joe Walcott Charlie Mitchell George Dixon Vs "Nunc" Wallace I've got a little on Jimmy Barry, I've got a report of the Walter Croot fight, but I haven't typed it up, I'd be happy to send you it if you want to see it. Currently I'm doing Terry McGovern Also posted some stuff on Cal McCarthy Paddy Duffy and Dan Creedon
A few cool reads there, I'm not gonna lie I think the greatness of a few people from that era are overstated
I don't rate Marshall very highly I agree that Nelson has a loose right to be in the top 50, and no right for top 20, but I'd still rank him over Lavigne. Lavigne beat Barbados Joe x2, while those wins are good, they aren't as good as Nelson's 2 wins over Gans. Nelson ALSO has a win over Terry McGovern, and 2 against Young Corbett ll. The only other standout in Lavigne's resume is his draws against Griffo. If he'd beaten Griffo in either he'd have a better argument. Nelson drew with Abe Attell, better name than Griffo. Their title reigns are both short. Nelson lost his to the better fighter. Also after... I believe it was Wolgast 2, Nelson had started showing signs of brain damage. He was a shadow of himself for the rest of his career
Here are the fighters Kid Lavigne lost to at lightweight: Kid Erne during his comeback; Jimmy Britt; Elbows McFadden (McFadden btw has a clearly better than Nelson himself);Jack Daly (world title challenger); Charlie McKeever (his one and only embarrassment.). Battling Nelson: professional loser Mike Riley; professional loser Joe Percente; Eddie Santry (this may have been at FW and Santry was pretty good); professional loser Mike Walsh; a journeyman named Charles Berry. Twice; Eddie Stearns, who nobody knows anything about because he just didn't have a notable professional career and is rumoured to have KO'd Nelson 18 months before his first title shot; Rudy Unholz. You get the point. And i'm not listing here the losses to the top fighters - but he lost to every single one of them with no exceptions. He also lost to the good guys he fought with alarming regularity. In short, in all phases of his career, he suffered numerous losses to fighters who Lavigne routinely pasted.
Wouldn't, by this logic, have Marciano and Mayweather be placed over Greb? Both went undefeated against lesser competition whilst Greb got beaten by nobodies (in the earlier stage of his career when he was learning and later stage when he was blind in one eye) I believe you need to weigh out the benefits from competition beaten and dominance/consistency
No, not at all. That's the point; BN's consistentcy was atrocious. Not bad. Not ok. It was atrocious - OR, he wasn't as good as you think. One of those things are true. All information from a fighter's career provides perspective. It's all knowledge. Here's what BN's career record tells me: He wasn't as good as Jimmy Britt. He wasn't as good as Wolgast. He wasn't great over shorter distances. He wasn't good enough to beat Abe Attell. He could be beaten by journeyman, it happened quite a bit. This information pegs him, is indicative of a certain level or standard. That standard certainly isn't top 25 ATGd, nor does it rank him above Kid Lavigne.
So there is a baseline consistency required for high ranking, then after you cross that line it means much less?