It came up after that top uncrowned MWs thread. Most specifically between Ketchell and Greb. Mike Gibbons, Jimmy Clabby, Frank Klaus, Jeff Smith, Les Darcy, Eddy McGoorty, etc. They used to be deeply respected but seem to fly under radar these days. How good was the era? UR or OR? How many and who among them you think were true greats? How well you think these guys would do in other eras? Would their records be cleaner if they didn't have to fight each other? Can they be fairly evaluated if you just look at the win/lose ratio on their records? How easy its is to measure the depth of their records considering the competition? How would you compare them with guys like Monzon, Hagler, or Hopkins that didn't 'share stage' much during their long reigns? A lot of questions so I don't expect imediate answers or a lot of them for that matter. Take your time.
I think that all of the guys are great except possibly Jeff Smith. He may very well be great as well but he had some pretty crappy performances that make me pause on that one.
You forget a couple of the best from the era including Mike O'Dowd, Jack Dillion, Leo Houck, Young Ahearn, Buck Crouse, Jack McCarron, Gus Christie. Its top three for deepest MW eras ever, some would argue the deepest and they could make a very valid one. The trinity during that time in Greb, Gibbons, O'Dowd are elite of the elite while he 'second tier' elite MW's like Dillion, Darcy, Smith, Houck would have been solid Champions in weaker eras. Obviously fighting in a division with that depth just like MW's in the 30's and 40's means a long reigning Champion and unblemished record is virtually impossible which is why guys like this get overlooked. The typical way people evaluate ATG ratings can be flawed in this respect. Most place high value on subjective aspects like 'dominance' and attribute it to guys like Hagler or Hopkins but for me a guy like Mike Gibbons showed better consistancy and dominance during his career. For example during a 2.5 year period Gibbons went undefeated beating Harry Greb, Jack Dillion x2, Leo Houck, Jeff Smith, Ted Kid Lewis, Young Ahearn, George Chip x3, Soldier Bartfield x2. You could argue that streak alone is more impressive than Hagler or Monzon's title reigns and he did it in a 30 month period (which was interrupted for 15 months due to WWI). I place higher value on the consistancy and dominance someone like Gibbons demonstrated in fighting such excellent compitition so frequently with the win/loss ration he achieved more than Hopkins getting 20 title defense fighting 2 or 3 times a year with the opposition he faced. I know people like Hagler or Hopkins can't choose the era they fought in so their standing shouldn't be punished due to lack of great opposition but the reverse is true. Guys like Gibbons, Williams, Yarosz shouldn't be punished for having losses when facing the insane schedule and opposition they did. You have to look at the win/loss ratio they had in those circumstances and guys like Greb, Gibbons, Steele were remarkably consistant while guys like Williams, Burley, Yarosz, Overlin slightly less so but still have great ratios with win column's that seem unreal. It's a balancing act and still subjective but does require thought and consideration that most people unfortunately seem to overlook imo.
That's why I asked how easy it is to evaluate the depth of their records. Jeff for example punctuated some lame performances with some pretty quality wins. Who should get the better ratings an erratic performer of a competitive era or a consistent performer of a weak one? What's more important when 'fine scoring', dominance or depth? I know there's no definitive answer, but I was wondering to which end people are leaning on when looking at these less clean cut scenarios.
Your post points exactly what I was getting at. I even thought about throwing a 40s generation comparison but I thought it would make the thread too messy. In the more muddy scenarios (like Jeff Smith's case as klompton mentioned) when a fighter punctuates great wins with pretty lackluster performances in a highly competitive era, where does he stand when put up against dominant fighters of 'pretty good' eras?
Its a great point to raise and the balancing act i was talking about. For the Middleweight division Greb, Gibbons, Steele are three guys whose excellent win column combined with their consistancy in deep eras places them above Monzon and Hagler for me. Guys like Yarosz, Williams, Burley, Overlin, Apostoli are boxers who are on that threshold, holding amazing win columns during that type of era which makes them being worthy of a top 10 rating possible but their win/loss ratio is below the above three. Whether they're placed above or below Monzon and Hagler types is the question and ultimately personal preference. An argument could be made either way but for some of those guys i would lean towards placing them above.
Young Ahearn, Buck Crouse, Jack McCarron, and Gus Christie are full step below most of the other names being mentioned. They were very good contenders, some were even borderline championship quality but none was great.
When i said he missed a couple of the best i was referring to O'Dowd, Dillon and Houck, i could have been more clear my bad. i realize the rest were good to very good contenders but not top tier, Which fight of Jeff Smith is there footage of again?
