Interesting points you make here, and without tipping anyone off just yet, semi-related I'm working on the Bantamweight breakdown now - and the way the points were allocated there was quite different. Hoping to have that done in 32-48 hours. I should still be able to have it up in about 30, but I have another obligation/deadline that's splitting my attention this week.
I have no immediate plans to do that at this time. But I may get to it. Just that, if I do, it probably will not be until next year.
Incidentally, I might be crazy, but I still believe I have a good chance of having this mostly (if not fully) wrapped by early Sept. Don't hold me to that, but I think I can reasonably get it done in that time frame.
And also, only 1 minor issue left on the All Time list. 2 of the 3 have been confirmed, and the other I'm fairly certain I already interpreted correctly.
I can see both sides of this "weight ranking" argument. People don't like to hear this, but ranking the new divisions (post-weigh-in changes) alongside the traditional ones would actually produce more accurate results. For example, 1)ranking new light-welterweights on the same lists as old welterweights Would produce a fairer list than: 2) ranking current welterweights on the same lists as old welterweights Sad but true.
But there’s no super bantamweight division recognized in this exercise. So anyone between bantam and feather is a featherweight. Which means his resume can count there. If we’re going to be strict, a ton of LaMotta’s results were when he was over 160 so by his day a light heavyweight. He’s clearly not a top-15 175-pounder and he didn’t accomplish much at middle apart from beating up people who were actually junior middleweights by today’s weight classes and even pure welters, so he probably shouldn’t be eligible. But I think you could make an argument that Marciano and Dempsey were among the best cruisers of all time, just as you could for Jake in the 168-pound division, which is where he spent most of his career (above 160) — albeit fighting much smaller men.
I'd go one step further by saying I'd put Greb and Fitzsimmons as the top two 168lbers of all time. Just because the 168lb division wasn't official, doesn't mean I exclude their wins at any weight below 175lb, compared to others. I think my way (by weight, talent, and performance) is better than semantics (oh... the division has a name... stick to the division name!!! What?!). And to counter the argument about lack of film footage of the fighters above ... why not rank Marciano or Patterson as top 5 or 10 Cruisers? I do. Well, anyway, I think we should. But then, I am quite drunk.
Fleaman has forgotten more about boxing than I could ever hope to learn in my lifetime. But, by way of a silly, drunken, subjective, justification... If people submitted their lists of official SuoerMiddles (Calzaghe, Kessler, Ward, etc.), what chance would they stand against my top 10 motley crew? Greb Fitzsimmons Langford Jones Jr Charles Choynski Conn Moore Toney Hopkins Just sayin...
I just think... don't talk about the weight disparity at Heavyweight, while conveniently forgetting all other other divisions, even if the differences are much smaller (is WW Napoles really comparable in size to Errol Spence?) Time for some of us to use our eyes instead of facts and figures. It's a sport, not a mathematical equation. Follow your heart
I've never seen him have a SMW list with Greb and Fitz, but then again he might have done and I might have missed it I suppose.
