Which of the original divisions has the most and least dominant GOAT?

Joe louis is considered by some to be the #1 Heavyweight. But he would be wrecked by many other ATG's H2H.

 

you state that Louis would hypothetically be wrecked in an imaginary fight that could never happen as if it were a fact.

 

Harry Greb for light heavyweight is clear cut and Harry Greb at middleweight is clear cut! Greb at pfp is also clear cut!

 

Welterweight Robinson or Lightweight Duran at the top.

Hagler or Monzon for middleweight somewhat close to the top.

Agree with Louis over Ali for dominant heavyweight especially with the whole career in perspective since 70s Ali clearly wasn't on the same level as the 60s.

 

How is Greb clear cut at light heavyweight?! I can’t think there are many people who consider him the greatest in that division. The consensus choice tends to be Ezzard Charles but even then it’s not as if there’s not a reasonable debate there.

Also, middleweight might be the least clear cut of all the divisions when you have 4 candidates for no. 1 who all have compelling arguments. Gren is one of those four but hardly an undisputed choice.

 

look at who greb beat at both light heavy and middle and compare it to the other guys in contention?

 

But neither Griffith nor Johnson are the greatest of all time in their divisions. I get it now and I do think the confusion stems from the wider use of the GOAT acronym in recent times to include a few All Time Greats rather than one single greatest.

The way people are answering, it might be even better to say which division had the most 'obvious' greatest champion rather than 'dominant'. If you're the champ in a strong era, or if you have great longevity, they should be among the criteria to judge you favourably but it might mean that you are less dominant than a rival for that weight class' GOAT status who may have had an easier or shorter reign.

Sorry to the original poster if it seems I am picking at his thread. It's an interesting premise and I think it merits understanding exactly what is being asked. I'm not being deliberately awkward or critical.

FWIW, I think feather has the highest number of strong candidates with Armstrong, Pep, Saddler and Sanchez having realistic cases to be called the division's GOAT and I'm sure I've missed an old timer. LHW throws up Greb, Tunney, Charles, Moore, Foster and Spinks as potential GOATs for me but that list can be pruned.

Yes It's easier to decide on the GOATs at heavy where it's 1A Louis or 1B Ali or at Welter where it's 1A Robinson and 1B Robinson.

 

Most dominant: WW SRR
Least dominant: MW SRR

Hagler and Monzon were clearly more dominant MWs imo. Robinson is top 5 MW, not more.

 

We're not rating champions in each division, Moonlight. The premise is that you choose your greatest in each classic division, giving you eight, and then decide out of those who was the most dominant/least dominant.

So, for welter, it is clearly Robinson so he is the most dominant GOAT in his weight class. Nobody else has as much daylight between them and everyone else in their weight class.

The least dominant GOAT in a weight class might be, say, Duran - if you think he is the greatest lightweight of all time - not necessarily as any reflection of his performances at lightweight but simply a nod to the fact that there are two or three others who could stake claim to being the greatest lightweight of all time - Gans, Leonard, Whitaker, for example.

If I were to paraphrase the premise of the original post, as I've understood it, it would be; of all your picks of the greatest in each eight traditional weight classes, who do you think has the most daylight between them and the division's other leading men (Robinson is the consensus choice here as he is in most eyes clearly the no 1 all time welterweight) and who has the least (I have hypothesised Duran as his weight class has a handful of claimants to the title of greatest lightweight of all time).

Hope that helps. It's an interesting thread and hats off to the original poster for starting one that is a bit out of the box, even though I've done naff all but pick at the semantics by way of - and I use this term loosely - contribution.

 

Ok, now imagine what I wrote because I saw Robinson as the goat at MW and delete your 4828 line reply.

 

I don't understand that but I do get the unpleasant dig about my reply. Did you think I deserved that? I was just trying to explain the premise of the thread.

Happy to delete it if it was offensive, of course. If you could just clarify how it was, for me, please.

 

Those Featherweights were fabulous weren't they ? Agree about Robison at Welter too.

 

He has a good case for the best resume (though a number were on the smaller side for Light Heavyweights), but it's not at all clear cut.

Especially as he has lots of wins over names that were far from their best.