Your rankings in 105 108 and 112 lbs?

I'm a bit unsure how to rate Hard h2h given the small amount of fights he had at the weight.

A but like Pacquiao his best work was done above the weight and we kinda use reverse extrapolation to predict the level of fighters he could have beaten in his small window at weight.

In stark contrast Canto and Perez are the epitome of consistency at the weight and their level is abundantly clear.

It's not a clear cut choice imo so I'm sticking with my choice for now.

 

I am afraid that I'd have to disagree most strenuously here.

Above all, it's descriptively inaccurate to say that Harada's best work was done above flyweight, and it is certainly a travesty to compare Harada's resume to that of Pacquiao - at least at the flyweight.

Harada spent his prime years as a flyweight, was never legitimately bested at flyweight, and beat two all-time great flyweights rather comfortably in Kingpetch and Ebihara. (The Esparza fight was a bantamweight fight, and Esparza still walked in as a featherweight and broke the contractual limit anyways; and I have not seen a single respectable individual who saw the second Kingpetch contest claim Kingpetch should've gotten a decision. I can go on and on about boxing corruption in Asia - having had a personal acquaintance with it - but nowhere is it worse than Thailand; the expectation is that you do not get a decision there - especially in the 60s and 70s - unless you put out a performance that would be akin to a shutout in a neutral venue.) In contrast, Pacquiao did not beat a single historic fighter at flyweight and was KTFO-ed.

It was at flyweight that Harada was well-nigh invincible; at bantamweight - where Westerners mistakenly deem as Harada's best weight - Harada proved vulnerable against folks who are not his historic peers.

 

I have to even more strenuously disagree with your good self.

His best work was beating Jofre. Without doubt.

No one has compared his FLW resume to Pacquiao.

I've not seen the rematch fight so can't comment.

Not enough of his FLW fights are recorded, so it could be he was better there but based on what I've seen I feel myself disagreeing.

 

Okay, it seems like we have a different definition of "work." I took it to mean something like "body of work," whereas you apparently take it to something like a single individual "achievement."

If we go by your definition, then, yes, the Jofre wins win the cake, because Jofre was Harada's most formidable opponent - as well being naturally larger. But a different picture emerges if we employ my definition obviously. Among other notable points: Harada beat more all-time greats as a flyweight than he did as a bantamweight; and, most importantly, did not look beatable at flyweight as an eye test - whereas he lost quite a few times at bantamweight, and not always to champion-caliber opposition.

You wrote:

"A but like Pacquiao his best work was done above the weight and we kinda use reverse extrapolation to predict the level of fighters he could have beaten in his small window at weight."

I re-read it, and you had the qualifier - where I assume you meant "a bit." Still, I think this is a pretty inappropriate ****ogy, even with your qualifications. Harada beat two all-time greats at flyweight; whatever you think of the second Kingpetch decision, he was never knocked out and was never in trouble of getting knocked out. I don't see how this is in any way "a bit like" Pacquiao.

We are not talking about a guy who never excelled at a lower weight against the highest competition. Although this is a different can of worms, I would say that no post-Harada flyweight can boast two wins better on his ledger Kingpetch and Ebihara whom Harada beat.

Most of the fight is online, I believe. When I last scored it, Harada won about twice as many rounds as Kingpetch won. Even if Kingpetch won the rounds with missing footage, Harada would've still won. But I have been told by multiple reasonable authorities who watched the fight live say Kingpetch did not win them.

Not necessarily directed at you, but I am going to write a brief, separate post on a new thread about Boxrec gazing about Asian fighters, and how relying on it alone is very misleading on Asian fighters - in particular due to corruption or other issues that prevent judges from their jobs. Some veteran watchers of Asian boxing suspect this, but the problem is far deeper and pervasive than even the worst speculations of Western watchers.

 

Even by your definition I think it isn't evidently clear that he achieved more as a FLW than as a BW.

There is a balance between looking unbeatable against inferior opposition and looking slightly less dominant against great opposition. Not always an easy balance to make.

I don't think you understood that paragraph at all. I'll try to reword it.

Sometimes when people have better wins in a different weight class, we imagine they would be able to perform at that level in their original weight class. Pacquiao was the first name I thought of to have a notably better victory in a higher weight class whilst maintaining a high h2h standing in a different weigh class where he didn't beat someone of that level.

If we're gonna talk about inappropriate I don't particularly like the way you keep using the term "westerners" but I'm not one to nit pick.

I don't have thought on the rematch, I haven't seen it all. I just said that.

Boxrec is a very useful tool but dangerous in terms of holistic judgements. I much prefer relying on my own eyes in fights I can watch myself. With that in mind I then ask myself is it better to knock out Kingpetch or to out point Jofre?

As a footnote I think you put too much weight on post prime losses as well.

 

I am afraid we will have to simply agree to disagree here, as I think we perfectly understand each other's point, and the difference is intractable. I will just let it rest and say that what Harada did at flyweight is not a projection. Kingpetch and Ebihara are all-time great flyweights (though I think Kingpetch a bit over-rated). I just don't see how you can so easily dismiss those wins as coming against "inferior competition." And, as I have said, I don't know any post-Harada flyweight whose top 2 wins at the weight were better.

That's eminently fair. Part of the problem is that I am not a native English speaker, but a greater problem is that I don't even know a more appropriate replacement. Would "non-Asians" have been better? That sounds even worse, as you bring racial - rather than geographic - element to it? Occidentals? The opposite of that word is these days almost akin to the "n" word. So I am befuddled. If you have better alternatives, I am more than happy to consider them.

Obviously the Jofre wins, but once again, those are not the only fights Harada had at those weights, respectively. But I don't want to regurgitate.

If that is the case, then it's a mis-impression based on (likely a mis-reading of) a small sample. Most folks I spar with on boxing - or any sports where I presume some expertise - would argue quite the opposite and say that I put way too much emphasis on "peak" or "best" form and not enough on longevity.

 

I just wrote out a fairly length reply but my phone refreshed and lost it.

I'm going to summise with this.

I'm not fully sure on whether Harada was better as a BW or a FLW, and I do not think it is a clear cut issue.

What I do know is, due to him beating Jofre I can extrapolate as to just how good he was at FLW, more so than being just reliant on the fights he did have at 112 pounds.

 

That's fair. I suspect we are ultimately not too far off on this issue ultimately, too.

I do wonder if you can suggest any alternative to "Westerner" though. It sounds awkward as well as "inappropriate." But I genuinely cannot come up with something better

 

I agree there.

I'd suggest not mentioning race at all. I'd probably label it simply as "people who aren't aware". Geographical location usually means little in terms of boxing knowledge I've found. People from Europe can no more about American boxing history and vice versa.

I'd go as far as to say, every single boxing fan of the lower weights knows about the dubious nature of some of these hometown decisions. It's hard to not look into history and find that out.

The same way anyone studying heavyweight history will undoubtedly know about the colour line issue in America.