this is very hard to do
1. henry armstrong
2. willie pep
3. sandy saddler
4. Salvador sanchez
5. terry mcgovern
6. jim driscoll
7. Abe Atell
8. Azumah Nelson
9. MAB
10. Eric Morales
11. kid chocalate
12. alexis arguello
13. freddie miller
14. johnny kilbane
15. Eusebio Pedroza
16. george dixon
17. Vincente Salvidar
18. young corbett
19. Danny lopez
20. Naseem Hamed
top 20 greatest featherweights of all time
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
-
Bradley001
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 58
- Joined: 28 Sep 2005, 16:55
I haven't thought about Top 20, but here's my top 10:
Featherweight
1 Willie Pep
2 Sandy Saddler
3 George Dixon
4 Vicente Saldivar
5 Salvador Sanchez
6 Alexis Arguello
7 Kid Chocolate
8 Azumah Nelson
9 Terry McGovern
10 Freddie Miller
I think Armstrong struggled to make this weight and was relatively weaker than he was at lightweight or welerweight. Yes he beat Sarron and Arizmendi, but he also lost to Arizmendi and didn't fight the big fights he did at light and welter.
Featherweight
1 Willie Pep
2 Sandy Saddler
3 George Dixon
4 Vicente Saldivar
5 Salvador Sanchez
6 Alexis Arguello
7 Kid Chocolate
8 Azumah Nelson
9 Terry McGovern
10 Freddie Miller
I think Armstrong struggled to make this weight and was relatively weaker than he was at lightweight or welerweight. Yes he beat Sarron and Arizmendi, but he also lost to Arizmendi and didn't fight the big fights he did at light and welter.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
decagon fenech in top 10??? over terry mcgovern, abe atell, jim driscoll?? 
- arguello at 5 IMO is too high, who did he beat at featherweight besides a worn down bantam weight ruben olivares???
- arguello even lost to ernesto marcel
dnar ur list is solid except 2 major things, how could u posibly not have armstrong in ur top 10?
and how could u rate salvdiar 4th ??
- arguello at 5 IMO is too high, who did he beat at featherweight besides a worn down bantam weight ruben olivares???
- arguello even lost to ernesto marcel
dnar ur list is solid except 2 major things, how could u posibly not have armstrong in ur top 10?
and how could u rate salvdiar 4th ??I stated my reasons on Armstrong. I don't think he was at his strongest at 126 and his whirlwind style would be less effective against the best fighters at featherweight than in the higher weight classes. Thus, I don't rank him as a Top 10 featherweight. It's too bad a Miller v. Armstrong fight never took place as they were in the same time. They also both beat and lost to Baby Arizmendi.BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:decagon fenech in top 10??? over terry mcgovern, abe atell, jim driscoll??
- arguello at 5 IMO is too high, who did he beat at featherweight besides a worn down bantam weight ruben olivares???
- arguello even lost to ernesto marcel
dnar ur list is solid except 2 major things, how could u posibly not have armstrong in ur top 10?
As far as Saldivar, it's the quality of his competition. Look at all his title defenses and the non-title wins over Legra and Laguna that comprise who he beat. There are no soft touches there, all solid contenders and champs, and he came back from retirement to beat Legra and Famechon. In fact, from mid-1965 to the end of his career, he fought 12 consecutive opponents who were ranked by the Ring. No tuneups. That's impressive. While he wasn't the most spectacular fighter and probably lower on the list in terms of sheer talent, beating all the fighters he faced in the ring is impressive in total, hence the high ranking.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
Fair enough on Sanchez. As I said, talent wise Saldivar is probably lower but he had more quality wins than Sanchez and he always fought the top guys. If Sanchez had fought and beat Pedroza, there would be no doubts.
I had a question on your list. Seeing Morales and MAB on your list, are you combining jr feather and feather? Because at feather, Erik only had one good fight with Barrera, which was a close loss, and beat Ayala and Chi. He struggled mightily with Guty Espadas, Jr. at 126. He didn't do nearly enough at 126 alone to be 10th on an all-time featherweight list. Barrera has some good wins at 126, but he was also blown out by Pacquaio in his prime. None of the fighters you rank ahead of MAB had such a bad loss at featherweight during their primes. If you add in 122, then these are understandable.
But if you are combining 122 with 126, Wilfredo Gomez deserves to be on the list for his domination at 122.
Also, other than the Attell No-Decision fight, what other impressive performances did Jem Driscoll have? I know you've read about these guys so please talk about any of his other great fights that I haven't read about. One fight alone is not enough to put a guy that high in an all-time ranking IMO.
I had a question on your list. Seeing Morales and MAB on your list, are you combining jr feather and feather? Because at feather, Erik only had one good fight with Barrera, which was a close loss, and beat Ayala and Chi. He struggled mightily with Guty Espadas, Jr. at 126. He didn't do nearly enough at 126 alone to be 10th on an all-time featherweight list. Barrera has some good wins at 126, but he was also blown out by Pacquaio in his prime. None of the fighters you rank ahead of MAB had such a bad loss at featherweight during their primes. If you add in 122, then these are understandable.
But if you are combining 122 with 126, Wilfredo Gomez deserves to be on the list for his domination at 122.
Also, other than the Attell No-Decision fight, what other impressive performances did Jem Driscoll have? I know you've read about these guys so please talk about any of his other great fights that I haven't read about. One fight alone is not enough to put a guy that high in an all-time ranking IMO.
re
>>>McGovern, Attell and Driscol there are too many questions about. I can't rank someone involved in the Black Sox scandal in my top 10, McGovern was more of a bantamweight than a featherweight<<<
Other than Jeff Fenech being so high, I pretty much like your choices, but when it comes to some of the older fighters you have just failed to do the research on those mentioned, which there is a lot of research available on McGovern at
http://www.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/eagle/
check it out, and there is a lot of info to be found for Attell as well and not little articles that were written by people of this generation, but articles and results by the people of their time such as Bob Edgren, but at that time there were a lot of top boxing writers all over the country! McGovern not only cleaned out all of the top bantams, but he also cleaned out all of the top featherweights of his era...and I do mean all which he did in a matter of only two, or three years, not to mention beating the best the lightweight division had to offer!
Attell was crooked as hell and loved to gamble, but when it came to fighting, very few could match him him ability, heart and most important...abilioty to win!
McGoivern is certainly top ten, probably top five in bantam and featherweight division and Attell is top ten in the feathers.
I haven't done enough research on Driscoll as he is an oversea's fighter and there is just not enough sources for me, here in the states, to properly resaearch his career, but some top historians seem to think very highly of him!
Other than Jeff Fenech being so high, I pretty much like your choices, but when it comes to some of the older fighters you have just failed to do the research on those mentioned, which there is a lot of research available on McGovern at
http://www.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/eagle/
check it out, and there is a lot of info to be found for Attell as well and not little articles that were written by people of this generation, but articles and results by the people of their time such as Bob Edgren, but at that time there were a lot of top boxing writers all over the country! McGovern not only cleaned out all of the top bantams, but he also cleaned out all of the top featherweights of his era...and I do mean all which he did in a matter of only two, or three years, not to mention beating the best the lightweight division had to offer!
Attell was crooked as hell and loved to gamble, but when it came to fighting, very few could match him him ability, heart and most important...abilioty to win!
McGoivern is certainly top ten, probably top five in bantam and featherweight division and Attell is top ten in the feathers.
I haven't done enough research on Driscoll as he is an oversea's fighter and there is just not enough sources for me, here in the states, to properly resaearch his career, but some top historians seem to think very highly of him!
-
TerribleTerry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5272
- Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 12:30
Do you know of of have any footage of Terry McGovern?!Decagon wrote:
Basically, I rank fighters based on how much evidence there is that they're good fighters. The footage I've seen of those three fighters simply doesn't compare to the footage I've seen of Arguello and Fenech.
I would dearly love to get hold of any that is available - please let me know..
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
While Fenech didn't fight for long at FW - If one is making a top-20 all time FW based on P4P at that weight I'd say Fenech most certainly is a top-10 (at FW) -
Fenech at his prime at 126lbs was one tough SOB, who would have been very hard for anyone to beat - I'd definitely have him in the top 10 -
Now if one is doing a top-20 FW based off accomplishments at this said weight (alone)...then maybe top-10 is too high perhaps -
Fenech at his prime at 126lbs was one tough SOB, who would have been very hard for anyone to beat - I'd definitely have him in the top 10 -
Now if one is doing a top-20 FW based off accomplishments at this said weight (alone)...then maybe top-10 is too high perhaps -
re
>>>Do you know of of have any footage of Terry McGovern?!<<<
He had one fight filmed for certain, which was the bout with Joe Gans, but I think that he may have had at least one other fight filmed as well. I have his fight with Joe Gans in MPEG file (64.8 MB), which if you watch it yourself, you might have a different view as to the outcome, which was claimed to be a fake on Joe Gans' part, which it may have been, but McGovern sure as hell hit Gans with some very good and hard shots right from the start! I’m thinking about writing a biography on McGovern. Right now I have just been putting together all the material that I can find for him, which I have a pretty good start. I have a ton of newspaper reports; actually I'm only missing a newspaper account for only one, or two of his bouts. I'm missing a recap of his Oct 2, 1897 bout with Jack (Might have been Johnny) Reagan, his Nov 13 bout with Harry Peterson and his Dec. 12, 1899 bout with James J. Corbett, Jr...the rest I have at least one newspaper account for, but I still have many different/various newspapers that I would like to go through, researching and comparing all the data on McGovern that I can find, like the New York Herald, New York Sun, New York Daily People, New York Evening Post, and many more. I’d especially like to follow up on research in the National Police Gazette from late 1900 up until McGovern’s death. If you have anything on McGovern I’d be happy to trade notes and material!
Sadly there have been so many great fighters of the past that have no biographies, or auto biographies covering their lives in and out of the ring. I’m pretty sure that the topic of biographies that we fans would like to see written has already been covered on this forum, but there are many that need to be remembered such as Ad Wolgast, Joe Gans, Ezzard Charles, “Barbados” Joe Walcott and 100s of others who are remembered only in small old magazine articles, or whenever their name gets mentioned on a message board listing a greatest such and such list! There have been quite a few more biographies than usual to come out in the past five years on some fighters that had never been covered before, which is what I love to see…as long as the writer has done some very, very thorough research on the fighter, which unfortunately is not the case sometimes!
He had one fight filmed for certain, which was the bout with Joe Gans, but I think that he may have had at least one other fight filmed as well. I have his fight with Joe Gans in MPEG file (64.8 MB), which if you watch it yourself, you might have a different view as to the outcome, which was claimed to be a fake on Joe Gans' part, which it may have been, but McGovern sure as hell hit Gans with some very good and hard shots right from the start! I’m thinking about writing a biography on McGovern. Right now I have just been putting together all the material that I can find for him, which I have a pretty good start. I have a ton of newspaper reports; actually I'm only missing a newspaper account for only one, or two of his bouts. I'm missing a recap of his Oct 2, 1897 bout with Jack (Might have been Johnny) Reagan, his Nov 13 bout with Harry Peterson and his Dec. 12, 1899 bout with James J. Corbett, Jr...the rest I have at least one newspaper account for, but I still have many different/various newspapers that I would like to go through, researching and comparing all the data on McGovern that I can find, like the New York Herald, New York Sun, New York Daily People, New York Evening Post, and many more. I’d especially like to follow up on research in the National Police Gazette from late 1900 up until McGovern’s death. If you have anything on McGovern I’d be happy to trade notes and material!
Sadly there have been so many great fighters of the past that have no biographies, or auto biographies covering their lives in and out of the ring. I’m pretty sure that the topic of biographies that we fans would like to see written has already been covered on this forum, but there are many that need to be remembered such as Ad Wolgast, Joe Gans, Ezzard Charles, “Barbados” Joe Walcott and 100s of others who are remembered only in small old magazine articles, or whenever their name gets mentioned on a message board listing a greatest such and such list! There have been quite a few more biographies than usual to come out in the past five years on some fighters that had never been covered before, which is what I love to see…as long as the writer has done some very, very thorough research on the fighter, which unfortunately is not the case sometimes!
I couldnt agree with you more decagon. I'd rather give the benefit of the doubt to a fighters like Pep and Arguello, who we have knowledge on how good they were, rather than to someone like Mcgovern and Dixon, who fought so long ago his exploits might have well be make believe. Alot of the footage i see of fighter from that period leaves alot to be desired in the skill department. Someone like Pep would have probably went his entire career without getting a clean punch landed on him if he fought in that era.I've done more research on old fighters than you could imagine. Long ago, I simply decided to rank fighters on how much evidence there is that he's a good fighter. Some people will see a guy write a book, and in it, he ranks the best heavyweights of all time. Guess what? This guy ranks Harry Wills #9. The next time you do a top-30 heavyweight list, you have Wills in at #25. That's the sort of ranking I strive to avoid. In general, I tend to ignore the rankings of people and writers I don't know very well.
Cap Anson and Homerun Baker may have been superstars in thier day,but I wouldnt rate them with Mantle or Aaron on an all-time baseball list.
A biog of Mcgovern would be fascinating, Nat Fliescher wrote a book on him which I haven't been able to get hold of yet... but he was a very interesting character aside from his boxing... George Dixon, Kid Lavgine, Young Griffo, Dixie Kid, Kid Mccoy, Owen Moran and Jim Driscoll would all make great biographies....
re
The book that Fleischer wrote about McGovern is more of a chapbook, or long short story as it is only 64 total pages and to be honest it's certainly not worth the price that you would have to pay to get a copy nowadays unless you just want it for collection purposes. It really doesn't cover a lot about McGovern and I was very much disappointed after reading it as I was hoping for something in words that was worthy of McGovern the fighter!
That era up to the 1920s had what was probably the very best fighters that ever fought under the 135lb limit. A writer of the time stated that it was a time when a very good lightweight could be found on every street corner in every city in the United States and when you look at all the great lighter weight fighters of that time, that quote is not at all far-fetched!
That era up to the 1920s had what was probably the very best fighters that ever fought under the 135lb limit. A writer of the time stated that it was a time when a very good lightweight could be found on every street corner in every city in the United States and when you look at all the great lighter weight fighters of that time, that quote is not at all far-fetched!
Yes there was an awesome amount of great fighters around about at that weight at the time and there must have been at least 5 times as many boxers active in that era I'd say, when you compare the number of fighters of then to now its quite sad really.
Its strange that Fleischer didn't write a more complete biography on Mcgovern... some of his books were on the lean side... I have his biog on Ketchel which some think as his best work and it is good and packs a lot into about 80 pages but, again I wish he'd did about 200 pages on Ketchel. He wrote a full sized biography on Sullivan and thats a really good read and quite insightful into his background etc.
Its strange that Fleischer didn't write a more complete biography on Mcgovern... some of his books were on the lean side... I have his biog on Ketchel which some think as his best work and it is good and packs a lot into about 80 pages but, again I wish he'd did about 200 pages on Ketchel. He wrote a full sized biography on Sullivan and thats a really good read and quite insightful into his background etc.