Top 25 Featherweights of All Time

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You have him listed as an atg. Your stupidity is definitely all time.

[elmersalsa]

You have him listed as an atg. Your stupidity is definitely all time.

And your stupidity is higher than that. Your stupidity is PRICELESS! How about that?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

How about the great Samson dutch boy gym?

[elmersalsa]

The great Eusebio Pedroza of Panama made 20 title defenses. A featherweight division record. Ten of those title defenses were in the opponent's home turf...Amazing!

WBA World Featherweight Champion for 7 years (1978-85). Became lineal featherweight champion after the death of the great Salvador Sanchez in '82.

[Ambling Alp II]

Is Armstrong's resume at featherweight all that impressive?

Not nearly enough to rate him number 2 all time. If he would have retired after his last featherweight fight, he would thought of much lower than #2. Almost all of his big wins came at light weight and welterweight.
He is not close to Saddler and Sanchez who should be #2 and #3.

It also makes no sense to make such a big deal about a guy having a lot of title defenses (John, Pedroza, etc.) and then rank someone who had zero title defenses #2.

We need to get away from emphasizing quantity over quality. It's hard to beat one great fighter than 10 good ones.

Barrera, (who btw had more than 6 wins at featherweight) should be higher than Hamed.
He beat Hamed convincingly head to head. (enough with the weight drained crap).
Barrera also beat Morales at fw. Hamed doesn't have anything close to this.

Neither he nor John belong in the top 25.
The mathematical formula for factoring in title defenses is this: Take the number of title defenses and multiply it by zero. That is how important it is. It is who you beat that counts, not how many no hopers you beat.
Chalky Wright doesn't belong in the top 25 either. There is no case for him whatsoever.

[Jpreisser]

Is Armstrong's resume at featherweight all that impressive?

Not nearly enough to rate him number 2 all time. If he would have retired after his last featherweight fight, he would thought of much lower than #2. Almost all of his big wins came at light weight and welterweight.
He is not close to Saddler and Sanchez who should be #2 and #3.

It also makes no sense to make such a big deal about a guy having a lot of title defenses (John, Pedroza, etc.) and then rank someone who had zero title defenses #2.

We need to get away from emphasizing quantity over quality. It's hard to beat one great fighter than 10 good ones.

Barrera, (who btw had more than 6 wins at featherweight) should be higher than Hamed.
He beat Hamed convincingly head to head. (enough with the weight drained crap).
Barrera also beat Morales at fw. Hamed doesn't have anything close to this.

Neither he nor John belong in the top 25.
The mathematical formula for factoring in title defenses is this: Take the number of title defenses and multiply it by zero. That is how important it is. It is who you beat that counts, not how many no hopers you beat.
Chalky Wright doesn't belong in the top 25 either. There is no case for him whatsoever.

This is why I asked. Armstrong, especially head-to-head, is rated very highly at featherweight, and maybe rightfully so. However most, and I think rightfully so, put quality of resume above hypothetical contests which can't really be proven. When you take a close look at Henry Armstrong's work below lightweight, not much jumps out. Wins over Sarron, Arizmendi, Zurita, Casanova and Wolgast are solid overall, but it can't be ignored that he had a fair bit of inconsistency.

[elmersalsa]

To those that are not convinced that The great Henry Armstrong shouldn't be ranked at #2 at featherweight all time:

Was 59-9-3 with 38 knockouts
Was Western, California and World Featherweight Champion. Meaning, he was champion at all levels of competition.
Had consistency in unbeaten streaks of 15, 16 and 10. From 1937 to 1938, won all his 16 featherweight fights.
Beat 4 hall of famers at featherweight: Petey Sarron (WKO6), Baby Arizmendi (W10) (3rd fight), Chalky Wright (WKO3), and Midget Wolgast (W10).
Beat 5 world champions at featherweight.
Also beat: W10 Mike Belloise, WKO10 Tony Chavez (II), WKO3 Rodolfo " Baby" Casanova (II), WKO4 Juan Zurita, and beat Perfecto Lopez 4 times.

Result: Clearly a #2 featherweight ever. His accomplishments at featherweight were outstanding

[elmersalsa]

Is Armstrong's resume at featherweight all that impressive?

Not nearly enough to rate him number 2 all time. If he would have retired after his last featherweight fight, he would thought of much lower than #2. Almost all of his big wins came at light weight and welterweight.
He is not close to Saddler and Sanchez who should be #2 and #3.

It also makes no sense to make such a big deal about a guy having a lot of title defenses (John, Pedroza, etc.) and then rank someone who had zero title defenses #2.

We need to get away from emphasizing quantity over quality. It's hard to beat one great fighter than 10 good ones.

Barrera, (who btw had more than 6 wins at featherweight) should be higher than Hamed.
He beat Hamed convincingly head to head. (enough with the weight drained crap).
Barrera also beat Morales at fw. Hamed doesn't have anything close to this.

Neither he nor John belong in the top 25.
The mathematical formula for factoring in title defenses is this: Take the number of title defenses and multiply it by zero. That is how important it is. It is who you beat that counts, not how many no hopers you beat.
Chalky Wright doesn't belong in the top 25 either. There is no case for him whatsoever.

Henry Armstrong had more credentials than the greats Salvador Sanchez and Sandy Saddler. Beat more quality and quantity of opponents at featherweight alone.

It's not only about who you beat. We gotta see the whole overall picture. Greatness comes in degrees. We cannot penalized guys like Chris John. He is a linear champion. He made 18 title mandatory defenses. He could only fight what was given to him. John also beat the great Juan Manuel Marquez. That means that the guy was good at featherweight.
If I got a knock against John, he should've fight outside of the Far East more often, but, he didn't. That is why he's not a top 20 featherweight. Plus, at 126lbs, he got an outstanding record.

Making title defenses IS A BIG DEAL. To get up and train to defend your title on the line many times is an accomplishment of itself. Did he stayed too long at the weight class? That is his problem. But what he did inside his class is what counts. At featherweight, the guy at least was very good if not great.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Fight who was given to him? So the division was weak? Lol

[elmersalsa]

Barrera and Morales should be in there higher than Naz

The great Marco Antonio Barrera was a great super bantamweight champion, but not enough fights at 126lbs.

In the other hand, Prince Naseem Hamed had more fights at 126lbs than Barrera and Erik Morales combined.

[elmersalsa]

Fight who was given to him? So the division was weak? Lol

It doesn't matter if the division was strong or weak. He had to defend the title according to the mandatory challengers given by the WBA. And he did it well.

[elmersalsa]

Barrera and Morales should be in there higher than Naz

Why would Barrera be above him? Including his Pacquiao stoppage loss and controversial points win over Morales he had 6 fights at featherweight in his entire career. Hamed was unified champion with 17 fights all at world level. Barrera might have beat him but he was past his prime by that stage and retired the following year.

Barrera might be higher on the all time P4P list and a better all round fighter but his accomplishments at featherweight don't exceed those of Hamed.

I agree with you in almost that you have said. MAB only had 6 fights at featherweight. Not enough fights to qualify him a top 25 great all time featherweight

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Fight who was given to him? So the division was weak? Lol

It doesn't matter if the division was strong or weak. He had to defend the title according to the mandatory challengers given by the WBA. And he did it well.

[elmersalsa]

So far, some great and distracting reviews have we made in the past months. Especially, when we discussed the top 25 welterweight greats. We have discussed about the top 25 all time great middleweights, super welterweights, welterweights, Jr.welterweights and lightweights. I skipped the Jr. lightweights this time to discuss one of the most entertaining weight classes in boxing history...The featherweights!

Lots of all time pound per pound greats have come from this weight class through the years. Names like Willie Pep, Henry Armstrong, Alexis Arguello, Kid Chocolate, Vicente Saldivar, Salvador Sanchez and Sandy Saddler among them gave the sport some colorful careers. Who is the greatest featherweight ever? Let's look at the list below. Let's debate with class and respect to one another, please. Every body does not have the same mentality. Greatness comes in degrees. Of the 100 greatest boxers of all time, 17 of them in my view of my list are featherweight boxers...Amazing. Is there another weight class that has more all time greats than the featherweight class? It's hard to tell.

These in my view are the top 25 greatest featherweight boxers of all time:
1. Willie Pep
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Sandy Saddler
4. Kid Chocolate
5. Salvador Sanchez
6. Abe Attell
7. Freddie Miller
8. Eusebio Pedroza
9. Vicente Saldivar
10. Alexis Arguello
11. Azumah Nelson
12. Batting Battalino
13. Terry McGovern
14. George Dixon
15. Johnny Dundee
16. Juan Manuel Marquez
17. Johnny Kilbane
18. Jim Driscoll
19. Baby Arizmendi
20. Chalky Wright
21. Young Corbett II
22. Fidel LaBarba
23. Chris John
24. Ernesto Marcel
25. Naseem Hamed

Honorary mention:
Danny Lopez
Marco Antonio Barrera
Erik Morales
Ruben Olivares
Petey Sarron

Let's start the debate.

This is not a good list at all, you really shouldn't fo a division list unless you know who ALL the great fighters were at a weight. Not only is the great Young Griffo not in the top 10, he isn't even on the list at all not only that but he doesn't even get an honourable mention. Griffo is easily one of the 5 best Featherweights to ever live and was probably even harder to hit than Willie Pep was and quicker as well, in fact his record stacks up as probably better than Pep's as he beat more ATG's,.... it was 168 fights before he was judged as loser and that fight was the biggest sham decision in boxing history, everyone knows that Griffo beat Jack McAuliffe that day, in fact he wiped the floor with him. He also easily beat George Kid Lavigne, George Dixon, Torpedo Billy Murphy, Joe Gans. In fact it was Griffo who first made the Featherweight division a legitimate weight division, He was the world champion and never lost that title inside the ring, He was the first GREAT featherweight, period and it was from fighting him that the Great George Dixon and Great Joe Gans really learned the art of boxing, by being taught lessons from a master.

Sorry, I have seen Young Griffo's record at featherweight. Not that impressive in my whole estimation. The fights with George Dixon and Joe Gans were outside the featherweight class.

All he did at featherweight was beating Torpedo Billy Murphy

[Ambling Alp II]

So far, some great and distracting reviews have we made in the past months. Especially, when we discussed the top 25 welterweight greats. We have discussed about the top 25 all time great middleweights, super welterweights, welterweights, Jr.welterweights and lightweights. I skipped the Jr. lightweights this time to discuss one of the most entertaining weight classes in boxing history...The featherweights!

Lots of all time pound per pound greats have come from this weight class through the years. Names like Willie Pep, Henry Armstrong, Alexis Arguello, Kid Chocolate, Vicente Saldivar, Salvador Sanchez and Sandy Saddler among them gave the sport some colorful careers. Who is the greatest featherweight ever? Let's look at the list below. Let's debate with class and respect to one another, please. Every body does not have the same mentality. Greatness comes in degrees. Of the 100 greatest boxers of all time, 17 of them in my view of my list are featherweight boxers...Amazing. Is there another weight class that has more all time greats than the featherweight class? It's hard to tell.

These in my view are the top 25 greatest featherweight boxers of all time:
1. Willie Pep
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Sandy Saddler
4. Kid Chocolate
5. Salvador Sanchez
6. Abe Attell
7. Freddie Miller
8. Eusebio Pedroza
9. Vicente Saldivar
10. Alexis Arguello
11. Azumah Nelson
12. Batting Battalino
13. Terry McGovern
14. George Dixon
15. Johnny Dundee
16. Juan Manuel Marquez
17. Johnny Kilbane
18. Jim Driscoll
19. Baby Arizmendi
20. Chalky Wright
21. Young Corbett II
22. Fidel LaBarba
23. Chris John
24. Ernesto Marcel
25. Naseem Hamed

Honorary mention:
Danny Lopez
Marco Antonio Barrera
Erik Morales
Ruben Olivares
Petey Sarron

Let's start the debate.

This is not a good list at all, you really shouldn't fo a division list unless you know who ALL the great fighters were at a weight. Not only is the great Young Griffo not in the top 10, he isn't even on the list at all not only that but he doesn't even get an honourable mention. Griffo is easily one of the 5 best Featherweights to ever live and was probably even harder to hit than Willie Pep was and quicker as well, in fact his record stacks up as probably better than Pep's as he beat more ATG's,.... it was 168 fights before he was judged as loser and that fight was the biggest sham decision in boxing history, everyone knows that Griffo beat Jack McAuliffe that day, in fact he wiped the floor with him. He also easily beat George Kid Lavigne, George Dixon, Torpedo Billy Murphy, Joe Gans. In fact it was Griffo who first made the Featherweight division a legitimate weight division, He was the world champion and never lost that title inside the ring, He was the first GREAT featherweight, period and it was from fighting him that the Great George Dixon and Great Joe Gans really learned the art of boxing, by being taught lessons from a master.

Agreed it 's not a good list. At least as far as being the best featherweights. It has more to do with perfonal likes than how good the fighters are.

We keep hearing how title defenses are so important. (Doesn't seem to matter to some the quality of the competition.)
Yet the #2 featherweight has zero title defenses.
So now it's because Armstrong had four wins against HOFers at featherweight- Arizmendi, Wolgast, Wright, and Sarron. Well first of all Sarron is not a Hall of Famer. 2nd, Wright is possibly the worst fighter in the HOF.
Salvador Sanchez has just many wins over HOFers at featherweight.

Why is Wright on this list? No big wins and tons of losses.
Griffo should be on this list. Barrera should as well. Probably Sugar Ramos.
Hamed and John should not be on this lsit. Wright being in is a joke.

However, it's not like logic and objectivity has anything to do with the making of this list.

[campfire]

Eusebio Pedroza was a great fighter but was no-way in hell was he better then Nelson,Chris John was one of the most protected fighter's
i'v seen in the last ten year's when Marquez was in his 4th Superfight with Pacman Chris John was defending his title on a Danny Green undercard.

[elmersalsa]

When someone says that Petey Sarron is not a hall of fame and that. Chalky Wright should not be in this list that comes to show in my view the the person doesn't know what he's talking about.

[elmersalsa]

Eusebio Pedroza was a great fighter but was no-way in hell was he better then Nelson,Chris John was one of the most protected fighter's
i'v seen in the last ten year's when Marquez was in his 4th Superfight with Pacman Chris John was defending his title on a Danny Green undercard.

The great Eusebio Pedroza may not be better than The Professor pound per pound, we could agree on that, but, Pedroza at featherweight was the better fighter. More title defenses, more time at the top as champion and was a better complete boxer.

How could Chris John is a protected champion? With 18 title defenses? I don't get it.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Eusebio Pedroza was a great fighter but was no-way in hell was he better then Nelson,Chris John was one of the most protected fighter's
i'v seen in the last ten year's when Marquez was in his 4th Superfight with Pacman Chris John was defending his title on a Danny Green undercard.

I don't get it.

That's for sure.

[Ambling Alp II]

I did not realize that Petey Sarron just got elected. I guess that makes Armstrong a better featherweight than he was a year ago.

[campfire]

Eusebio Pedroza was a great fighter but was no-way in hell was he better then Nelson,Chris John was one of the most protected fighter's
i'v seen in the last ten year's when Marquez was in his 4th Superfight with Pacman Chris John was defending his title on a Danny Green undercard.

The great Eusebio Pedroza may not be better than The Professor pound per pound, we could agree on that, but, Pedroza at featherweight was the better fighter. More title defenses, more time at the top as champion and was a better complete boxer.

How could Chris John is a protected champion? With 18 title defenses? I don't get it.

Most of Nelson fight's were at Featherweight he had about 28 fight's at that weight when he defeated Wilfredo Gomez he was 19-1 at the weight he made 6 defence's of the Featherweight title but most of his World title fight's were at the higher weight of Super Feather but in my opinion he was a monster at Featherweight what did he have 14/15 fight's when he gave the Great Salvador Sanchez the fight of his life I'd like to see Eusebio try that with just 14/15 fight's under his belt he wouldn't have lasted anywhere near 15 round's even though Eusebio made more world title defence's at Featherweight than Azumah who out of Eusebio victim's would Azumah had trouble with I know why they fought Mc Guigan instead of Azumah...................Anyway Pedroza wouldn't beat Nelson at Featherweight or any-other weight for that matter
And poor Chris John will find out one day what was done to him by his management all he has to do is look at where Marquez was around the same time he was fighting for peanut's on a Danny Green undercard i'll remind you Juan Manual was involved in a Superfight with Pacman
yes he was protected thank you.

[elmersalsa]

Eusebio Pedroza was a great fighter but was no-way in hell was he better then Nelson,Chris John was one of the most protected fighter's
i'v seen in the last ten year's when Marquez was in his 4th Superfight with Pacman Chris John was defending his title on a Danny Green undercard.

The great Eusebio Pedroza may not be better than The Professor pound per pound, we could agree on that, but, Pedroza at featherweight was the better fighter. More title defenses, more time at the top as champion and was a better complete boxer.

How could Chris John is a protected champion? With 18 title defenses? I don't get it.

Most of Nelson fight's were at Featherweight he had about 28 fight's at that weight when he defeated Wilfredo Gomez he was 19-1 at the weight he made 6 defence's of the Featherweight title but most of his World title fight's were at the higher weight of Super Feather but in my opinion he was a monster at Featherweight what did he have 14/15 fight's when he gave the Great Salvador Sanchez the fight of his life I'd like to see Eusebio try that with just 14/15 fight's under his belt he wouldn't have lasted anywhere near 15 round's even though Eusebio made more world title defence's at Featherweight than Azumah who out of Eusebio victim's would Azumah had trouble with I know why they fought Mc Guigan instead of Azumah...................Anyway Pedroza wouldn't beat Nelson at Featherweight or any-other weight for that matter
And poor Chris John will find out one day what was done to him by his management all he has to do is look at where Marquez was around the same time he was fighting for peanut's on a Danny Green undercard i'll remind you Juan Manual was involved in a Superfight with Pacman
yes he was protected thank you.

I don't se how does a champion that beat the great Juan Manuel Marquez is considered "protected" in your view. If the weight class was not as good as the champion, it's not Chris John's problem. He can't go to the 1970s and fight those guys. He can only fight what's in front of him. It's not that I am saying that he belongs in the top 20 or top 10. He is at position #22. What he should've done to enhance his featherweight ranking? Maybe unify the crowns earlier and win in spectacular fashion. He didn't do that. He needed to fight much more like the greats Willie Pep or Henry Armstrong. But, he probably felt comfortable not leaving Indonesia and maybe by not risking unification matches. But, 18 title defenses is impressive no matter how we look at it.

Pedroza vs Nelson would've been a great fight. Who would have won? It's up to every one else point of view. In my view, I would have picked Pedroza. A masterful champion in my view, but, by many, he was considered a dirty fighter. My question is, why not the Salvador Sanchez, the Wilfredo Gomez, the Azumah Nelsons wanted an unification match with him? Pedroza called them out many times. They preferred to look the other way.

[campfire]

If you believe John wasn't protected you don't know what your talking about after he beat Marquez a fight that should have launched his career 10 fold but his management had other idea's they did a good job keeping their main man or their meal ticket away from the Bob Arums of this world a promoter who could have made John a very rich man in his native Indonesia after the biggest win of his career or for that matter the biggest win for a Indonesian boxer in the history of the game John next 4 defence's were against fighter's that i'v never really heard much about safe fight's is what I call them, Renan Acosta 18-4/ Jose Rojas 24-5-1/ Zaiki Takemoto 21-6-1/Roinet Caballero 22-7-1 you getting the picture yet and don't bring up Rocky Juarez either because after his 2nd fight with John he lost his next 5 fight's on the trot John
was a very protected fighter if I ever seen one.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Talking to elmer is like trying to build a campfire in a pond. Do yourself a favor and move on. The great Chris John tackled all obstacles!

[campfire]

Talking to elmer is like trying to build a campfire in a pond. Do yourself a favor and move on. The great Chris John tackled all obstacles!

Your right you seem to do this a lot when ya disagree with the dude