Light as A Feather

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 31 Oct 2006, 14:48

In the interest of starting some good debates (which we haven't had much of lately), I rated my Top 50 Featherweights of All Time

1. Willie Pep
2. Sandy Saddler
3. Salvador Sanchez
4. Vincente Saldivar
5. Johnny Kilbane
6. Abe Attell
7. Terry McGovern
8. George Dixon
9. Eusebio Pedroza
10. Sugar Ramos
11. Eder Jofre
12. Baby Arizmendi
13. Tony Canzoneri
14. Henry Armstrong
15. Bat Battalino
16. Freddie Miller
17. Alexis Arguello
18. Marco Antonio Barrera
19. Erik Morales
20. Ernesto Marcel
21. Kuniaki Shibata
22. Young Griffo
23. Young Corbett II
24. Barry McGuigan
25. Azumah Nelson
26. Jim Driscoll
27. Johnny Dundee
28. Davey Moore
29. Hogan Kid Bassey
30. Kid Chocolate
31. Ray Famechon
32. Jose Legra
33. Howard Winstone
34. Danny Lopez
35. Haseem Hamed
36. Juan La Porte
37. Louis Kid Kaplan
38. Chalky Wright
39. Eugene Crique
40. Freddie Norwood
41. Juan Manuel Marquez
42. Derrick Gainer
43. Bobby Chacon
44. Petey Sarron
45. Tom Watson
46. Tommy Paul
47. Fidel La Barba
48. Antonio Esparragoza
49. Franke Erne
50. Sal Bartolo

There were quite a few close calls. Often there was very little difference between one fighter and the guys 5 spots ahead of him and 5 spots behind him. One thing that makes it difficult to rate fighters at lower weights is that so many of them fight in several different weight classes. I decided that a fighter had to fight at least 5 fights at this weight class to be eligible (sorry Manny P). A fighter who fought many fights at this weight gets the benefit of the doubt when compared to fighters who didn't have a lot of fights at this weight.

Who do you guys think is rated way too high, or way too low? Who isn't on the list at all that should be? If you do name someone that isn't on the list, mention who on the list they should replace.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 01 Nov 2006, 05:44

I'd have to check records but my first-glance opinions are that Azumah Nelson is way, way too low.

Arguello also seems too low.

There aren't many people who rate Canzoneri at Feather but his inclusion is fair enough.

Armstrong is a difficult one to rate. He didn't stay for too long at this weight but I wouldn't pick many to beat him at 126 either.

SticknMove · Post by **SticknMove** » 01 Nov 2006, 07:41

Always difficult in compiling these lists. But have to agree about Arguello.

Also, as much as it pains me to say this, Naseem Hamed is in no way below Barry McGuigan on the FW list.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 01 Nov 2006, 18:32

I strongly disagree about Saldivar. He had a very impressive career. He beat Ramos, who was better than any featherweight that Armstrong beat. He also beat Winstone three times, Jose Legra, who were better than anyone that Armstrong beat except for Arizmendi (who beat Armstrong twice).
Saldivar also beat Laguna when Laguna was still a featherweight. He also had some nice wins over Rojas, Seki, and Johnny Famechon.

Armstrong had several losses and some draws at this weight. This wasn't his best weight.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 01 Nov 2006, 18:47

Thought I would respond to some of the comments:

Dixon wasn't a featherweight? Well, yes he was for a significant amount of his career. He was the featherweight champion and beat several good featherweights.

Nelson should be much higher ( I had him at #25) Besides the win over Gomez,most of his big wins were at Super feather and above, but he was a great featherweight and could be higher.

Arguello should be higher - (I had him at #17) Like Nelson, most of his big wins were at higher weight classes, though he did beat Olivares at this weight. Still, he was a great featherweight and could rated a little higher. (When I rated the lightweights, some thought I had Arguello too high :) )

Hamed should be rated higher - (I had him at # 35) He was hard to rate. I guess I just wasn't too impressed by his competition. By far his toughest opponent was Barrera and he lost convincingly. He was also hard to rate because he had such an odd style. He sure could pack a punch.

McGuigan is too high (I had him at #24) Maybe I gave him too much credit for beating La Porte and an aging Pedroza. Still, he can't be that much lower than # 24.

Should Canzoneri be considered a featherweight? Well this isn't the weight that most of think of him at, yet he did well at this weight as well. He He did beat Dundee, Routis and Bass.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 02 Nov 2006, 05:24

Decagon wrote:
Ezzard wrote:Armstrong is a difficult one to rate. He didn't stay for too long at this weight but I wouldn't pick many to beat him at 126 either.
Armstrong was at featherweight for seven years and 107 fights. There, he beat fighters such as Baby Armizedi, Alton Black, Midget Wolgast, Mike Beliose, Baby Casanova, Chalkey Wright and Petey Sarron. Ignoring that Armstrong is easily one of the five greatest fighters who ever lived, how is Saldivar's resume alone as good as Armstrong's at 126? He had 1/2 or 1/3 as many fights as Armstrong did at 126, and at best beat around as good opposition. Sadlivar over Armstrong is simply wrong, no matter how you look at it, but 10 spots?

I had to check the record and look at the names a bit mroe and he does have more good wins in that wera than I realised. I always think of Arizmendi as a lighter figher (Bantam) and have undervalued Armstrong at this weight.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 02 Nov 2006, 05:26

Alp is pretty strict about confining ratings to the exact weight range but how does this work? I mean if a fighter weighs in at 128 does it count? Barry once said that he only really rates the classic 8 divisions and puts Wilfedo Gomez's career in with the FWs (sorry if I'm misquoting you here, Barry).

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 02 Nov 2006, 08:03

Decagon wrote:That's a pretty stupid criterion, if he does that. The 1930s were a totally different era from the 1970s, where a fighter could make a reasonable living fighting four or five times per year at 126, every bout being a title bout. I can't think of many pre-World War II fighter not in light heavyweight or heavyweight who didn't go above the scales now and then. Further, the rankings of the day included over-the-limit contests. For instance, after beating Charley Burley, Ezzard Charles was ranked #1 at middleweight, even though he was slightly above 160 for that fight.

IMO even small weight differentials do make a difference but at the same time comparing Gomez (for example) to other guys at JrFW is not that inspiring. The list of great FWs is much longer and how Gomez might have matched up against them had he gone to 126 during his prime years is a bit more interesting.

barry · Post by **barry** » 02 Nov 2006, 08:18

I wouldn't list Derrick Gainer in any list, unless it was an over-rated list, which he is not mentioned much, but even a little bit of praise toward him is pretty over-rated!

barry · Post by **barry** » 02 Nov 2006, 08:23

>>>I mean if a fighter weighs in at 128 does it count? Barry once said that he only really rates the classic 8 divisions and puts Wilfedo Gomez's career in with the FWs (sorry if I'm misquoting you here, Barry).<<<

Ezz---Actually, I do not limit a fighter to one class. Henry Armstrong, for instance, I rate him at 126, 135 and 147. Though I probably did say that, which if I did I really meant that if I were to limit a fighter to one class then I would have Gomez at 126, which I do rate him at that as I do not recognize, or rate the jr. divisions at all. Just the traditional eight, but I do not limit the fighters to only one division...another quick example would be bob Fitzsimmons, I rate him in my top twenty at Heavyweight, 175 and 160.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 02 Nov 2006, 09:44

barry wrote:>>>I mean if a fighter weighs in at 128 does it count? Barry once said that he only really rates the classic 8 divisions and puts Wilfedo Gomez's career in with the FWs (sorry if I'm misquoting you here, Barry).<<<

Ezz---Actually, I do not limit a fighter to one class. Henry Armstrong, for instance, I rate him at 126, 135 and 147. Though I probably did say that, which if I did I really meant that if I were to limit a fighter to one class then I would have Gomez at 126, which I do rate him at that as I do not recognize, or rate the jr. divisions at all. Just the traditional eight, but I do not limit the fighters to only one division...another quick example would be bob Fitzsimmons, I rate him in my top twenty at Heavyweight, 175 and 160.

Sorry, I was not getting at ranking guys in more than one division. I just remembered you saying something like you only rank the original 8 classes and think of Gomez (just an example) at 126.

barry · Post by **barry** » 02 Nov 2006, 11:24

No problem! Though I suppose it could just about be argued that Gomez be rated at 118 instead of 126, or at both, but being that he was over bantamweight at 122 during most of his career I just chose to go the next weight up instead of down, though either 118, or 126 could be used, which Gomez would rate higher at 118 than at 126 in my opinion...perhaps the fairest would be to rate him at both, even though a small number of his fights were under 122.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 02 Nov 2006, 12:10

How can Armstrong be rated at 14???... how many Feathers did what Hammering Henry did??... he was never much more than a blown up feather and his manager used to get him to drink quarts of beer in order to get his weight up... Armstrong should be at least in the top 3 at faether and personally I'd rate him number one... he was a natural feather who took the 135, and 147 crowns as well (and the 160 but for a crooked ref) nuff said I think!... no other featherweight in history comes close to equaling that....

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 02 Nov 2006, 19:06

Decagon wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:I strongly disagree about Saldivar. He had a very impressive career. He beat Ramos, who was better than any featherweight that Armstrong beat. He also beat Winstone three times, Jose Legra, who were better than anyone that Armstrong beat except for Arizmendi (who beat Armstrong twice).
Saldivar also beat Laguna when Laguna was still a featherweight. He also had some nice wins over Rojas, Seki, and Johnny Famechon.

Armstrong had several losses and some draws at this weight. This wasn't his best weight.
Armstrong had most of his losses and draws early on. Just looking at 1936 to 1938 with Armstrong hitting his stride as a featherweight, how can you argue that any featherweight other than Pep and Saddler was better? Do you even realize how strong that era was? There's plenty of footage of that era, perhaps on Youtube. You really, really need to check it out.

Also, why don't you look up what the featherweight limit was when Dixon fought. He was a featherweight in name only, and his true legacy is as a 118-pound champion.

How can I argue that anyone but Pep or Saddler was better?
Well, look at Armstrong's record at featherweight. You don't want to count some of early losses, fine. However, from 1936, Armstrong lost to Ritchie Fontaine and Joe Conde, neither were contenders. His losses to Arizmendi in 1934 and 1935 have to count as well. The first loss to Arizmendi was his 39th fight; he wasn't some green prospect. He also lost by DQ to Baby Casanova.

Obviously Armstrong had some nice wins at featherweight, but was clearly not as good as Saldivar at this weight. Yes of course I have seen Armstrong on tape. Have you seen Saldivar? There are a handful of other featherweights who were better than Armstrong. And no, I'm not going to count any of Armstrong's wins at lightweight or welterweight when rating him as a featherweight.

As for Dixon,he certainly had some fights against genuine featherweights. He also had some featherweights who wouldn't be considered featherweights by today's weight standards.
Unfortunately, there wasn't a set weight limit for featherweights during Dixon's career. We really don't know what he or his opponent weighed for
many of his fights. He also have several hundred fights that are unrecorded. How many of these were at featherweight is anyone's guess. If someone chooses not include Dixon in featherweight ratings, that is fine. It's not easy to know where to put him.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 02 Nov 2006, 19:45

Ambling Alp wrote:
Decagon wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:I strongly disagree about Saldivar. He had a very impressive career. He beat Ramos, who was better than any featherweight that Armstrong beat. He also beat Winstone three times, Jose Legra, who were better than anyone that Armstrong beat except for Arizmendi (who beat Armstrong twice).
Saldivar also beat Laguna when Laguna was still a featherweight. He also had some nice wins over Rojas, Seki, and Johnny Famechon.

Armstrong had several losses and some draws at this weight. This wasn't his best weight.
Armstrong had most of his losses and draws early on. Just looking at 1936 to 1938 with Armstrong hitting his stride as a featherweight, how can you argue that any featherweight other than Pep and Saddler was better? Do you even realize how strong that era was? There's plenty of footage of that era, perhaps on Youtube. You really, really need to check it out.

Also, why don't you look up what the featherweight limit was when Dixon fought. He was a featherweight in name only, and his true legacy is as a 118-pound champion.
How can I argue that anyone but Pep or Saddler was better?
Well, look at Armstrong's record at featherweight. You don't want to count some of early losses, fine. However, from 1936, Armstrong lost to Ritchie Fontaine and Joe Conde, neither were contenders. His losses to Arizmendi in 1934 and 1935 have to count as well. The first loss to Arizmendi was his 39th fight; he wasn't some green prospect. He also lost by DQ to Baby Casanova.

Obviously Armstrong had some nice wins at featherweight, but was clearly not as good as Saldivar at this weight. Yes of course I have seen Armstrong on tape. Have you seen Saldivar? There are a handful of other featherweights who were better than Armstrong. And no, I'm not going to count any of Armstrong's wins at lightweight or welterweight when rating him as a featherweight.

As for Dixon,he certainly had some fights against genuine featherweights. He also had some featherweights who wouldn't be considered featherweights by today's weight standards.
Unfortunately, there wasn't a set weight limit for featherweights during Dixon's career. We really don't know what he or his opponent weighed for
many of his fights. He also have several hundred fights that are unrecorded. How many of these were at featherweight is anyone's guess. If someone chooses not include Dixon in featherweight ratings, that is fine. It's not easy to know where to put him.

Well each to his own but your argument is absurd... 8)

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 02 Nov 2006, 19:51

Kid Gavilan would beat that whole list.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 02 Nov 2006, 23:10

silkov wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:
Decagon wrote:Armstrong had most of his losses and draws early on. Just looking at 1936 to 1938 with Armstrong hitting his stride as a featherweight, how can you argue that any featherweight other than Pep and Saddler was better? Do you even realize how strong that era was? There's plenty of footage of that era, perhaps on Youtube. You really, really need to check it out.

Also, why don't you look up what the featherweight limit was when Dixon fought. He was a featherweight in name only, and his true legacy is as a 118-pound champion.
How can I argue that anyone but Pep or Saddler was better?
Well, look at Armstrong's record at featherweight. You don't want to count some of early losses, fine. However, from 1936, Armstrong lost to Ritchie Fontaine and Joe Conde, neither were contenders. His losses to Arizmendi in 1934 and 1935 have to count as well. The first loss to Arizmendi was his 39th fight; he wasn't some green prospect. He also lost by DQ to Baby Casanova.

Obviously Armstrong had some nice wins at featherweight, but was clearly not as good as Saldivar at this weight. Yes of course I have seen Armstrong on tape. Have you seen Saldivar? There are a handful of other featherweights who were better than Armstrong. And no, I'm not going to count any of Armstrong's wins at lightweight or welterweight when rating him as a featherweight.

As for Dixon,he certainly had some fights against genuine featherweights. He also had some featherweights who wouldn't be considered featherweights by today's weight standards.
Unfortunately, there wasn't a set weight limit for featherweights during Dixon's career. We really don't know what he or his opponent weighed for
many of his fights. He also have several hundred fights that are unrecorded. How many of these were at featherweight is anyone's guess. If someone chooses not include Dixon in featherweight ratings, that is fine. It's not easy to know where to put him.
Well each to his own but your argument is absurd... 8)

Yet you don't say why.
It's absurd to think that Armstrong was the best featherweight of all time when he lost to 4 different guys in his prime, two of whom weren't even contenders.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 02 Nov 2006, 23:49

Armstrong had several losses and some draws at this weight. This wasn't his best weight.

strongly disagree. featherweight was clearly armstrongs best weight. armstrong never weighed more than 130lb naturally. he had a featherweights body. armstrong was one of the greatest featherweights of all time. have u seen him on film at 126lb?? he looks incredible. he also had incredible power at 126lb........only guy to EVER knockout pete sarron.

armstrong top 4 featherweight of all time EASY

chance · Post by **chance** » 03 Nov 2006, 03:47

pretty good list. I think You could make a good argument that Kid chocolate should be ranked at least in the top 20, 30's a bit low I'd probably put him closer to the top ten, but thats just cause I'm a fan. I think you could also move armstrong into the top ten. Arguello could be a little higher, but I'm probably just splitting hairs with that one. Out of curiosity how did you do your research.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 03 Nov 2006, 07:22

Ambling Alp wrote:
silkov wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote: How can I argue that anyone but Pep or Saddler was better?
Well, look at Armstrong's record at featherweight. You don't want to count some of early losses, fine. However, from 1936, Armstrong lost to Ritchie Fontaine and Joe Conde, neither were contenders. His losses to Arizmendi in 1934 and 1935 have to count as well. The first loss to Arizmendi was his 39th fight; he wasn't some green prospect. He also lost by DQ to Baby Casanova.

Obviously Armstrong had some nice wins at featherweight, but was clearly not as good as Saldivar at this weight. Yes of course I have seen Armstrong on tape. Have you seen Saldivar? There are a handful of other featherweights who were better than Armstrong. And no, I'm not going to count any of Armstrong's wins at lightweight or welterweight when rating him as a featherweight.

As for Dixon,he certainly had some fights against genuine featherweights. He also had some featherweights who wouldn't be considered featherweights by today's weight standards.
Unfortunately, there wasn't a set weight limit for featherweights during Dixon's career. We really don't know what he or his opponent weighed for
many of his fights. He also have several hundred fights that are unrecorded. How many of these were at featherweight is anyone's guess. If someone chooses not include Dixon in featherweight ratings, that is fine. It's not easy to know where to put him.
Well each to his own but your argument is absurd... 8)
Yet you don't say why.
It's absurd to think that Armstrong was the best featherweight of all time when he lost to 4 different guys in his prime, two of whom weren't even contenders.

So Armstrong was just an average featherweight who managed to beat Lightweights, Welterweights and Middleweights was he???....... surely you know that fighters of Armstrongs era cant be judged on the defeats they pick up here and there when they are fighting so often and in Armstrongs case improving as their careers progress... to hold those two defeats against him is absurd, they could be just off nights he had... how about looking at the ko streak he went on after that and '36 was not his prime either, he hit his prime in '37. I agree that Pep was a phenominal boxer in his own right and his unbeaten streak is impressive but he never picked up anyother world titles like Armstrong did and the fact is that Armstrong was a natural feather when he was beating Welterweights etc... something that Pep never came close to doing. Armstrong should definately be in the feather top 3 imo, and though I wouldnt say its outrageous to put Pep a bit above him because of his pure 126 record, to put Armstrong down at 14 is a grave miscalculation imo and the closest thing to sacrilege that I've seen in a long time... certainly during this year... and thats saying something!!!.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 03 Nov 2006, 07:31

Must say I'm glad to see you rate Sanchez so highly, but some of your other rankings are rather debateable, ...for instance much as I liked Barry Mcguigan I think he's ranked far too high, how can you rate him above Nelson, Driscol, Winstone, Kaplan, Dundee and Chacon?... to name just a few!!!.... and Chocolate as well!!... all the latter fighters should be higher imo... look at their opposition compared to Mcguigans?.... Chacon was a far superior fighter to Mcguigan imo...

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 03 Nov 2006, 08:15

On a head-to-head basis, my top four are Pep, Armstrong, Saddler and Sanchez. It's pretty close... I think Pep beats them all (just), Sanchez takes Saddler, and Armstrong-Saddler and Sanchez-Armstrong are pretty much 50/50.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 03 Nov 2006, 08:40

Could Pep have handled Armstrongs non-stop pressure??... I'm not sure, ...he certainly never fought anyone with Armstrongs relentless style and strength. Peps style would have allowed Henry to come forward like he liked to do, Armstrong had more trouble with fighters that were able to stand toe to toe with him and push him back... not that many could!. But I see Armstrong being too strong and beating Pep on points...

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 03 Nov 2006, 15:28

chance wrote:pretty good list. I think You could make a good argument that Kid chocolate should be ranked at least in the top 20, 30's a bit low I'd probably put him closer to the top ten, but thats just cause I'm a fan. I think you could also move armstrong into the top ten. Arguello could be a little higher, but I'm probably just splitting hairs with that one. Out of curiosity how did you do your research.

I compile a lot of information through books, tape, magazines boxrec, record books. I write down every fighter that could possibly be considered. So, I write down the name of every featherweight champion, and any contender that could have been a champion under other circumstances (Such as contenders that may have been champions in another era)
For each fighter I make special notes concern fights they had against other top featherweights. I don't put much empasis on fights in which one or both fighters were well past their prime or very early in their career. I am much more impressed with one win over a great fighter than 10 wins against journeyman. I generally do count losses against a fighter;(except for situations like bad decisons, or if a fighter fought great in defeat) the worse the opponent the more I count the loss against him. Longevity is an factor but not the be all end all.
I don't count fights that were obviously out the fighters weight class. ie -A featherweight's fights in the lightweight or bantamweight class don't count for or against him. I am rating him as a featherweight.

Then the process I use is a little hard to explain (although it would be easy to show you in person) but I will try. I make a bar graph. I write down the names of fighters from the early days and all the way to current days. This way I can compare fighter A to fighter B to fighter C to fighter D etc. So for example, if fighter A is a lot better than fighter B, but only a little better than fighter C, I may have fighter C a little higher than fighter B.

I try not be biased against guys that I don't like ( I detest Roberto Duran but had him as the #1 lightweight) or overrate guys that I do like ( For example I really like Danny Lopez but I can't justify rating him higher than I did).

It's always a evolving process as new information becomes available. I like to see what other people have to say. Occasionally they will bring up a guy that I haven't thought much about. It's a lot of fun.

barry · Post by **barry** » 03 Nov 2006, 18:31

Aside from Harry Greb and maybe a couple others, no fighters resume can really compare to Armstrong...and as far as accomplishments...Armstrong is pretty much in a league all his own!

You mention that Richie Fontaine and Joe Conde were not even contenders...for the record Richie Fontaine was not only a hell of a fighter, but he was also a top ten ranked featherweight...Fontaine was ranked 9th in the world in 1938 and also...Joe Conde was ranked number five in the world between 1934 and 1937, both would very likely be title-holders today, so sorry...they were highly ranked fighters that Armstrong lost to...and let me not forget...Baby Casanova was top ten ranked at three weights, 118, 126 and 135 and I'm not certain which weight it was, but he was the number one ranked contender at one of the three! You also failed to mention that Armstrong immediately avenged the very close Fontaine loss by beating Fontaine pretty solid the followng month after the loss and Armstrong also avenged the DQ loss to Casanova by beating him a couple of times including a pretty vicious knock out...Conde simply would not get back in the ring with Armstrong...good choice on his part!

Baby Manuel was the last unranked fighter that Armstrong ever lost to back in 1933, around Armstrong's 20th fight and the two, or three losses before that are the only other unranked fighters the he ever lost to, but from July 1933 until he retired, Armstrong never lost to a fighter that was not ranked in the top ten!

If I were to go through a comnpare Armstrongs resume to any other featherweight, Pep and Saddler included...very likely they will fall behind Armstrong...Saldivar, while a good in his era doesn't really compare resume-wise...though he was a strong fighter, but none of three could hang with Armstrong's work-rate, durability, strength and punching power at 126!

Light as A Feather

Light as A Feather

re

re

Re: re

re

re