Light as A Feather

[barry]

>>>You have mentioned that Armstrong beat 14 different Top 10 featherweights. Please name them. Remember that Armstrong and his opponent can't be wellover the featherweights when the fight occurred. Also the opponent has to be in the top 10 at the time that they fought.
I am not coming up with anything close to 14 So please name them.<<<

I was wrong...actually there were 18 not 14 top ten featherweights that Armstrong fought during his years at featherweight...actually there's probably more...I just quit looking after DeGrasse...there was also Sarron that I know without looking, so that is 19, but the main point is that during his years at featherweight 1931 thru 1937...Henry Armstrong fought 19 top ten ranked featherweights of which he beat all of them, either then, or in a later rematch!

Oh...the list...which as I told you...you're not going to find in the "Boxing Register" as they're data in that area is very, very incomplete!


Davey Abad W PTS 10
Joe Conde W KO 7
Midget Wolgast W PTS 10
Frankie Covelli W PTS 8
Ritchie Fontaine W PTS 10
Bobby (Pancho) Leyvas W TKO 4
Baby Arizmendi W PTS 10
Juan Zurita W KO 4
Dommy Ganzon W KO 1
Gene Espinosa W KO 1
Joey Alcanter W KO 6 ---135
Rodolfo 'Baby' Casanova W KO 3
Tony Chavez W KO 10
Moon Mullins W TKO 2
Varias Milling W KO 4
California Joe Rivers W TKO 4
Mike Belloise W TKO 4
Pete DeGrasse W KO 10
Petey Sarron W KO 6

[silkov]

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.

I'm afraid you're a lost cause Alp, ...the fact that you rank Mcguigan ahead of Driscoll, Nelson, Dundee, Chocolate and Kaplan (to name just 5!!) says it all!... how in heck can you justify that???... I suppose Mcguigan beat better opposition did he??? 8)

[barry]

For the record, below is my list of featherweights:


Featherweight

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Sandy Saddler
3. Willie Pep
4. Terry McGovern
5. Alexis Arguello
6. George Dixon
7. Abe Attell
8. Jim Driscoll
9. Salvador Sanchez
10. Wilfredo Gomez
11. Johnny Kilbane
12. Kid Chocolate
13. Eusebio Pedroza
14. Johnny Dundee
15. Danny Lopez
16. Vicente Saldivar
17. Naseem Hamed
18. Freddie Miller
19. Ruben Olivares
20. Azumah Nelson

[Ezzard]

For the record, below is my list of featherweights:


Featherweight

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Sandy Saddler
3. Willie Pep
4. Terry McGovern
5. Alexis Arguello
6. George Dixon
7. Abe Attell
8. Jim Driscoll
9. Salvador Sanchez
10. Wilfredo Gomez
11. Johnny Kilbane
12. Kid Chocolate
13. Eusebio Pedroza
14. Johnny Dundee
15. Danny Lopez
16. Vicente Saldivar
17. Naseem Hamed
18. Freddie Miller
19. Ruben Olivares
20. Ultiminio "Sugar" Ramos

Barry, I hope you simply forgot Azumah. I think he'd have creamed Hamed, Olivares and Lopez, as well as a prime Gomez.

[barry]

Actually I did forget him. Someone had mentioned that the last time I posted and I just never added Nelson, though I really think Nelson should be there as he was one of true greats! I'd have to do some switching around, but for the time being I'll just add Nelson at 20 taking out Ramos, but I think Nelson is closer to top ten actually!

[Ezzard]

Mine, although it hasn't been updated in a long time:

1. Sandy Saddler
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Willie Pep
4. Salvador Sanchez
5. Alexis Arguello
6. Tony Canzoneri
7. Eusebio Pedroza
8. Azuma Nelson
9. Marco Antonio Barrera
10. Johnny Dundee
11. Terry McGovern
12. Vicente Saldivar
13. Abe Attell
14. Jeff Fenech
15. Johnny Klibane
16. Jim Driscoll
17. Naseem Hamed
18. Freddie Miller
19. Erik Morales
20. Sugar Ramos

Barry, why don't you rank Fenech?

Yes, Fenech, I forgot him too. He deserves a mention.

[silkov]

The Saddler vs Pep question is interesting... doesnt anyone else here think that Pep was past his best when he fought Saddler??... I know they were 1-3 in favour of Sandy but Pep was certainly on the slide for the last 2 fights they had and in their second fight he gave Sandy a boxing lesson...
anyway, my top ten is like this...

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Willie Pep
3. Salvadore Sanchez
4. Azumah Nelson
5. Euesbio Pedrosa
6. Jem Driscoll
7. George Dixon
8. Sandy Saddler
9. Owen Moran
10.abe attell

[Ezzard]

For the record, below is my list of featherweights:


Featherweight

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Sandy Saddler
3. Willie Pep
4. Terry McGovern
5. Alexis Arguello
6. George Dixon
7. Abe Attell
8. Jim Driscoll
9. Salvador Sanchez
10. Wilfredo Gomez
11. Johnny Kilbane
12. Kid Chocolate
13. Eusebio Pedroza
14. Johnny Dundee
15. Danny Lopez
16. Vicente Saldivar
17. Naseem Hamed
18. Freddie Miller
19. Ruben Olivares
20. Azumah Nelson

Barry, if we take Gomez as a feather (surely he could have competed at 126 in his prime) and think of this period from 76-85 we have

Arguello
Sanchez
Pedroza
Gomez
Nelson
Mitchell
Lopez
LaPorte
McGuigan
Taylor
Lockridge
Olivares
Chacon

This must have been something of a golden era for the division.

[dr_devious]

1. Willie Pep
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Salvador Sanchez
4. Sandy Sadler
5. Alexis Arguello
6. Azumah Nelson
7. Jim Driscoll
8. Terry McGovern
9. Abe Attell
10. George Dixon

[Ambling Alp]

>>>You have mentioned that Armstrong beat 14 different Top 10 featherweights. Please name them. Remember that Armstrong and his opponent can't be wellover the featherweights when the fight occurred. Also the opponent has to be in the top 10 at the time that they fought.
I am not coming up with anything close to 14 So please name them.<<<

I was wrong...actually there were 18 not 14 top ten featherweights that Armstrong fought during his years at featherweight...actually there's probably more...I just quit looking after DeGrasse...there was also Sarron that I know without looking, so that is 19, but the main point is that during his years at featherweight 1931 thru 1937...Henry Armstrong fought 19 top ten ranked featherweights of which he beat all of them, either then, or in a later rematch!

Oh...the list...which as I told you...you're not going to find in the "Boxing Register" as they're data in that area is very, very incomplete!


Davey Abad W PTS 10
Joe Conde W KO 7
Midget Wolgast W PTS 10
Frankie Covelli W PTS 8
Ritchie Fontaine W PTS 10
Bobby (Pancho) Leyvas W TKO 4
Baby Arizmendi W PTS 10
Juan Zurita W KO 4
Dommy Ganzon W KO 1
Gene Espinosa W KO 1
Joey Alcanter W KO 6 ---135
Rodolfo 'Baby' Casanova W KO 3
Tony Chavez W KO 10
Moon Mullins W TKO 2
Varias Milling W KO 4
California Joe Rivers W TKO 4
Mike Belloise W TKO 4
Pete DeGrasse W KO 10
Petey Sarron W KO 6

Barry, First of allthanks for looking this up. youmentioned previously you can look up Rings monthly ratings. Is there a website that I can go to find this? Or do I have to buy this?

As for this you mentioned , there are a few problems.
First of all, Armstrong was well over the featherweight limit when he beat Alcanter, Chavez, Mullins and Milling, Joe Rivers. I'm willing to accept it he is only a pound or 2 over the featherweight limit,but in each of hese fights he weighed atleast 130. A fighter that weighs 130 or more shouldn't be considered a feahterweight.

I find it incredible that Ring Magazine would have had Abad, Conde,Cavelli, Fontaine, Ganzon and Espinosa ranked in the top 10. Their records aren't even remotely worthy of being in the top 10. They all had many bad losses. It's hard to believe that there weren't many more fighters better than these guys. Is there anyway that the source that looked this up in could be wrong? If these ratings are indeed correct, that Ring Magazines Ratings must be be a lot less reliable that we have thought.

I have no trouble accepting Arizmendi, Wolgast, Zurita, Casanova, Belloise, DeGrasse, and Sarron as legitimate Top 10 contenders that Armstrong beat when he was a featherweight. I'm not completely sold on Leyvas but will accept it.

That is a total of 8 featherweight wins over legitimate contenders.

[Ambling Alp]

What's my point? I don't know if I can make it any more clear, but I will try. When rating featherweights, fights in which a fighter is in another weight class shouldn't be considered. Neither losses or wins.

Then why do you rank Armstrong #6 at lightweight? He only had 2 or 3 fights there.

Armstrong had at least 16 fights at lightweight. (Fights where he was within the lightweight limit and beat a fighter who was at least a lightweight). He only lost one which was to another great lightweight, Lou Ambers. He also beat Ambers once, and only weighed 133 when he beat Barney Ross.

[Ambling Alp]

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.

I'm afraid you're a lost cause Alp, ...the fact that you rank Mcguigan ahead of Driscoll, Nelson, Dundee, Chocolate and Kaplan (to name just 5!!) says it all!... how in heck can you justify that???... I suppose Mcguigan beat better opposition did he??? 8)

As I mentioed there are many close calls. You certainly could rank McGuigan lower. As for who did McGuigan beat? Well, he did beat Pedrosa, Bernard Taylor and Juan La Porte.

[Ambling Alp]

For the record, below is my list of featherweights:


Featherweight

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Sandy Saddler
3. Willie Pep
4. Terry McGovern
5. Alexis Arguello
6. George Dixon
7. Abe Attell
8. Jim Driscoll
9. Salvador Sanchez
10. Wilfredo Gomez
11. Johnny Kilbane
12. Kid Chocolate
13. Eusebio Pedroza
14. Johnny Dundee
15. Danny Lopez
16. Vicente Saldivar
17. Naseem Hamed
18. Freddie Miller
19. Ruben Olivares
20. Azumah Nelson

Do you know what is missing from your top 20 list? Someone that Armstrong beat.
Armstrong had 4 losses at this weight and beat no one in your own top 20. Salvador Sanchez never lost at this weight and beat 3 fighters in your own top 20 and you only ranked him #9. That makes no sense to me.

How can Sanchez be ranked only spot ahead of Gomez? He was a far better featherweight. He dominated Gomez in their fight and beat many more good featherweights than Gomez beat.
Gomez also was knocked out by Nelson (whom Sanchez beat). He had two nice wins at featherweight- Lockridge and La Porte. That isn't enough to put him in the top 10.

Sugar Ramos isn't even in your top 20? He beat a lot of good featherweights and his only loss at this weight was to Saldivar. How can he possibly be behind people like Lopez and Hamed?
Lopez was one my favorites but there is no way that he was the #15 featherweight of all time. Hamed fought one good featherweight and lost convincingly.

[Ambling Alp]

Alp---I have all the books you mentioned, and though they are all fairly good reading the problem with them is that they say the exact same thing that 100 other books before them already said. They regurgitate the same mini-statements that everyone else states in boxing books, which it's not just them...pretty much all boxing books to date of that sort are the same and none...I repeat none go into Armstrong, or any other fighters career with any kind of thorough detail...they just state the same little paragraph saying the same thing over and over. At best those kinds of books very briefly talk about four, maybe five total fights of a fighters career, but even those, they do not go into any kind of detail in!

I really like Odd's Encyclopedia of Boxing as is has brief sketches about several British fighters that books written in the states don't...and vice versa with the Boxing Register. But there are really no books that I know of that go into any kind of detail about various fighters career's and when speaking of Armstrong they usually just speak very, very briefly about his one title fight at 126, but that's it about his featherweight career and no one...I don't care who you are, is going to learn much about fighters from books like Fleischer's, or Carpenters as they are just too brief, not to mention that Fleischer was just full of hot air a big percentage a lot of the time…Carpenter and Odd were a lot better writers than Fleischer ever was. Fleischer is one of the most valuable people to ever speak for boxing, he did a hell of a lot for the sport, but as a writer he was total hack and what he didn’t know, he sure never thought twice about just making something up to takes it’s place!

Now to really learn about Armstrong's years and fights at 126 a person will have to go to the newspapers and publications of the day...that's the only way that a person can truly learn about Armstrong's career at 126, unless someone writes a really good biography on Armstrong, but that has not happened yet. His autobiography is pretty good, but that has limitations as well and all these boxing history books, well as I said, they only give the reader a small glimpse into a fighter’s career and it is usually the exact same thing that 50 authors before them already said.

I don't mean this as an insult, but I can see why you don't rate Armstrong higher...plain and simply you are not really going to learn anything about his featherweight career in the kinds of books that you mention, or any others like it…you will get a brief overview of his career, but nothing in-depth. As I said the best way to go about learning of Armstrong's days at 126 are to go through everything you can find from 1931 thru 1940...best of which would be the Los Angeles Times, Oakland Tribune, or any other primary source papers, but the two mentioned are probably the two best sources a person can use in my opinion and then there is Ring magazine, The Boxing News (US), The Knockout (weekly out San Francisco), The Fighter, The Illustrated Boxing Record, Bang boxing weekly, Boxing and Wrestling News, Redhead Sporting Weekly, The Referee and Announcer and whatever other publications that you can find from the 30s, but these supposed boxing history books, up to date, have just wrote down the same thing that others have said, except maybe they worded it different, but a person just simply cannot learn about fighters from reading 500 to 1000 words that is always stating the exact same thing!

As I said, I really enjoy Odd’s Encyclopedia of Boxing and I really enjoy the Boxing Register, the two by Carpenter and Fleischer are fair reading, but they really are not going to tell anyone, with a fair amount of knowledge, anything that they don’t already know. There is just not enough room in books of that style/format to really go into depth about a fighter’s career, so they just write a couple of paragraphs summing up a fighters career and from that a person just simply can get enough information to compare fighters with.

Someone could do a really good biography of Armstrong now. The only book out on Armstrong is his autobiography, Gloves, Glory and God that was first published in 1956, or 1957 and which I’ve got and which is a pretty good read, but with all the sources we have today, someone, if they really put forth the time and effort, they could write an outstanding biography on Armstrong, maybe in time someone will!

I agree with you that these books have limitations. I also agree that there are other places where you can find this information.
These just happy to be a few books that I have that I like becasue of what they do.

As you mentioned, Gilbert Odd's book had some nice brief sketches of many fighters careers. What I also like a lot is the list in the back of the book that shows the results of every championship fight in every weight class. (Carpenter's book does that as well, though there a few discrepancies with Odd's book when a title is disputed.) From that I can list every champion. From the Boxing Register I can add Hall of Famers that some reason never won the title but was a great fighter nonetheless. This helps so that no one obvious is completely missed.
I also like the little sketches in the Boxing Register.

From these books I write notes on every fighter.

From this I go on the data base and find out a of things. I look up every fighter on the list and add it to my notes. I write down every defeat and look up the database record of every fighter that defeated him.
Some people like to criticize the databse (mostly because of occasional incomplete records especially for foreign fighters or fighters who fought long ago) but there is a lot of great informnation in it.

You can get an idea if a fighter's opponent was green or way over the hill or close to their prime which has to be factored in. You can also sometimes find out if both the fighter you are looking up (which the Boxing Register sometimes has) as well as the opponents weight.

Of course sources have an influence on me as well, including other books and film.

I agree that it would be great if there were more biographies. In some of them you can learn more about opponents and get good descriptions of the their fights. Unfortunately there aren't enough biographies, especially for fighters at the lower weights.

I don't pretend to know everything. One of the reasons that I make lists is that people will bring up someone that they think I underrated (or less frequently who I overated). Sometimes there reasoning is valid and I will know to adjust my ratings. I have tried to acknowlege this.
If you have a point to make (perhaps from a reliable source that you like to use) I would like to hear it.
It's also just fun debating or seeing other people debate. What troubles me about this past list that I have seen very little reasoning.
Some people just say that Armstrong was underrated on the list but really don't present any reasoning to back it up.

With Barry at least there is some mention of good fighters that Armstrong beat. However there has been almost no talk of the other featherweights from many people that I put ahead of Armstrong. For example, people aren't saying that Kilbane or Sanchez or whoever weren't as good because ...
It's just Armstrong was better, end of discussion.

I didn't set out simply rate Armstrong. I was trying to rate the top 50 featherweights of all time.

[JC]

his manager used to get him to drink quarts of beer in order to get his weight up...

A lot of the girls in my hometown do the same thing...

[barry]

Alp the only reason that you think the rated fighters that Armstrong beat were no good is simply because you have no idea who they are, how they fought, or who they fought!!! I know for a fact that they are not listed, or talked about in the books that you mention, neither are any other contenders for that matter, just HOF caliber fighters. No to learn about those guys you would have to go into some heavy research that people who write most of those types of books never do...and it's a little hard to try to validate a fighters record when you don't know about the fighters that are in his record, or the fighters that are in the fighters of the other fighters records...and as I said...that is something that you are not going to learn in any books...none...that will take some real heavy-duty research through year after year of newspapers and boxing mags!

Most people just write about champions, or the most popular fighters because it really take a hell of a lot of time and effort to learn about the fighters that people don't know...so fighters like Davey Abad, Richie Fontaine, Gene Espinosa, Varias Milling, Tony Chavez, Baby Casanova and the fighters that they fought never get mentioned in boxing history books and as a result people that have not really went into they're career's have no clue as to who they are!

Saldivar...he beat what...5 top ranked contenders? Sorry, but that does not come close to comparing to Armstrong's resume...in fact very, very few fighters can compare, but that is not something that you are going to learn just by looking through records, or lists and unless you actually have details about fights, which none of the books you mention, or any other books like them really do to any extent then it doesn't matter how many notes you take because unless you get actual details about the fights then you are left completely to assume about a fighter, which is a lot of what you have done with the opponents that Armstrong faced and assuming is nine times out of ten wrong!

As to the Rating list, I think a person use to be able to purchase the Ring ratings issue from the IBRO by itself, but I don't know if you still can, I went back and got all issues, so I don't know if you can get one at a time, or if you have to be a member first, but that's the only place that you can get the list...unless you choose to go through every single month of Ring mag from 1925 thru today and compile the list yourself, which you would sure learn a hell of a lot about boxing in that time-frame, but it's something that would take a couple of decades for someone to do alone. But instead of going after that I would recommend a person to purchase a subscription to newspaperarchive.com as that is where you will learn more than you can anywhere else...especially in books, though some of the more recent books are really detailed and they are getting better, but other than collecting books I have little use for what's inside, unless it's a biography, or autobiography, or maybe something like Kevin Smith's book on early colored fighters and his upcoming books on the same topioc, but a different time period! Boxing history books like that of Fleischer's, or those of Harry Carpenter, or any other writer really are of no use to learning as they state the same thing. Barry Hugman has done really good with his record books, which he adds a lot of detail about fights and not just records, as well as lists...I'd say he is probably myt favorite British researcher, or one of them, but any of his books are good. I just don't like these "Boxing History" books as they are just too repetitive and you rarely ever learn anything new from them! Harry Otty's book on Charley Burley is another really detailed book, which there are some that are true gems, but the biggest percentage are just recycled material put in different wording and different packaging and a hell of a lot are absolutely full of inaccuracies and incorrect information...anything by Nat Fleischer should be taken in with a lot of skepticism!




And who was it that was talking lists?

I'm King-Ding-A-Ling in the list department!

[Ambling Alp]

Barry,
I agree with and understand some of what you are saying. I just want to make a few points;
The fighters that I mentioned that I found not to be really contenders all had a ton of losses on their record. There simply had to be many better fighters at the time. You don't need to read a newspaper article of every single one of their fights to see that.
Also, we are talking about make the a list of the top featherweights, it doesn't just mean Henry Armstrong. There are other guys out there who should be considered. Are you going to me me that you have read at least one newspaper article on every fight of every single guy I listed ahead of Armstrong? And also read a newpaper article on every single fight that each opponent had that these guys fought?

Once again this list was a lot more than rating Henry Armstrong.
You obviously don't know more about Saldivar. You say he beat what, 5 rated contenders? No try 10. I will name them once again:
Salazar, Laguna, Ramos,Rojas,Winstone, Robertson, Seki,Legra,Famechon,Crawford.
He beat Salazar twice and Winstone three times. He is the only featherweight to ever beat Sugar Ramos.
All of these wins were at featherweight.
If you are going to say Armstrong was better than another fighter, you need to consider what the other fighters did as well. Not just what Armstrong did.
In my opinion, all of the guys that I rated above Armstrong have better resumes than Armstrong did at featherweight. A few are arguable, but most are pretty obvious. Look at what they did instead of just focusing on Armstrong.

You didn't even have one guy that Armstrong beat on your own top 20 list of featherweights!!

[barry]

He beat ten contenders...Armstrong beat 19...75 overall!!!!

And records mean dick when trying to compare a fighters career. They are numbers, but unless a person has the info behind the numbers then it is nothing but empty numbers!!! And again...you are going by the database which in a lot of instances just does not have a complete record. Trying to figure out a fighters career just by looking at his record just simply does not do it...it just can't!

Like I said earlier...being that you rate Armstrong lower than Saldivar then how about telling me a little about the following guys...something about they're styles and how and who they fought? Can you do that? Can you tell me a little about the following fighters? And please not things that anyone can get by looking at they're records, no how about a little inside on what kind of fighters they were...do you really know about these guys, or are you just guessing and assuming based on what you see in they're numbers? If you know about these fighters then I would say that you might know what you are talking about, but based on what you have stated earlier, you don't know anything about the fighters...hell, you assumed that only a few were even ranked! Plain and simple, a person who does not know about the fighters that a certain fighter fought then the person can in no way give a solid opinion on the competition and the person sure as hell cannot compare the competition with the competition of others...well they can, but it's just simply going to be wrong most of the time...it doesn't matter who it is...if a person does not know about the fighters one fought then the person does not really know about the fighter except for the brief summary that was read in one, or 100 boxing books!

So how about giving this a shot and try to describe briefly these guys! If you do so successfully then it will really stregthen any debates that you may try, but if you don't, or can't then I would just suggest doing more research on the fighters!!!

Davey Abad
Joe Conde
Frankie Covelli
Ritchie Fontaine
Bobby (Pancho) Leyvas
Dommy Ganzon
Gene Espinosa
Rodolfo 'Baby' Casanova
Tony Chavez
Varias Milling

[Ambling Alp]

He beat ten contenders...Armstrong beat 19...75 overall!!!!

And records mean dick when trying to compare a fighters career. They are numbers, but unless a person has the info behind the numbers then it is nothing but empty numbers!!! And again...you are going by the database which in a lot of instances just does not have a complete record. Trying to figure out a fighters career just by looking at his record just simply does not do it...it just can't!

Like I said earlier...being that you rate Armstrong lower than Saldivar then how about telling me a little about the following guys...something about they're styles and how and who they fought? Can you do that? Can you tell me a little about the following fighters? And please not things that anyone can get by looking at they're records, no how about a little inside on what kind of fighters they were...do you really know about these guys, or are you just guessing and assuming based on what you see in they're numbers? If you know about these fighters then I would say that you might know what you are talking about, but based on what you have stated earlier, you don't know anything about the fighters...hell, you assumed that only a few were even ranked! Plain and simple, a person who does not know about the fighters that a certain fighter fought then the person can in no way give a solid opinion on the competition and the person sure as hell cannot compare the competition with the competition of others...well they can, but it's just simply going to be wrong most of the time...it doesn't matter who it is...if a person does not know about the fighters one fought then the person does not really know about the fighter except for the brief summary that was read in one, or 100 boxing books!

So how about giving this a shot and try to describe briefly these guys! If you do so successfully then it will really stregthen any debates that you may try, but if you don't, or can't then I would just suggest doing more research on the fighters!!!

Davey Abad
Joe Conde
Frankie Covelli
Ritchie Fontaine
Bobby (Pancho) Leyvas
Dommy Ganzon
Gene Espinosa
Rodolfo 'Baby' Casanova
Tony Chavez
Varias Milling

Once again, I will way that this list was a list of the top 50 featherweights of all time. This is not just are view of one fighter, Henry Armstrong.

I will give you the styles of the fighters that you mentioned shortly after you give me a summary of every other featherweight that ever lived. Armstrong is not the only fighter that is being rated here.

You thought that Saldivar only beat 5 contenders. If you would have done just a little research you would have known that he beat more than that. It doesn't make sense that I need to know in detail everything about the fighters that Armstrong faced while you don't even do rudimentary research of other top featherweights.
During all of this time that we have debating this list, you don't even mention the other top heavyweights why what they did is inferior to Armstrong.
In allthis time you have never mentioned your case against Kilbane, Attell, McGovern, Sanchez, Pedroza, Ramos etc.

As far as some the wins that Armstrong had such as Abad, Conde, Cavelli, Ganzon, Fontaine and Espinosa;All lost many fights to other fighters.
Common sense should tell you if many other fighters beat those guys, that it's a not big deal for Armstrong to have beaten them as well.

I will ask you once again, how can you justify Armstrong being your #1 featherweight of all time, when he never beat one fighter on your own top 20 list?
Salvador Sanchez who unlike Armstrong never lost at featherweight, beat 3 guys on your own top 20 list and you only ranked him #9.

[barry]

>>>I've gotten sick of boxing books as well, unless they consist of primary sources, or are studies of primary sources.<<<

That's exactly it. Fortunately there are some good writers out there today who are really doing some good research that they back with primary sources and those types of books are worth paying for, but 80% to 90% of books on boxing are just junk and a complete waste of time really! As far as boxing history books like those Alp mentioned, well I read the exact same stuff in Alexander Johnston's Ten and Out books as well as a couple of others. All Fleischer and Carpenter did was repeat what others had said instead of doing something imaginative...like doing some research of they're own!

Speaking of Fleischer...as I saidm he did a lot for boxing, but he was an arrogant plagerist. He even went so far as to try and claim boxing records as his property...all the records that were in the first few Ring Record Books were nothing but copy and pasted records from previous record books like Everlast, Post, T.S. Andrews and Police Gazette yet Fleischer tried to claim that they were all his, from work he had done, which was just a load of shit, but which a lot of newbies will take as gospel. For all that Fleischer did to help boxing he also did a great deal to confuse it by making up stories and for passing down fictious tales of the past like they were fact and now we are left to clear it all up and straighten the actual facts out!

It's like the bullshit tale about Pep winning a round without throwing a punch...just plain nonsense and with all the fictious tales that he spread it really puts into light any and everything he ever wrote about as people really do not know what is true and what is not...that is unless a person does the reseach for themselves!

Alp---Since you have no clue about the fighters that I had asked you to enlighten us on then I will take what you say with the same grain of salt as I would with anyone else just getting into it. It's pretty obvious what you don't know, but the things that I have suggested on research were not done to make you look bad, or make you look silly, but instead advice on the proper means of research to go about, which was taught to me...and as I said...you are not going to really learn anything from the types of books that you mentioned...you got to get down to the nitty gritty research to really find out about the fighters that are not mentioned in every book someone writes!

[JC]

Speaking of Fleischer...as I saidm he did a lot for boxing, but he was an arrogant plagerist.

But his legend will live on in the form of Bert Sugar, no chance of that Pep story disappearing for as long as Bert is around...

[barry]

>>>no chance of that Pep story disappearing for as long as Bert is around...<<<

Well considering that the actual merits of the tale has been debunked by actual facts then it would really be hard for anyone to carry on with the tale now that the factual version has been brought to light, but then again there are still some who think Fleischer was the greatest historian who ever lived...go figure!

[elmersalsa]

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.

Freddie Miller at least should be with the top 5 greatest feathers in history. Saldivar is too high. I cannot see him better than Pedroza or Arguello at this weight.

Henry Armstrong is too low. He should be one of the top 5 greatest featherweights.

Sugar Ramos? too high. I think Davey Moore was a better featherweight in the rankings even he lost by KO to him.

Johnny Dundee is way too low. His number of fights at 126 is amazing.
Kid Chocolate should be in the top 10 in the list. He is too low, too.

Hogan Kid 'Bassey should not be there. He was probably mediocre at best.

[Ambling Alp]

>>>I've gotten sick of boxing books as well, unless they consist of primary sources, or are studies of primary sources.<<<

That's exactly it. Fortunately there are some good writers out there today who are really doing some good research that they back with primary sources and those types of books are worth paying for, but 80% to 90% of books on boxing are just junk and a complete waste of time really! As far as boxing history books like those Alp mentioned, well I read the exact same stuff in Alexander Johnston's Ten and Out books as well as a couple of others. All Fleischer and Carpenter did was repeat what others had said instead of doing something imaginative...like doing some research of they're own!

Speaking of Fleischer...as I saidm he did a lot for boxing, but he was an arrogant plagerist. He even went so far as to try and claim boxing records as his property...all the records that were in the first few Ring Record Books were nothing but copy and pasted records from previous record books like Everlast, Post, T.S. Andrews and Police Gazette yet Fleischer tried to claim that they were all his, from work he had done, which was just a load of shit, but which a lot of newbies will take as gospel. For all that Fleischer did to help boxing he also did a great deal to confuse it by making up stories and for passing down fictious tales of the past like they were fact and now we are left to clear it all up and straighten the actual facts out!

It's like the bullshit tale about Pep winning a round without throwing a punch...just plain nonsense and with all the fictious tales that he spread it really puts into light any and everything he ever wrote about as people really do not know what is true and what is not...that is unless a person does the reseach for themselves!

Alp---Since you have no clue about the fighters that I had asked you to enlighten us on then I will take what you say with the same grain of salt as I would with anyone else just getting into it. It's pretty obvious what you don't know, but the things that I have suggested on research were not done to make you look bad, or make you look silly, but instead advice on the proper means of research to go about, which was taught to me...and as I said...you are not going to really learn anything from the types of books that you mentioned...you got to get down to the nitty gritty research to really find out about the fighters that are not mentioned in every book someone writes!

First of all, the books that I mentioned earlier (Fleischer's, Carpenter's as well as Odds ) aren't the only place that you can get most of the useful information that I used. They just happen to be books that I own and are handy. I use them as a starting point when making a list so that I can list all of the champions and not over look any of them;though like you l like the brief sketches of fighters in Odd's book.(They also mention some top contenders as well.)
The Boxing Register also gives little sketches of fighters and gives more complete information about fighters careers.
I can take thse names and look up everyone in the database as well as everyone's opponents.
Film and other books that I have read also play a role as well.
All of this information is not useless and is vey helpful in what I am trying to do.
I am not trying to write the Henry Armstrong story here; I am simply trying to make a list of the top 50 featherweights.

In my last post, I mentioned that in all of your time that you never stated your case against most of the featherweights such as Kilbane, Attell, McGovern, Sanchez, Pedroza, Ramos etc.
You have to consider what the other featherweights did as well. It's not wonder that someone with a great deal of interest in Armstrong and little interest in some of the other top featherweights would rank Armstrong higher.
As I mentioned previously, there isn't much point in knowing the styles of fighters that Armstrong beat that were beaten many times by other fighters. If Armstrong beat a guy that lost many times to other fighters it simply isn't a big achievement for Armstrong.

You also have to have logical reasoning in your rankings. You keep ducking the question of why Armstrong is your #1 featherweight when he didn't beat even 1 fighter on your own list and Sanchez beat 3 fighters on your own list and unlike Armstrongwas unbeaten at the weight and is only #9?

Now you try to dismiss me as someone whose knowledge of boxing doesn't compare to your great knowledge.
Thats the easy way out. Anyone can duck the other person's points and just say the other person isn't knowledgeable.

A truly knowledgeable person would either agree with the points or counter them instead of constantly ducking them as you have done.

[Ambling Alp]

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.

Freddie Miller at least should be with the top 5 greatest feathers in history. Saldivar is too high. I cannot see him better than Pedroza or Arguello at this weight.

Henry Armstrong is too low. He should be one of the top 5 greatest featherweights.

Sugar Ramos? too high. I think Davey Moore was a better featherweight in the rankings even he lost by KO to him.

Johnny Dundee is way too low. His number of fights at 126 is amazing.
Kid Chocolate should be in the top 10 in the list. He is too low, too.

Hogan Kid 'Bassey should not be there. He was probably mediocre at best.

Many of Dundee and Kid Chocolate wins were well above 126. However, they each could be higher than where I ranked them. There are just so many close calls.

I feel that Ramos hads to be higher than Moore. Ramos won their head to head battle, beat some other good fighters, only lost one time at featherweight and that was to Saldivar.

Saldivar was truly a great fighter. He not beat Ramos but also many other good fighters. He can't be too much lower than where I have him.

I agree I may have Hogan Kid Bassey too high.