BoxRec

Posted: **26 Apr 2012, 16:16**

Stretch that to a top 30 or 40 and Heavyweight doesn't look so talent laden.

Posted: **27 Apr 2012, 13:52**

Well sure the level goes down some from 1-20 to 21-30; it has to. However, it goes down very little from about #15 to about #30. The featherwweights have a much bigger dropoff from #15 to #30.
The featherweights go down much further once you get much past #20.

Look at who didn't make the top 20 for heavyweights: Walcott, Patterson, Norton,Schmeling,Baer,Sharkey, Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Jackson. Really, you could make a decent case for any of these guys being in the top 20. This is not not even including Tunney who many people don't count because most of his career was at light heavyweight. This takes you up to #30.

Then you have guys like John L Sullivan Jimmy Ellis, several contenders such as Quarry,Lyle, Young,Folley, and Machen. and all of the WBS title holders from the 1980s and early 1990s such as Witherspoon, Thomas etc. as well as Moorer, Mercer etc. That takes you up to more 50 guys. They all had their ups and downs but were very good fighters.
If you try to make a list of top 50 featherweights you will probably won't be that impressed.

Posted: **27 Apr 2012, 13:55**

Your 15-20 at Featherweight is amazing, I wouldn't use that as an example of a drop off. In an alltime sense, Arguello, MAB & Morales would be ahead of all but a handful of heavyweights for me.

Posted: **27 Apr 2012, 15:50**

Once you mentioned Witherspoon, Moorer and Mercer I decided to leave it be.

Posted: **27 Apr 2012, 16:59**

Goodnight, Irene wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:
dempseyfire wrote:the most wealthy in terms of talent? Based on what?

Heavyweights have always been one of the weaker weight classes relatively, for the simple reason that most men in top shape are below 190 lbs.
yes, but that is all of the weight divisions. Pick a specific weight division, and it only includes a small pool of fighters that weigh in that range. for example, the featherweight division only includes fighters up to 126; 122 and below are other weight classes. There usually isn't a lot of good fighters above 122 and not over 126. Even if you go back to pre Jr Featherweight days, you are only including guys over 118 and not over 126. It's a small talent pool.

For several decades, the heavyweight division included many fighters in the 180-220 weight range. That is a much bigger talent pool to begin with. Of course there have been times (like now) when the heavyweight division has been horrible. However, it usually has as much talent in the Top 10-15 than most other weight classes at a given time.
This sounds good in theory, but it doesnt hold up through history.

We could say there isnt much room between 126 and 130, or 135 and 140, or 147 and 154 --- yet Feather, Light, and Welterweight leave the Heavies in the dust in terms of overall talent.

They arent the only divisions historically deeper than Heavy, either.

Historically those weight classes are much deeper as there were only 7 divisions . . 130, 154 etc didn't exist.

Posted: **28 Apr 2012, 17:11**

The addition of the 'Jr" weight classes certainly hurt the depth of the remaining weight classes. With the addition of the 154 weight class, the welterweight and middleweight classes suffered. You lose some of the bigger welterweights and some of the smaller middleweights to the 154 class.

The addition of the 130 class hurt the featherweights and the light weight class. You lose some of the bigger featherweights and the smaller lightweights.

If there never was the addition of these smaller classes, then there would have been more depth in the traditional weight classes.

Some of these "Jr" weight classes have been around quite awhile. The Jr lightweight class started back in 1921. It dies out in 1933, but came back in 1959.
The Jr featherweight division started back in 1923. Died out in the mid-1930s but came back right after world War II.

Anyone want to say when there was the most depth in the featherweight division?

Posted: **28 Apr 2012, 17:23**

Ambling Alp wrote:The addition of the 'Jr" weight classes certainly hurt the depth of the remaining weight classes. With the addition of the 154 weight class, the welterweight and middleweight classes suffered. You lose some of the bigger welterweights and some of the smaller middleweights to the 154 class.

The addition of the 130 class hurt the featherweights and the light weight class. You lose some of the bigger featherweights and the smaller lightweights.

If there never was the addition of these smaller classes, then there would have been more depth in the traditional weight classes.

Some of these "Jr" weight classes have been around quite awhile. The Jr lightweight class started back in 1921. It dies out in 1933, but came back in 1959.
The Jr featherweight division started back in 1923. Died out in the mid-1930s but came back right after world War II.

Anyone want to say when there was the most depth in the featherweight division?

So you honestly aren't going to count guys who fought from 126-below 135 as feathers . . they have to have fought most of their careers exactly in-between 122-126? That's just stupid . .

Posted: **28 Apr 2012, 22:33**

Ambling Alp wrote:The addition of the 'Jr" weight classes certainly hurt the depth of the remaining weight classes. With the addition of the 154 weight class, the welterweight and middleweight classes suffered. You lose some of the bigger welterweights and some of the smaller middleweights to the 154 class.

The addition of the 130 class hurt the featherweights and the light weight class. You lose some of the bigger featherweights and the smaller lightweights.

If there never was the addition of these smaller classes, then there would have been more depth in the traditional weight classes.

Some of these "Jr" weight classes have been around quite awhile. The Jr lightweight class started back in 1921. It dies out in 1933, but came back in 1959.
The Jr featherweight division started back in 1923. Died out in the mid-1930s but came back right after world War II.

Anyone want to say when there was the most depth in the featherweight division?

I never argued for there being a single Golden Age at 126 better than Heavy in the 70's...I said the overall talent at Feather exceeds Heavy's history --- along with a number of other classes.

Posted: **28 Apr 2012, 22:34**

dempseyfire wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:The addition of the 'Jr" weight classes certainly hurt the depth of the remaining weight classes. With the addition of the 154 weight class, the welterweight and middleweight classes suffered. You lose some of the bigger welterweights and some of the smaller middleweights to the 154 class.

The addition of the 130 class hurt the featherweights and the light weight class. You lose some of the bigger featherweights and the smaller lightweights.

If there never was the addition of these smaller classes, then there would have been more depth in the traditional weight classes.

Some of these "Jr" weight classes have been around quite awhile. The Jr lightweight class started back in 1921. It dies out in 1933, but came back in 1959.
The Jr featherweight division started back in 1923. Died out in the mid-1930s but came back right after world War II.

Anyone want to say when there was the most depth in the featherweight division?
So you honestly aren't going to count guys who fought from 126-below 135 as feathers . . they have to have fought most of their careers exactly in-between 122-126? That's just stupid . .

I dont really subscribe to that take, either.

Posted: **29 Apr 2012, 15:28**

dempseyfire wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:The addition of the 'Jr" weight classes certainly hurt the depth of the remaining weight classes. With the addition of the 154 weight class, the welterweight and middleweight classes suffered. You lose some of the bigger welterweights and some of the smaller middleweights to the 154 class.

The addition of the 130 class hurt the featherweights and the light weight class. You lose some of the bigger featherweights and the smaller lightweights.

If there never was the addition of these smaller classes, then there would have been more depth in the traditional weight classes.

Some of these "Jr" weight classes have been around quite awhile. The Jr lightweight class started back in 1921. It dies out in 1933, but came back in 1959.
The Jr featherweight division started back in 1923. Died out in the mid-1930s but came back right after world War II.

Anyone want to say when there was the most depth in the featherweight division?
So you honestly aren't going to count guys who fought from 126-below 135 as feathers . . they have to have fought most of their careers exactly in-between 122-126? That's just stupid . .

Not sure if am understanging you. Are you asking if I count guys who fought most of their career above 126 featherweights? No I am not. That is is not stupid, that is common sense. I am fine with fudging it a little and counting a fight between two contenders that weigh 127 as a featherweight fight. However, how far can you go? A guy that weighs 130,131,132 pounds is not a featherweight.

Posted: **29 Apr 2012, 15:32**

i notice crease hasnt posted since his OP

i'd say either welter or lighweights are deepest divisions over the entire history of the sport

heavy are no where near

Posted: **29 Apr 2012, 15:52**

Goodnight, Irene wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:The addition of the 'Jr" weight classes certainly hurt the depth of the remaining weight classes. With the addition of the 154 weight class, the welterweight and middleweight classes suffered. You lose some of the bigger welterweights and some of the smaller middleweights to the 154 class.

The addition of the 130 class hurt the featherweights and the light weight class. You lose some of the bigger featherweights and the smaller lightweights.

If there never was the addition of these smaller classes, then there would have been more depth in the traditional weight classes.

Some of these "Jr" weight classes have been around quite awhile. The Jr lightweight class started back in 1921. It dies out in 1933, but came back in 1959.
The Jr featherweight division started back in 1923. Died out in the mid-1930s but came back right after world War II.

Anyone want to say when there was the most depth in the featherweight division?
I never argued for there being a single Golden Age at 126 better than Heavy in the 70's...I said the overall talent at Feather exceeds Heavy's history --- along with a number of other classes.

But you (or anyone else for that matter) can't even come up with one period of time when there was a lot of depth at featherweight.
Your statement that the depth at featherweight is just that a statement. You haven't backed it up with anything.Pick any decade the 20th century. When exactly was there more depth at featherweight than heavyweight? You should be able to come up at least 4 or 5.

There was much more depth in the heavyweight divison than any other weight class in the 1970 than any other division in the 1970s.
There was more depth at heavyweight than any other divison from 1910-1919.
There was more depth at heavyweight than any other divison in the 1960s.

Which decades did the heavyweight division have the least depth of all of the divisions?

Yes there have been stretches of time when the heavweight division has not been strong. The last 10 years have been horrible. However look at other weight classes. The middleweight division has not been strong in 40 years. The light heavyweight division has been weak for a long time.

Going over 120 years of boxing, all of the weight classes have had periods when it was not that strong. The heavyweight division has roughly much as depth as 135,147, 160,and 175. Better than 112, 118, 126. Much better than the "Junior" Weight Classes.

Not saying that way too much time is not spent on discussing the heavyweights. What I can't understand is why so many say that the depth is lacking in heavyweights; but in comparison we rarely talk about other classes? I would be happy to talk about some other weight classes more.

When someone (including myself many times) tries to get a thread going about other weight classes, there usually is little response. Seldom do we get to the 2nd page. Start a thread on Tony Galento or Jerry Quarry and there will be tons of responses.

Posted: **30 Apr 2012, 13:19**

Jusy chipping in but from the mid 1970s to the late 80s the featherweights included...

Olivares
Arguello
Lopez
Sanchez
Nelson
Pedroza
Fenech
McGuigan
LaPorte
Gomez
Lockridge
Taylor
Grove
Min-Keu Oh

That's as good as a 12-15 year stretch as you'll ever see in any division.

Posted: **30 Apr 2012, 13:56**

That is a list of some pretty good fighters. That is strected over a fairly long time; there was only a few guys that were actually featherweights at the same time. check the top 10 lists for a given year and you will see what I mean.

Some of these guys were not featherweights for long either. Fenech was for a only a few years and never fought anyone else on the list at featherweight. Gomez only had 4 fights at featherweight. Olivares was slipping by the mid-1970s. Min-Keu Oh simply was not that good.

Still, it may be the best period for featherweights as far as depth goes

I don't see how that is as good to the heavyweight division of the 1970s and I guess we can include the late 1960s
Ali
Foreman
Frazier
Norton
Holmes
Young
Quarry
Lyle
Shavers
Bonavena
Martin
Terrell
Ellis
Patterson
Chuvalo

Any other periods for featherweights comparable to the heavyweights in the 1910s or 1960s?

Posted: **01 May 2012, 04:21**

I actually think it's a better list (feathers).

The top 6 feathers would be higher than the top 6 heavies on a p4p list...that I wrote.

Posted: **01 May 2012, 06:32**

Its a better list for sure.

Posted: **01 May 2012, 10:28**

Ezzard wrote:I actually think it's a better list (feathers).

The top 6 feathers would be higher than the top 6 heavies on a p4p list...that I wrote.

Agreed, there are others you could have on it too.

Posted: **01 May 2012, 10:54**

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Ezzard wrote:I actually think it's a better list (feathers).

The top 6 feathers would be higher than the top 6 heavies on a p4p list...that I wrote.
Agreed, there are others you could have on it too.

Saad, I went for memory alone. Pretty proud that I rememebred Min-Keu.

Hard to have seen all these guys in the UK. You must have seen plenty of them.

What about guys like Patrick Ford? How good was he?

Posted: **01 May 2012, 11:35**

He was good enough to beat Sanchez in the eyes of many. Pedroza brutalized him in his next fight, but he gave Sal hell.

Chacon certainly deserves a mention.

Posted: **01 May 2012, 14:06**

Ezzard wrote:I actually think it's a better list (feathers).

The top 6 feathers would be higher than the top 6 heavies on a p4p list...that I wrote.

No the heavyweight list is better.
Remember you can't count anything these guys did outside of the featherweight division if you are just ranking them as featherweights. So for example,Olivares, Gomez, don't really count. You also have to take consideration that these guys were not really rivals of each other. Go through the annual rankings; you won't many of these guys in the top 10 at the same time. Many fought only briefly at featherweight.
Sanchez probably fought the most other other guys that you mentioned at featherweight. He fought ,Lopez twice,LaPorte, Gomez and Nelson. that is only 4 other guys for a total of 5 fights.
It's not like Olivares or Arguello was a rival of Bernard Taylor or Calvin Grove.

Ali fought 12 of the guys that I mention; not including Holmes since that was in 1980. He fought several multiple times for a total of 19 fights.
Foreman get criticized for not fighting ehought top heavyweights. He fought more top heavyweights on the list than Sanchez fought featherweights.
The heavyweights were mostly all in the divison at the orughly the time and many fought several of the other guys. Not that all fought each other, but you will that they fought each much more often. Why? Because they were actaully in the same weight class at the same time.
What often happens in the fw division is that a guys fights as a feather for a few years, moves up to 130, maybe up further. He may have began his career at an earlier weight. A heavyweight usually is a heavyweight for all or most of his career. almost everyone on this was a heavyweight for many years. Not just afor a couple of years and handful of fights.You are really comparing about 4-5 eras of featherweights to one era of heavyweights.

If you really think through this, you will see that there is seldom a lot of really good featherweights at one time. However, if you count everyone who fought briefly as a featherweight, you will have skewed results that looks more impressive than really were.

Having said all that, this is probably as good as it gets with featherweights.

Posted: **02 May 2012, 04:22**

I thought this was about talent not achievement?

All those guys fought in the division in that time span.

One list of fighters is better than the other. Surely that’s the discussion here?

Two fine lists of boxers. You think the heavies are better. Great. Fair argument. But not on a technicality. All those fighters campaigned for a while at 126 and fought for titles.

And I rate Sanchez, Arguello, Nelson, Pedroza, Fenech as better fighters than Foreman.

Posted: **02 May 2012, 07:32**

Ezzard wrote:And I rate Sanchez, Arguello, Nelson, Pedroza, Fenech as better fighters than Foreman.

George is an ATG HW, but the concept of P4P puts George at a disadvantage against most top lighter weight fighters. Had George been 126 he would have been clowned but just about everybody on Alps FW list. While I think Sanchez is somewhat over-rated these days, can you imagine what he would have done to a 126 pound version of Foreman? The ponderous, slow footed, defense challenged George would have been helpless.

Alp is a good poster, but I just don't see his logic with this one.

Posted: **02 May 2012, 08:28**

Ambling Alp wrote:
Goodnight, Irene wrote:Fighting weight and walk-around weight are two different things --- they always have been, and are even moreso since day-before weigh-ins.

Obviously, your point still makes theoretical sense, but that part of your two posts read (to me, at least) like boxers literally have to walk around within their division. The margin for error is obviously greater than that.

You would surely agree Feather is historically deeper than Heavy, wouldnt you? Compile a top-20 for each division and tell me HW is better --- you cant. Look at LW --- being a top-20 all-timer in this marvelous division is comparable to being top 8-10 at Heavy.

You wouldnt say 147 was deeper than Heavy? 160? Really? Dont you think fighters should be rated by their best years? Does someone like Juan Manuel Marquez not qualify any one place between 126-135 to you?

You have a sound theoretical point, but the reality doesnt reflect it. That happens sometimes with theories.
It's not a theory, it is a fact that there is a greater amount of of heavyweights than any other weight class.
I made a top 50 list a few years ago; here are the top 20 from it:

Featherweight Heavyweight
1. Pep 1. Ali
2. Saddler 2. Louis
3. Sanchez 3. Foreman
4. Saldivar 4. Johnson
5. Kilbane 5. Frazier
6. Attell 6. Holmes
7. McGovern 7. Holyfield
8. Dixon 8. Lewis
9. Pedroza 9. Marciano
10. Ramos 10. Dempsey
11. Jofre 11. Liston
12. Armstrong 12. Tyson
13. Arizmendi 13. Jeffries
14. Canzoneri 14. Langford
15. Arguello 15. Wills
16. Battalino 16. Jeannette
17. Miller 17. McVey
18. Barrera 18. Tunney
19. Morales 19. Bowe
20. Marcel 20. Charles

Of course no two people are going to have the exact same rankings, but these are basically the top 20 of each weight class. Of course there a few guys in each weight class that are not included that could be.

These are is comparable lists; in fact I would favor the heavyweights. Remember you can't count anything that any of these guys did at any other weight class. For example Henry Armstrong's time at lightweight and welterweight don't count. Do a top 50 list and you see that the talent level drops farther with featherweights than heavyweights. Do a top 100 and it really favors the heavyweights.

No I certainly don't think that historically the featherweight division is deeper than heavyweight.

I have respionded to your request for a list. Again, give a period of time where the featherweight division had a lot of depth? The 1940s, 1950s whenever. How does it compare to the heavyweights of the 1970s?

The middleweights must be right in the mix.

Posted: **02 May 2012, 14:03**

Ezzard wrote:I thought this was about talent not achievement?

All those guys fought in the division in that time span.

One list of fighters is better than the other. Surely that’s the discussion here?

Two fine lists of boxers. You think the heavies are better. Great. Fair argument. But not on a technicality. All those fighters campaigned for a while at 126 and fought for titles.

And I rate Sanchez, Arguello, Nelson, Pedroza, Fenech as better fighters than Foreman.

It's not just about talent, but who was the better fighters. Achievement tells you who was better.

I feel that you are the one using a technicality. Several of the guys you mentioned were featherweights for brief parts oof their careers. Gomez had 4 fights there and was 2-2. Fenech fought there briefly and beat no one on your list at featherweight. You rate Sanchez ahead of Foreman; I agree. I don't agree with the rest.

You are skwering what really happened if you are going to count people like Olivares and Arguello with people like Sanchez and Pedroza. And Sanchez and Pedroza with Grove.

Perhaps we exhuasted this subject. However, in the future it would be nice for everyone who belittles the heavyweights to take part in discussions regarding fighters from other weight classes besides heavyweight.

Posted: **02 May 2012, 14:10**

Almost all of the fighters in the lower weights have to be in top condition, or they can't make weight. This isn't the case for heavies, esp at domestic levels.

BoxRec

Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion:

Re: Heavyweight Champion vs Lower Weight Champion: