BoxRec

Rank the divisions in order that has had the best and most consistent talent/fighters since they began. Which divisions had the most great fighters that never became champions.

I realise that some divisions such as Super Middle are relatively new so may struggle here.

It is my take that the Welterweight divison holds this distinction. Probably because of physics. I think that pound for pound the human body may be at it's peak (on average) when weight, balance, speed and power are all taken into account.

There would of course be individual exceptions, but as a rule this seems to hold up, to my estimation.

I have to agree Buzz.

Consider guys like Pac/ PBF were able to build up to this weight, and guys like Calzaghe fought at WW (for a short period) in their amateur days. 10.5 stone is always going to have a large pool of talent as small guys don't usually go much above WW and the odd big guy can make the weight.

I have a feeling MW has suffered since the introduction of SM. Too many hiding places from MW to LHW now. From 2 to 15 titles now available in these weights.

BoxBuzz wrote:It is my take that the Welterweight divison holds this distinction. Probably because of physics. I think that pound for pound the human body may be at it's peak (on average) when weight, balance, speed and power are all taken into account.

There would of course be individual exceptions, but as a rule this seems to hold up, to my estimation.

What about Featherweight though. It has a long history of many great fighters.

Roco wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:It is my take that the Welterweight divison holds this distinction. Probably because of physics. I think that pound for pound the human body may be at it's peak (on average) when weight, balance, speed and power are all taken into account.

There would of course be individual exceptions, but as a rule this seems to hold up, to my estimation.

What about Featherweight though. It has a long history of many great fighters.

A good argument can be made that the curve drops off MUCH faster on the way up vs the way down in terms of weight.

1. Lightweight
2. Welterweight
3. Middleweight
4. Lt. Heavyweight
5. Featherweight
6. Bantamweight
7. Flyweight
8. Heavyweight

Flyweight and Heavyweight are interchangeable, given that Heavyweights have the greater quality at the top whereas Flyweights have the greater depth.

I'm going to do the major and junior/super divisions separately...

Welterweight
Lightweight
Featherweight
Middleweight
Heavyweight
Bantamweight
Flyweight
Light Heavyweight

Light Flyweight
Super Bantamweight
Super Featherweight
Light Middleweight
Light Welterweight
Super Middleweight
Super Flyweight
Cruiserweight
Strawweight

LW is number-1 for me, in terms of greats. Being a top-20 all-time Light is equivalent to top 8 or 10 at Heavy, IMO.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:I'm going to do the major and junior/super divisions separately...

Welterweight
Lightweight
Featherweight
Middleweight
Heavyweight
Bantamweight
Flyweight
Light Heavyweight

Da fuuuuuuuuccck?

Yeah, explain yourself, WEAPON!

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Yeah, explain yourself, WEAPON!

Too many long lulls in talent combined with many of the best guys coming from MW and/or leaving to HW

Goodnight, Irene wrote:LW is number-1 for me, in terms of greats. Being a top-20 all-time Light is equivalent to top 8 or 10 at Heavy, IMO.

I guess that is arguable. However, once you too far outside of the top 20, there is a dropoff with the lightweights. I would pick the #30 heavyweight over the #30 lightweight.

Ambling Alp wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:LW is number-1 for me, in terms of greats. Being a top-20 all-time Light is equivalent to top 8 or 10 at Heavy, IMO.

I guess that is arguable. However, once you too far outside of the top 20, there is a dropoff with the lightweights. I would pick the #30 heavyweight over the #30 lightweight.

I'd pick him as well, seeing as he'd probably outweigh him by 100 pounds.

However, in terms of depth, not a snowball's chance in hell.

Really? I guess I would have to see who have in your top for each weight class. (also depends somewhat if you are counting guys who fought only briefly at lightweight.)

My #30 lightweight is Al Singer. I have Peter Jackson at #30 for heavyweights. I would go with Jackson over Singer. My high 20s and early 30s have guys like Dave Holly Jack Blackburn, Esteban DeJesus, Ken Buchanan, Ismael Kaguna.
That is a big drop off from people like Jack, Montgomery, Arguello etc. who are just inside the top 20.

From # 16-30 there is very little drop off in heavyweights. I have Charles, Walcott, Patterson, Norton, Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Langford, Wills, Jeannette, and McVey, Sullivan and Jackson, though I frequently change the order. These guys are very close. almost no dropoff.

Ambling Alp wrote:Really? I guess I would have to see who have in your top for each weight class. (also depends somewhat if you are counting guys who fought only briefly at lightweight.)

My #30 lightweight is Al Singer. I have Peter Jackson at #30 for heavyweights. I would go with Jackson over Singer. My high 20s and early 30s have guys like Dave Holly Jack Blackburn, Esteban DeJesus, Ken Buchanan, Ismael Kaguna.
That is a big drop off from people like Jack, Montgomery, Arguello etc. who are just inside the top 20.

From # 16-30 there is very little drop off in heavyweights. I have Charles, Walcott, Patterson, Norton, Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Langford, Wills, Jeannette, and McVey, Sullivan and Jackson, though I frequently change the order. These guys are very close. almost no dropoff.

Lightweights: Armstrong, Duran, McFarland, Gans, Leonard, Ross, Canzoneri, Whitaker, Napoles, Ortiz, Williams, Chavez, Arguello, Ambers, Angott, Jack, Montgomery, McAuliffe, Lavigne, Nelson, Wolgast, Ritchie, Welsh, Brown, Montanez, Laguna, Buchanan, De Jesus, Blackburn, Holly, Tendler, Pryor, Mayweather, Mosley, etc.

Heavyweights: Ali, Louis, Holmes, Tyson, Frazier, Liston, Marciano, Dempsey, Johnson, Lewis, Holyfield, Foreman, Jeffries, Wills, Schmeling, Baer, Patterson, Charles, Walcott, Bowe, Vitali & Wlad, Sullivan, Corbett, Norton, Fitzsimmons, Tunney, etc.

If we're demeaning the division's ranking due to fighters that passed through/fought half their career at the weight, etc. rather than making a comfortable stay, Heavyweight is almost as troubled as Lightweight.

And contrary to what you say, I don't see as big a drop-off in class between the groups of fighters you've named as you do. I think Heavyweight takes a notable drop-off after about the first 12-14 names. Takes until the final 1/4th of the names to see a big drop off at Lightweight, where there are plenty more waiting.

It's hard to be totally objective. Since HW's will typically get the job done against any other weight division it's challenging to keep perspective. But it's my opinion that if you took the FW division, and either brought them up to the HW's...or vice versa, the FW division would perform better. And I would still maintain that WW is the most efficient weight class.

King Carlos wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Really? I guess I would have to see who have in your top for each weight class. (also depends somewhat if you are counting guys who fought only briefly at lightweight.)

My #30 lightweight is Al Singer. I have Peter Jackson at #30 for heavyweights. I would go with Jackson over Singer. My high 20s and early 30s have guys like Dave Holly Jack Blackburn, Esteban DeJesus, Ken Buchanan, Ismael Kaguna.
That is a big drop off from people like Jack, Montgomery, Arguello etc. who are just inside the top 20.

From # 16-30 there is very little drop off in heavyweights. I have Charles, Walcott, Patterson, Norton, Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Langford, Wills, Jeannette, and McVey, Sullivan and Jackson, though I frequently change the order. These guys are very close. almost no dropoff.

Lightweights: Armstrong, Duran, McFarland, Gans, Leonard, Ross, Canzoneri, Whitaker, Napoles, Ortiz, Williams, Chavez, Arguello, Ambers, Angott, Jack, Montgomery, McAuliffe, Lavigne, Nelson, Wolgast, Ritchie, Welsh, Brown, Montanez, Laguna, Buchanan, De Jesus, Blackburn, Holly, Tendler, Pryor, Mayweather, Mosley, etc.

Heavyweights: Ali, Louis, Holmes, Tyson, Frazier, Liston, Marciano, Dempsey, Johnson, Lewis, Holyfield, Foreman, Jeffries, Wills, Schmeling, Baer, Patterson, Charles, Walcott, Bowe, Vitali & Wlad, Sullivan, Corbett, Norton, Fitzsimmons, Tunney, etc.

If we're demeaning the division's ranking due to fighters that passed through/fought half their career at the weight, etc. rather than making a comfortable stay, Heavyweight is almost as troubled as Lightweight.

And contrary to what you say, I don't see as big a drop-off in class between the groups of fighters you've named as you do. I think Heavyweight takes a notable drop-off after about the first 12-14 names. Takes until the final 1/4th of the names to see a big drop off at Lightweight, where there are plenty more waiting.

I agree that there is a bit of a dropoff for heavyweights when you get to about #14. (almost every heavyweight I have there spent the majority of their career at heavyweight. They all had several significant fights at heavyweight) However, going from 14-30, there is almost no dropoff at all.

For lightweights, from around #14 to # 30 there is a major dropoff. I think that some of the guys you have mentioned, (Laguna, Buchanan, and DeJesus) are a major dropoff from say the #14 lightweight. btw-I don't think Pryor should rated as a lightweight at all.

Would like to see your exact ranking 1-30 for both weight classes.