Top 20 of all times?

[IronDanHamza]

It does say they were top rated fighters? "men such as Bouzini, Mansfield, and Cullen who were all top flyweights". the rest were documented champs or ex champs.

A guy saying "These were top rated fighters" isn't a source.

Yeah, British Champions. Why is Wilde the only person from that era who get's some sort of credit for beating a British Champion?

Mansfield almost had a losing record when he first fought Wilde. He was a top fighter?

Bouzini was 0-2!!

This is what I'm talking about. It's ridiculous.

[Humean]

Conn's resume is leagues better than Chavez'. Literally leagues better.

He's more skilled and has a way better resume.

He's clearly greater than Chavez I can't see how it's even debatable.

Chavez is an overrated fighter to be honest. How on Earth is Chavez a Top 20 ATG? Top 15 actually on your list.

Conn more skilled than Chavez? What a zinger.

This thread highlights the flaws of all the emphasis on resume, it becomes a matter of who has the most recognizable fighter's on their resume almost irrespective of how good they really were, such as how they'd fair in other eras and at what stage of their career they were in.

Take Conn's record, he has Zivic on there. Zivic was a welterweight and Conn a middleweight and later a light-heavyweight. Zivic had lost 16 fights prior to Conn beating him on a split decision. In Conn's defence he weighed in only 7 pounds heavier than Zivic and was only in his third year as a pro.

He also beat notable middleweights of that era: Risko, Yarosz (twice and a loss), Krieger (twice and a loss), Dundee, Apostoli (twice), Corbett (split wins with this former welterweight champ) and Zale.

and at light heavyweight beat Bettina twice and Lesnevich twice.

No arguments from me that this is an impressive resume, one of the best of the era and Conn himself was probably in the top 10 best fighters of the 1930s.

However only in a fantasy world is he better than Chavez. Granted the film footage of Conn himself is very sparse but then it works both ways for that evidence. You'd have to be blind not to watch Chavez in hs prime and think he is not a strong candidate for being in the top 20 greatest and best prize fighters of all time.

Anyway even if you take resume then you can look at it this way. I listed 15 quality wins for Conn, if you compare the records of those fighters when he fought them with the records of Chavez's best 15 wins, it looks like this:

zivic 48-16-4
risko 63-17-10
yarosz 84-4-2
yarosz 88-5-2
krieger 75-17-6
krieger 71-16-5
dundee 117-17-14
apostoli 34-4-0
apostoli 34-3-0
corbett 114-10-22
zale 51-15-2
bettina 45-6-2
bettina 46-7-2
lesnevich 44-4-5
lesnevich 45-5-5
1196 959-146-81
80% 12% 7%

mario martinez 33-1-2
castillo 64-4-2
mayweather 21-2-0
lockridge 38-4-0
laporte 27-6-0
rosario 31-2-0
ramirez 101-6-0
mayweather 34-5-0
taylor 24-0-1
camacho 40-1-0
haugen 32-4-0
randall 49-2-1
taylor 32-3-1
lopez 45-4-1
parisi 29-1-0
653 600-45-8
92%7%1%

In total over those 15 wins Conn's opponents had won 80% of their fights and lost 12% whereas Chavez's opponents had won 92% and lost 7%. So even in terms of resume it might be very questionable to think Conn's resume is way better or (better at all!) than Chavez's. That is at least something to bear in mind.

[Humean]

A guy saying "These were top rated fighters" isn't a source.

Yeah, British Champions. Why is Wilde the only person from that era who get's some sort of credit for beating a British Champion?

Mansfield almost had a losing record when he first fought Wilde. He was a top fighter?

Bouzini was 0-2!!

This is what I'm talking about. It's ridiculous.

Bouzonnie probably had a far better record that simply isn't documented and that might also be the case for some of Wilde's other opponents. Having said that I don't disagree with you that Wilde is overrated.

[IronDanHamza]

Bouzonnie probably had a far better record that simply isn't documented and that might also be the case for some of Wilde's other opponents. Having said that I don't disagree with you that Wilde is overrated.

Conn more skilled than Chavez? What a zinger.

This thread highlights the flaws of all the emphasis on resume, it becomes a matter of who has the most recognizable fighter's on their resume almost irrespective of how good they really were, such as how they'd fair in other eras and at what stage of their career they were in.

Take Conn's record, he has Zivic on there. Zivic was a welterweight and Conn a middleweight and later a light-heavyweight. Zivic had lost 16 fights prior to Conn beating him on a split decision. In Conn's defence he weighed in only 7 pounds heavier than Zivic and was only in his third year as a pro.

He also beat notable middleweights of that era: Risko, Yarosz (twice and a loss), Krieger (twice and a loss), Dundee, Apostoli (twice), Corbett (split wins with this former welterweight champ) and Zale.

and at light heavyweight beat Bettina twice and Lesnevich twice.

No arguments from me that this is an impressive resume, one of the best of the era and Conn himself was probably in the top 10 best fighters of the 1930s.

However only in a fantasy world is he better than Chavez. Granted the film footage of Conn himself is very sparse but then it works both ways for that evidence. You'd have to be blind not to watch Chavez in hs prime and think he is not a strong candidate for being in the top 20 greatest and best prize fighters of all time.

Anyway even if you take resume then you can look at it this way. I listed 15 quality wins for Conn, if you compare the records of those fighters when he fought them with the records of Chavez's best 15 wins, it looks like this:

zivic 48-16-4
risko 63-17-10
yarosz 84-4-2
yarosz 88-5-2
krieger 75-17-6
krieger 71-16-5
dundee 117-17-14
apostoli 34-4-0
apostoli 34-3-0
corbett 114-10-22
zale 51-15-2
bettina 45-6-2
bettina 46-7-2
lesnevich 44-4-5
lesnevich 45-5-5
1196 959-146-81
80% 12% 7%

mario martinez 33-1-2
castillo 64-4-2
mayweather 21-2-0
lockridge 38-4-0
laporte 27-6-0
rosario 31-2-0
ramirez 101-6-0
mayweather 34-5-0
taylor 24-0-1
camacho 40-1-0
haugen 32-4-0
randall 49-2-1
taylor 32-3-1
lopez 45-4-1
parisi 29-1-0
653 600-45-8
92%7%1%

In total over those 15 wins Conn's opponents had won 80% of their fights and lost 12% whereas Chavez's opponents had won 92% and lost 7%. So even in terms of resume it might be very questionable to think Conn's resume is way better or (better at all!) than Chavez's. That is at least something to bear in mind.

Thought you weren't posting here any longer?

[Humean]

Thought you weren't posting here any longer?

I changed my mind. See it does happen!

[RubenSonny]

I changed my mind. See it does happen!

Change it back.

[Welsh Jon]

If Wilde fought the best then "the best" at that time were pretty damn awful.

Were they really the best? I'm not sure they were.

You're not sure they were the best? What are you basing this on? From their likely incomplete records? It is hard to dispute that it was a weak era for flyweights, but I've never read anything to suggest he avoided any dangerous foes.

Surely his wins over top Bantamweights Moore and Lynch, who would both have outweighed Wilde, are significant victories for him. I'm not saying Wilde is a top 20 p4p guy but his boxing resume is far from a joke.

[IronDanHamza]

You're not sure they were the best? What are you basing this on? From their likely incomplete records? It is hard to dispute that it was a weak era for flyweights, but I've never read anything to suggest he avoided any dangerous foes.

Surely his wins over top Bantamweights Moore and Lynch, who would both have outweighed Wilde, are significant victories for him. I'm not saying Wilde is a top 20 p4p guy but his boxing resume is far from a joke.

I find it hard to believe these guys were the best. It's difficult to rank Wilde because of the lack of information in all honesty.

What's definite though, is his resume is far from great.

[Humean]

Change it back.

Not if it annoys you so.

[billeau2]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion....It is an argument in the rhealm of possability that Chavez could be compared to Conn. I happen to think Conn was a much better fighter than Chavez, but then again I think Chavez was given a lot of favorite treatment by judges and was totally shown up in some of his fights. I also hate the bastard for not fessing up that he got a gift when Sweet Pea totally owned him...at least he could have been contrite.

Again these lists are problematic because it becomes very nebulous to argue "better" regarding fighters who have some traction...No not Wilder who is not better than Jones, but guys like Chavez compared to guys like Conn.

Some guys are not even that notable but have a reputation as being excellent...for example Michael Moore, a guy who some consider (including myself) perhaps the second or third best light heavy ever.

Many arguments can be made about who goes on such a list thats the reality.