My Top Ten ATG LHWs

[Marchegiano]

I often say the same thing. You'll definitely learn from the more knowledgeable posters here. That is, if they're still around and haven't been sent away from all the petty squabbling we've had lately. I've certainly learned a lot here about boxing history here. Guys like Jab, billeau, Bundana. Bob Foster I somehow managed to forget about myself, even though I've read about him here. Our resident mod here too, Bat. The guy with the **** Tiger avatar who sets us straight on James Toney. Stick with those guys and you should be okay. Probably more I'm forgetting off the top of my head.

I kinda of hate doing research alone. I like finding things on my own but the bit when you're processing new info and have no one else's opinion but your own makes me very unsure.

[billeau2]

I don't mind being the butt of a joke if the joke is good. I don't mind looking ****** if I learn.

Lists seem to provoke thoughts and opinions from knowledgeable posters who would otherwise keep themselves out of my threads. I've been here a long time but only recently got noticed as a mainstay on the forums. I don't believe my interests are any different, my delivery is though. I no longer ask for knowledge directly which seems to do better than just saying " Hey guys I'm looking into X at the moment, have any of you in the know any direction you reckon is worth mention?" or some such similar nonsense.

I know my knowledge of LHW is weak. I'd call it casual knowledge because I came by it casually. I did not look for it, I did not put in effort, I've picked up or noticed while looking at other things. Louis teaches some Lewis but unless you look at Lewis you won't really know John Henry from Joe's story, you'll know just a bit, which is where I'm at

To provoke who should I be looking at I made my list of who I know. Because when I searched ATG LHWs in various form I pulled crickets and so, two birds with one stone. I need to learn and these great fighters have histories that need sharing more often.

Makes perfect sense... I actually took a stab at it to support that thinking. Like I said, I only got up to 8...

Your efforts highlight a lot of considerations that will only make everyone more knowledgable... Like who belongs in this division? a tough question sometimes.

I hope you understand I support your efforts M... I hope my initial post conveyed this sentiment.

[Marchegiano]

All ridiculous lists! Lists must be who beats whom, not based on your fantasies and desires.

I feel like mine mostly is. I know this isn't a popular opinion but I respect the belts too.

I'm honestly disappointed in great LHWs who never held the LHW world title despite being the contender to beat for a year or better.

Is Boxrec's points system not based on wins over ranked opposition? No regard for belts or anything like that, just, solely, points based on who beat who when?

I'm under that impression currently and so I think I did decently based off Boxrec's list/criteria.

Q:

Does Bob Foster have the most LHW defenses in the org era?

[Bundana]

Bundana I am also confused. Could you elaborate on what specifically you mean? And why this criteria should take precedence? It makes sense that objective ability should reign supreme, but staking all that on a hypothetical match? assuming that is what you mean seems to magnify some attributes that are important over other equally important things like: titles held, competition faced at the time, etc.

Ok, I'll try to explain myself.

Being a great fighter 100+ years ago, isn't the same as being a great fighter today, imo.

If you were the best of the best in the 1890s, you had reached that position by proving your superiority over your contemporaries. We can't really ask for more than that of anyone - and we should admire and honour the fighters back then for their acomplishments.

However, if someone ask me to make a list of the best LHWs of all time, would I base that on the opinion of someone like Nat Fleischer?:

1 - Kid McCoy
2 - Phil. Jack O'Brien
3 - Jack Dillon
4 - Tommy Loughran
5 - Jack Root
6 - Battling Levinsky
7 - George Carpentier
8 - Tom Gibbons
9 - Jack Delaney
10 - Paul Berlenbach

No Ezzard Charles, no Archie Moore(!)... only pre-WW2 boxers he either saw or read about in his youth.

We can also look at the all-time p4p list of a modern (still living) historian like Tracy Callis:

1 - Bob Fitzsimmons
2 - Sugar Ray Robinson
3 - Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
4 - Sam Langford
5 - Charlie Mitchell
6 - Henry Armstrong
7 - Stanley Ketchel
8 - Jack Dempsey
9 - Ezzard Charles
10 - Phil. Jack O'Brien

Unlike Fleischer, Callis had not even been born, when most of these men were active - but from a lifetime of studying old newspaper reports, he has convinced himself, that these are the 10 best boxers who ever lived!

I have all the respect in the world for the pioneers of the sport, but no matter how great they were IN THEIR OWN TIME, I find it absurd to believe, that boxers no one has ever seen, like Nonpareil and Mitchell, are in the top-5 of all time... simply based on what reporters wrote 130 years ago! There's of course no way of proving, they are NOT... but to me (for what it's worth, if anything) his list makes little sense.

Now once we get into the late 30s and early 40s, with the emergence of boxers like (for example) Louis, Pep and Robinson, boxing had evolved into what I think most of us would call "modern" (for lack of a better word). So during the past 80 years or so, I believe there's a much stronger correlation between resume/accomplishments and actual ability. But then again, it's all subjective and just my personal opinion.

I hope this clarifies my position.

[billeau2]

Ok, I'll try to explain myself.

Being a great fighter 100+ years ago, isn't the same as being a great fighter today, imo.

If you were the best of the best in the 1890s, you had reached that position by proving your superiority over your contemporaries. We can't really ask for more than that of anyone - and we should admire and honour the fighters back then for their acomplishments.

However, if someone ask me to make a list of the best LHWs of all time, would I base that on the opinion of someone like Nat Fleischer?:

1 - Kid McCoy
2 - Phil. Jack O'Brien
3 - Jack Dillon
4 - Tommy Loughran
5 - Jack Root
6 - Battling Levinsky
7 - George Carpentier
8 - Tom Gibbons
9 - Jack Delaney
10 - Paul Berlenbach

No Ezzard Charles, no Archie Moore(!)... only pre-WW2 boxers he either saw or read about in his youth.

We can also look at the all-time p4p list of a modern (still living) historian like Tracy Callis:

1 - Bob Fitzsimmons
2 - Sugar Ray Robinson
3 - Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
4 - Sam Langford
5 - Charlie Mitchell
6 - Henry Armstrong
7 - Stanley Ketchel
8 - Jack Dempsey
9 - Ezzard Charles
10 - Phil. Jack O'Brien

Unlike Fleischer, Callis had not even been born, when most of these men were active - but from a lifetime of studying old newspaper reports, he has convinced himself, that these are the 10 best boxers who ever lived!

I have all the respect in the world for the pioneers of the sport, but no matter how great they were IN THEIR OWN TIME, I find it absurd to believe, that boxers no one has ever seen, like Nonpareil and Mitchell, are in the top-5 of all time... simply based on what reporters wrote 130 years ago! There's of course no way of proving, they are NOT... but to me (for what it's worth, if anything) his list makes little sense.

Now once we get into the late 30s and early 40s, with the emergence of boxers like (for example) Louis, Pep and Robinson, boxing had evolved into what I think most of us would call "modern" (for lack of a better word). So during the past 80 years or so, I believe there's a much stronger correlation between resume/accomplishments and actual ability. But then again, it's all subjective and just my personal opinion.

I hope this clarifies my position.

Does for me... Just look at the vernacular! Today? we call Mike Tyson a bad Mtherfker... the great nonpareil Dempsey? was known by a moniker of similar distinction, for the time... opponents were said to tremble at the mere mention of this moniker... Dempsey was of course "the game c o ck." I don't know about you Bundana but my c o ck is much more game watching a women's wet T shirt contest!

Seriously I agree with you.

[Bundana]

I don't know about you Bundana but my c o ck is much more game watching a women's wet T shirt contest!

LOL... can't honestly say, that I disagree with this!

[billeau2]

LOL... can't honestly say, that I disagree with this!

I can just imagine, 200 years from now, some youth hearing the idiom "he was a bad mtherfker and laughing about it compared to what is popular at the time.

[Anthony342]

You forgot Rusty and Rick Smith... sorry could not resist...

Iron Dan Hamza, that's his name. He set me straight not only on James Toney, but on Mayweather too. Plus I was ****in ****tail waitresses, two at a time.

[Anthony342]

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm legitimately confused. Is resume not who beat who?

Yes it is, but he's saying who would beat who, so I think he's going more by head to head comparisons. Resume seems like a better way to go IMO.

[Anthony342]

I kinda of hate doing research alone. I like finding things on my own but the bit when you're processing new info and have no one else's opinion but your own makes me very unsure.

Well with the mounds of stuff I've seen you post here, I can't imagine all the hours it must have taken you to research all of that. Much respect.