Please Participate--All Time Lightweight Survey (POLL CLOSED!!)

[Rumsfeld]

Same deal as with the heavyweight, light heavyweight, middleweight, and welterweight divisions. I will keep this one going until November 19 (give or take, but make that the tentative deadline for now).

Scoring system is as follows:

25 points for your #1 guy
15 for #2
12 for #3
10 for #4
8 for #5
5 for #6
4 for #7
3 for #8
2 for #9
1 for #10

* Please make a list of TEN FIGHTERS.

* NO TIES!
* If you make a List of MORE or LESS than 10, your list will NOT COUNT
* Please include fighter's full name

Anyway, to kick it off, here's what I came up with:

1. Roberto Duran
2. Benny Leonard
3. Pernell Whitaker
4. Joe Gans
5. Carlos Ortiz
6. Alexis Arguello
7. Ike Williams
8. Henry Armstrong
9. Sugar Shane Mosley
10. Tony Canzoneri

[WhataRock]

1. Benny Leonard
2. Roberto Duran
3. Ike Williams
4. Carlos Ortiz
5. Pernell Whitaker
6. Joe Gans
7. Henry Armstrong
8. Tony Canzoneri
9. Packy McFarland
10. Joe Brown

So many guys I wanted to put in there...Ambers, Welsh, Laguna, Jack, Tendler, Chavez, Ross..but again this is hard and my head would have hurt to much after it.

The greatest and most talent rich division that boxing has ever seen.

[Bummy Davis]

This is one of my favorite divisions and will take some work. I will have to get back to this.

[bodhi]

1. Benny Leonard
2. Roberto Duran
3. Joe Gans
4. Carlos Ortiz
5. Pernell Whitaker
6. Ike Williams
7. Henry Armstrong
8. Tony Canzoneri
9. Barney Ross
0. Ismael Laguna

[mcvey]

1 . Benny Leonard
2 .Joe Gans
3.Ike Williams
4.Roberto Duran
5.Henry Armstrong
6.Barney Ross
7.Carlos Ortiz
8.Tony Canzoneri
9.Pernell Whitaker
10.Joe Brown

[McGrain]

Guys, no Jack McAuliffe? I know I complain about somebody every time we do one of these things and you all must be sick of it, but Jack was the best of the pre-Gans lightweights and maybe apart from Gans nobody overhauled him until Leonard...also, pre-Louis-era, this was probably the deepest division all told? The man was ubeaten against the best of his generation, he fought for 13 plus years. Is he just forgotten because he's from a by-gone era? Williams and Britton, okay, I was up for them being in but I think if JM doesn't make it in it's a bit of a disgrace for ESB Classic to be honest...

Jack McAuliffe never lost and fought 9 world title bouts. He could box, punch and was seen as the greatest ring general of the day. I can't imagine the criteria that would allow Laguna or even someone like Barney Ross to rank above him, unless it was criteria excluding un-filmed fighters.

[rileyjj123456]

1. Roberto Duran
2. Benny Leonard
3. Joe Gans
4. Ike Williams
5. Pernell Whitaker
6. Carlos Ortiz
7. Henry Armstrong
8. Tony Canzoneri
9. Alexis Arguello
10. Sugar Shane Mosley

[Boilermaker]

Guys, no Jack McAuliffe? I know I complain about somebody every time we do one of these things and you all must be sick of it, but Jack was the best of the pre-Gans lightweights and maybe apart from Gans nobody overhauled him until Leonard...also, pre-Louis-era, this was probably the deepest division all told? The man was ubeaten against the best of his generation, he fought for 13 plus years. Is he just forgotten because he's from a by-gone era? Williams and Britton, okay, I was up for them being in but I think if JM doesn't make it in it's a bit of a disgrace for ESB Classic to be honest...

Jack McAuliffe never lost and fought 9 world title bouts. He could box, punch and was seen as the greatest ring general of the day. I can't imagine the criteria that would allow Laguna or even someone like Barney Ross to rank above him, unless it was criteria excluding un-filmed fighters.

I agree, 100%. How in the world does the longest reigning champion in the history of the division not make the top 10.

I think anyone who has already posted a list should read about Jack McAuliffe and repost their lists.

[turpinr]

1. Roberto Duran
2. Ike Williams
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Alexis Arguello
5. Pernell Whitaker
6. Carlos Ortiz
7. Joe Brown
8. Ken Buchanan
9. Ismael laguna
10. Tony Canzoneri


the first four picked themselves.its just a matter of what order

[McGrain]

I agree, 100%. How in the world does the longest reigning champion in the history of the division not make the top 10.

I think anyone who has already posted a list should read about Jack McAuliffe and repost their lists.


The best you can do if you want to hold something against him is the Carney draw. The only figher I would say is inarguably above him is Leonard. You can definitely rank others above him safely and snuggly - Gans for example - but McAuliffe is basically anywhere in the argument you'd care to mention outside of the #1 spot IMO. I think he'll probably end up #4 or #5 on my list. Possibly #3.

[McGrain]

01 - Benny Leonard
02 - Roberto Duran
03 - Joe Gans
04 - Jack McAullife
05 - Ike Williams
06 - Carlos Ortiz
07 - Pernell Whitaker
08 - Henry Armstrong
09 - Packy McFarland
10 - Tony Canzoneri









11 & 12 are Buchanan and Ross

[Boilermaker]

The best you can do if you want to hold something against him is the Carney draw. The only figher I would say is inarguably above him is Leonard. You can definitely rank others above him safely and snuggly - Gans for example - but McAuliffe is basically anywhere in the argument you'd care to mention outside of the #1 spot IMO. I think he'll probably end up #4 or #5 on my list. Possibly #3.

I wouldnt necessarilly say inarguably, but i agree with what you say.

I know it proves nothing, but how awesome would the 1920 exhibition fight between McAuliffe and Leonard have been?

[McGrain]

I know it proves nothing, but how awesome would the 1920 exhibition fight between McAuliffe and Leonard have been?

In the main, because we would have had a drop of Jack on film. And I'm sure Leonard would have been gentlemanly and let him have some time and space to show his best.

[the cobra]

1. Benny Leonard
2. Roberto Duran
3. Joe Gans
4. Pernell Whitaker
5. Ike Williams
6. Jack McAullife (Still know very little about him, but I'm convinced enough)
7. Henry Armstrong
8. Carlos Ortiz
9. Tony Canzoneri
10. Joe Brown

[McGrain]

6. Jack McAullife (Still know very little about him, but I'm convinced enough)



You a righteous man.

[PunchOut]

nothing in the lists above can be serious without JCC

1. Julio Cesar Chavez
2. Roberto Duran
3. Benny Leonard
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Pernell Whitaker
6. Ike Williams
7. Henry Armstrong
8. Tony Canzoneri
9. Barney Ross
0. Ismael Laguna

[McGrain]

Chavez>Leonard, who knew?

[PunchOut]

Chavez>Leonard, who knew?

All Day man

All day

[mcvey]

Guys, no Jack McAuliffe? I know I complain about somebody every time we do one of these things and you all must be sick of it, but Jack was the best of the pre-Gans lightweights and maybe apart from Gans nobody overhauled him until Leonard...also, pre-Louis-era, this was probably the deepest division all told? The man was ubeaten against the best of his generation, he fought for 13 plus years. Is he just forgotten because he's from a by-gone era? Williams and Britton, okay, I was up for them being in but I think if JM doesn't make it in it's a bit of a disgrace for ESB Classic to be honest...

Jack McAuliffe never lost and fought 9 world title bouts. He could box, punch and was seen as the greatest ring general of the day. I can't imagine the criteria that would allow Laguna or even someone like Barney Ross to rank above him, unless it was criteria excluding un-filmed fighters.
Apart from a dec over Young Griffo ,who was a feather weight ,which win of McAuliffe's justifies him being in your top ten Mac?
Not having a pop, because we all have our own favourites ,but his wins are largely over no bodies as far as I can see.Maybe you know more about them than me ,as its not my era of interest.
Personally I would rate George Kid Lavigne over McAuliffe.

[mcvey]

nothing in the lists above can be serious without JCC

1. Julio Cesar Chavez
2. Roberto Duran
3. Benny Leonard
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Pernell Whitaker
6. Ike Williams
7. Henry Armstrong
8. Tony Canzoneri
9. Barney Ross
0. Ismael Laguna
Three great wins at the weight is obviously enough to make him your number one.

[McGrain]

Apart from a dec over Young Griffo ,who was a feather weight ,which win of McAuliffe's justifies him being in your top ten Mac?
Not having a pop, because we all have our own favourites ,but his wins are largely over no bodies as far as I can see.Maybe you know more about them than me ,as its not my era of interest.
Personally I would rate George Kid Lavigne over McAuliffe.

Well before we get to his best wins, we've got his consistancy. 13 years, 9 world title bouts. Think about that, what it takes to be unbeaten over that length of time with a big target on your back that says BEST. Why does he even need great wins? His record speaks of a little Marciano.

I was speaking with Janitor and Boilermaker about Ryan today and yesterday. I can't speak for them, but having a closer look at some original sources what struck me was not so much that Ryan is forgotten, but that his opponents are. This tarnishes Ryan's legacy. Same thing with McAullife.

Check out this thread I did a few days back (co-incidently - i came across this fighter without having even though about McAuliffe) on Jimmy Carroll:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

This guy matched and beat some of the best lightweights in the world through the 80's and 90's and the best bare-knuckle fighters England had to offer in the 70's (supposedly). I don't think "contender" really cuts it - Carroll is arguably a borderilne great in his own right (possibly stronging it a bit, like any new find i'm excited by this fighter). McAulliffe gets no credit for this scalp because none of us know he exsists (or most of us don't).

Their fight, detailed in the thread, may have been one of the ATG battles. A 47 round war and Jack pulls it out with a last-punch rally whilst dead on his feet against an absolute top-drawer warrior who would become a veteran so sustained he makes Hopkins's longevity look like a quick burn-out...McAullife beat the best of his era over a 13 year period and was never once beaten...were they all bums i'd be calling for him to be in the top 10, as it is I think he's top 5.

[McGrain]

Carroll fought top men over three decades when boxing was even tougher than it is now. Amazing stuff.

[mcvey]

Well before we get to his best wins, we've got his consistancy. 13 years, 9 world title bouts. Think about that, what it takes to be unbeaten over that length of time with a big target on your back that says BEST. Why does he even need great wins? His record speaks of a little Marciano.

I was speaking with Janitor and Boilermaker about Ryan today and yesterday. I can't speak for them, but having a closer look at some original sources what struck me was not so much that Ryan is forgotten, but that his opponents are. This tarnishes Ryan's legacy. Same thing with McAullife.

Check out this thread I did a few days back (co-incidently - i came across this fighter without having even though about McAuliffe) on Jimmy Carroll:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

This guy matched and beat some of the best lightweights in the world through the 80's and 90's and the best bare-knuckle fighters England had to offer in the 70's (supposedly). I don't think "contender" really cuts it - Carroll is arguably a borderilne great in his own right (possibly stronging it a bit, like any new find i'm excited by this fighter). McAulliffe gets no credit for this scalp because none of us know he exsists (or most of us don't).

Their fight, detailed in the thread, may have been one of the ATG battles. A 47 round war and Jack pulls it out with a last-punch rally whilst dead on his feet against an absolute top-drawer warrior who would become a veteran so sustained he makes Hopkins's longevity look like a quick burn-out...McAullife beat the best of his era over a 13 year period and was never once beaten...were they all bums i'd be calling for him to be in the top 10, as it is I think he's top 5.
I am sorry, I just can't get past the fact that he feasted on non entities,true he was undefeated but who was he fighting?
Look at their resumes,even if some of them are incomplete ,they were novices .Carroll was 35 years old when they met and his record? well look it up.
You have McAuliffe at no 4 and Canzoneri at no 9 ?
As a lightweight Canzoneri beat.
Klick
Ambers
Mclarnin
Chocolate x2
Petrolle
Berg
Singer
Arizmendi
McAuliffe ,who was known to have his own referee on occasion , beat who?

[McGrain]

I am sorry, I just can't get past the fact that he feasted on non entities,true he was undefeated but who was he fighting?
Look at their resumes,even if some of them are incomplete ,they were novices .Carroll was 35 years old when they met and his record? well look it up.
?


You've really surprised me. I thought that thread demonstrated pretty clearly that Carroll had a decent record and made it pretty clear that only a fraction of his record was available on Boxrec. Like I said, I think Carroll has a claim at borderline greatness. I've got TWO confirmed losses to him, both to Jack. As to his age when they met, so? He showed incredible stamina, his stamina at 35 is completely proven, and he was winning tough fights around that time...it means nothing to me what age he was.

If you genuinely think that MacAuliffe was "feasting on non-entities" you need to look again. Hard.

[mcvey]

You've really surprised me. I thought that thread demonstrated pretty clearly that Carroll had a decent record and made it pretty clear that only a fraction of his record was available on Boxrec. Like I said, I think Carroll has a claim at borderline greatness. I've got TWO confirmed losses to him, both to Jack. As to his age when they met, so? He showed incredible stamina, his stamina at 35 is completely proven, and he was winning tough fights around that time...it means nothing to me what age he was.

If you genuinely think that MacAuliffe was "feasting on non-entities" you need to look again. Hard.

I think you can stay champion quite a long time ,if for the most part, you are fighting men of nondescript talent .How many lightweights can you name who were anywhere near their prime at 35?

From what I have read of the Carney fight,[who was probably the best name on his lightweight resume],Carney was ahead when the crowd broke the ring down giving the referee no alternative but to call the fight a draw.

I will give you a name , a Lightweight champion,whom I garauntee ,won't make anyone's top ten,his resume makes McAuliiffe's look decidedly average.
He beat these guys, the number of bouts they had when he did so is next to their names.
Contrast them with the opponents McAuliffe met.


Rocky Kansas 72
Sid Terris 66
Johnny Dundee 122
Billy Petrolle 62
Jackie Fields 31
Jimmy Mclarnin 42
Tony Canzoneri 72
Babe Herman 73
6 out of the 8 given were world champions,and at least 2 of them all time greats.
Sammy Mandell is his name, and no one will put him anywhere near the top ten, yet ,you picked out McAuliffe,and Boilermaker puts him in the top 3?
Still, I suppose that's what its all about personal choices, hell ,I pick Dempsey to ko Louis!
What do I know?

[Dempsey1238]

I wouldnt necessarilly say inarguably, but i agree with what you say.

I know it proves nothing, but how awesome would the 1920 exhibition fight between McAuliffe and Leonard have been?


I have McAuliffe vs Dempsey and Carpentier around 1919-1921 about.

Nothing much one can say about McAuliffe, because well, he was slapping punchings and look arkward, but it was all fun and games, We need REAL fight footage to know for sure.

He did have good footwork for a man in his 50's though.

[My2Sense]

1. Benny Leonard
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Pernell Whitaker
4. Ike Williams
5. Roberto Duran
6. Alexis Arguello
7. Barney Ross
8. Carlos Ortiz
9. Willie Ritchie
10. Julio Cesar Chavez


I've always been fairly consistent with my top 5 picks, but my bottom 5 is largely interchangeable to me.

[McGrain]

I think you can stay champion quite a long time ,if for the most part, you are fighting men of nondescript talent .How many lightweights can you name who were anywhere near their prime at 35?

But "Non-descripte talent"? "Non-entities"? Your position is either that a) McAullfie ducked the top men of his era or b) McAuliffe fought in an era where the top men were below the level of journeymen. It seems pretty obvious to me that it's neither. McAuliffe didn't duck anyone to my knowledge and so it's fair to say that he's one of the most dominant lighweight champion in history, as well the longest-standing.

[mcvey]

They may have been the top men of their time, but how many fights had they had?
I dont say McAuliffe ducked anyone,but was there anyone out there to duck?
Nine defences in thirteen years isnt earth shattering ,and may point towards my premise that quality was thin on the ground.
Any info on the fight with Carney ,which I read he was losing?
Straight out, does his resume compare with Canzoneri's or Mandell's. One of which you rate considerably below him and the other you don't rank at all.
Nothing personal Mac, I love your posts just trying to get into your mindset, on this one.

[wow_junky]

01 - Benny Leonard
02 - Roberto Duran
03 - Joe Gans
04 - Jack McAullife
05 - Ike Williams
06 - Carlos Ortiz
07 - Henry Armstrong
08 - Packy McFarland
09 - Tony Canzoneri
10 - Ken Buchanan









11 & 12 are Ross and Old Bones

No Whitaker?

[McGrain]

No Whitaker?


There is now!

[Mr Butt]

I am sorry, I just can't get past the fact that he feasted on non entities,true he was undefeated but who was he fighting?
Look at their resumes,even if some of them are incomplete ,they were novices .Carroll was 35 years old when they met and his record? well look it up.
You have McAuliffe at no 4 and Canzoneri at no 9 ?
As a lightweight Canzoneri beat.
Klick
Ambers
Mclarnin
Chocolate x2
Petrolle
Berg
Singer
Arizmendi
McAuliffe ,who was known to have his own referee on occasion , beat who?

he also lost to berg so i am thinking perhaps berg sneaks in:D

[Rumsfeld]

There is now!

There is usually one guy in every weight class who is often left off many lists that causes you to question why.

The reason is usually one of two things:

1. There are certain fighters that some are more knowledgeable on than others. (This goes in step with personal bias, too)

2. In the process of creating a list, some names are simply overlooked, as in your case with Sweet Pea.

This is not a criticism. Just an observation.

I actually enjoy reading the debates you guys have on these threads over certain fighters because it helps expand my horizons.

:good

[mcvey]

he also lost to berg so i am thinking perhaps berg sneaks in:D

Canzoneri lost a split dec to Berg in 1930,he kod Berg in 3rds a year later and beat him by dec the same year .So he established his superiority over Berg imo.I would unhesitatingly rate Berg over McAuliffe, based on who he beat.Does that answer your question?:D

[McGrain]

Canzoneri lost a split dec to Berg in 1930,he kod Berg in 3rds a year later and beat him by dec the same year .So he established his superiority over Berg imo.I would unhesitatingly rate Berg over McAuliffe, based on who he beat.Does that answer your question?:D

It's odd, it seems that your lightweight list is purely based on resume, but your HW list seems to be more about head to head...why the difference?

[Mr Butt]

Canzoneri lost a split dec to Berg in 1930,he kod Berg in 3rds a year later and beat him by dec the same year .So he established his superiority over Berg imo.I would unhesitatingly rate Berg over McAuliffe, based on who he beat.Does that answer your question?:D

it may of been a split decision but i think the news paper reports all favoured berg ,and canzoneri had to be carried back to his corner at the final bell

mcauliffe is one a can not find to much info on .iwas considering battling nelson

[ricardoparker93]

1. Roberto Duran
2. Benny Leonard
3. Pernell Whitaker
4. Carlos Ortiz
5. Ike Williams
6. Joe Gans
7. Henry Armstrong
8. Tony Canzoneri
9. Alezis Arguello
10. Julio Cesar Chavez

[mcvey]

it may of been a split decision but i think the news paper reports all favoured berg ,and canzoneri had to be carried back to his corner at the final bell

mcauliffe is one a can not find to much info on .iwas considering battling nelson
Well we all have our favourites.:good

[mcvey]

It's odd, it seems that your lightweight list is purely based on resume, but your HW list seems to be more about head to head...why the difference?
Yes you are right.
Why the difference ?
Because, I am a cranky old man.

[Manassa]

1. Benny Leonard
2. Roberto Duran
3. Ike Williams
4. Joe Gans
5. Carlos Ortiz
6. Henry Armstrong
7. Barney Ross
8. Tony Canzoneri
9. Pernell Whitaker
10. Ken Buchanan

[mcvey]

1. Benny Leonard
2. Roberto Duran
3. Ike Williams
4. Joe Gans
5. Carlos Ortiz
6. Henry Armstrong
7. Barney Ross
8. Tony Canzoneri
9. Pernell Whitaker
10. Ken Buchanan

Good list with all the usual suspects,except Buchanan,whom I nearly put in place of Brown.

[Manassa]

Good list with all the usual suspects,except Buchanan,whom I nearly put in place of Brown.

Ta. I, too, nearly swapped those two around (even though I'm anti-Brown). I nearly had Montgomery in there as well, but you can't have Montgomery without Jack - I'm dead set on them both being equals.

[WhataRock]

Guys, no Jack McAuliffe? I know I complain about somebody every time we do one of these things and you all must be sick of it, but Jack was the best of the pre-Gans lightweights and maybe apart from Gans nobody overhauled him until Leonard...also, pre-Louis-era, this was probably the deepest division all told? The man was ubeaten against the best of his generation, he fought for 13 plus years. Is he just forgotten because he's from a by-gone era? Williams and Britton, okay, I was up for them being in but I think if JM doesn't make it in it's a bit of a disgrace for ESB Classic to be honest...

Jack McAuliffe never lost and fought 9 world title bouts. He could box, punch and was seen as the greatest ring general of the day. I can't imagine the criteria that would allow Laguna or even someone like Barney Ross to rank above him, unless it was criteria excluding un-filmed fighters.


You reckon he is worth such a shout over someone like Welsh, who was champ nearly as long but against fighters whose calibre could be verified a little easier..With wins over a consensus top 3 fighter in Leonard, quality fighters like Dundee, Wolgast, Driscoll, White, Battling Nelson etc.

To me I can be more sure of the quality of Welsh's opposition. He had 10+ title fights and you cant find a spot for him in your top 12?

[GPater11093]

1. Benny Leonard
2. Roberto Duran
3. Pernell Whittaker
4. Joe Gans
5. Carlos Ortiz
6. Ike Williams
7. Tony Canzoneri
8. Jack McAuliffe
9. Joe Brown
10. Henry Amrstrong

[McGrain]

You reckon he is worth such a shout over someone like Welsh, who was champ nearly as long but against fighters whose calibre could be verified a little easier..With wins over a consensus top 3 fighter in Leonard, quality fighters like Dundee, Wolgast, Driscoll, White, Battling Nelson etc.

To me I can be more sure of the quality of Welsh's opposition. He had 10+ title fights and you cant find a spot for him in your top 12?


Welsh definitely has a case for the top 10...he would have made it in a lot of other divisions.

[Manassa]

Ike Williams had better get the #4 spot (at least) by the time this is over. Not trying to influence the votes or anything. But Ike Williams had better get the #4 spot.

[Boilermaker]

I am sorry, I just can't get past the fact that he feasted on non entities,true he was undefeated but who was he fighting?
Look at their resumes,even if some of them are incomplete ,they were novices .Carroll was 35 years old when they met and his record? well look it up.




You really took me by surprise with this post mcvey.

I know you are well aware of boxrec inaccuracies from the period, but why not look at what we do know.

He wins the title by defeating Billy Frazier. You surely dont think that Billy Frazier was a debutante. YOu have to fight who you fight, to win your first title. Next up is Harry Gilmore. Harry had won nearly 30 fights (known) with his main loss being his loss to John L Sullivan. Hardly a blight on his record. He is not a nobody, in fact he appears to have been the reigning Canadian Champion at the time.

Interesting also that Billy Frazier got his chance at a rematch and was beaten. Next up with a chance was Carney. Carney had about 15 or 20 known bouts. His only loss (over a decent distance) was to Billy Frazier, who McAulliffe had asserted superiority over. Carney was the English champion. Another good name and not non entity.

Next up was Sam Collyer. Sam was a former American Champion. He had lost his title in close fought wars with billy edwards but he had never been kod quickly and was a good fighter. McAuliffe KOd him in 2.

We have him KOing Bill Dacey. I know nothing of him, but i am fairly confident he wasnt a novice.

The Jimmy Carroll fight was around then. Definitely not a novice and as mcGrain pointed out earlier, he is a hidden all time great. He was old, but his won loss record was definitely still in tact.

Austin gibbons was another who clearly seems to have won more than he lost. He appears to be a reigning american champion and was not far off his win against coloured middleweight champion Frank Craig. Another big scalp.


We soon have young Griffo. He was an all time great, although admittedly a little lighter, by this time, McCauliffe was not far off retiring.

Even when he came out of retirement, he still has some good wins. The carroll win is impressive, but perhaps the most impressive is his No contest/Exhibition with George Lavigney. Lavigney himself was about to reign as the next lightweight champion. The young lion could not and did not knockout the old past it champion.

When you consider these wins and the length of his reign, which is unsurpassed in the lightweight division, i dont think that there is any doubt that he is top 10 all time. (For his own time), he was more dominant than Hagler or Monzon, or Welterweight Ray Robinson, Heavyweight Marciano, the list goes on.

Ask yourself this, how much much better can your record be than to hold the world championship for 9 years, and never ever lose a fight? This is not a Joe Calzaghe or Sven ottke situation where the majority of the time that he has the championship, he is not the real champion, Jack was the man for 9 years and was never beaten. That is an ATG achievement. In fact, it is something that no one has ever done (that i can think of off hand).

I am sorry but leaving Jack Mcauliffe off a top 10 is like leaving Ray robinson or Monzon, or Archie moore etc of a top 10 list. He even has a case for P4P all time great

[Boilermaker]

By the way, i have deliberately held off on making a list at this stage, like most on this board i would like to consider posts from mcVey, McGrain and others who have an astounding knowledge on this subject, so that as few deserving contenders as possible are not taken off. I have to say, the lightweights seem to have an astounding amount of talent go through them. Maybe as good as the Welterweights and Middleweights.

[Manassa]

By the way, i have deliberately held off on making a list at this stage, like most on this board i would like to consider posts from mcVey, McGrain and others who have an astounding knowledge on this subject, so that as few deserving contenders as possible are not taken off. I have to say, the lightweights seem to have an astounding amount of talent go through them. Maybe as good as the Welterweights and Middleweights.

I think it's the deepest division. I mean, looking at a sensible pound-for-pound list, think of the lightweights who'd feature in the top thirty five:

Ike Williams
Carlos Ortiz
Henry Armstrong
Julio Cesar Chavez
Benny Leonard
Joe Gans
Barney Ross
Alexis Arguello
Pernell Whitaker
Tony Canzoneri
Roberto Duran

Eleven fighters, which leaves the rest of the divisions with 3.4 fighters each. It's imbalanced, and you can't even say the division lacked depth because I didn't list Buchanan, Jack, Montgomery, McFarland, Nelson, Carter, Angott, De Jesus, Ambers, McAuliffe, Tendler, Blackburn, Laguna, Joyce, Brown, Mosley, Lavigne or Mandell. Those are just the Hall of Fame level ones and I'm sure I missed a couple. On top of those there are plenty of strong contenders such as Kansas, Dawson, Lampkin, Salas etc. to really fill out a top 300 list.

Welterweights give them a good run, but the lightweights for me are the strongest by a fair margin.

[mcvey]

Ike Williams had better get the #4 spot (at least) by the time this is over. Not trying to influence the votes or anything. But Ike Williams had better get the #4 spot.

No, don't shortchange him number 3, just in front of that little Panamanian.

[Unforgiven]

1. Benny Leonard
2. Roberto Duran
3. Joe Gans
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Barney Ross
6. Tony Canzoneri
7. Joe Brown
8. Freddie Welsh
9. Ike Williams
10. Pernell Whitaker

[McGrain]

The Jimmy Carroll fight was around then. Definitely not a novice and as mcGrain pointed out earlier, he is a hidden all time great. He was old, but his won loss record was definitely still in tact.


If what i've come to believe about Carroll is true, he'd be comparable with Hopkins I think, though he'd come of worse in that comparison. But the longevity is incredible.

Carroll may actually have been unbeaten in matching McAuliffe, which if true, would change that. That would be astonishing.

[mcvey]

You really took me by surprise with this post mcvey.

I know you are well aware of boxrec inaccuracies from the period, but why not look at what we do know.

He wins the title by defeating Billy Frazier. You surely dont think that Billy Frazier was a debutante. YOu have to fight who you fight, to win your first title. Next up is Harry Gilmore. Harry had won nearly 30 fights (known) with his main loss being his loss to John L Sullivan. Hardly a blight on his record. He is not a nobody, in fact he appears to have been the reigning Canadian Champion at the time.

Interesting also that Billy Frazier got his chance at a rematch and was beaten. Next up with a chance was Carney. Carney had about 15 or 20 known bouts. His only loss (over a decent distance) was to Billy Frazier, who McAulliffe had asserted superiority over. Carney was the English champion. Another good name and not non entity.

Next up was Sam Collyer. Sam was a former American Champion. He had lost his title in close fought wars with billy edwards but he had never been kod quickly and was a good fighter. McAuliffe KOd him in 2.

We have him KOing Bill Dacey. I know nothing of him, but i am fairly confident he wasnt a novice.

The Jimmy Carroll fight was around then. Definitely not a novice and as mcGrain pointed out earlier, he is a hidden all time great. He was old, but his won loss record was definitely still in tact.

Austin gibbons was another who clearly seems to have won more than he lost. He appears to be a reigning american champion and was not far off his win against coloured middleweight champion Frank Craig. Another big scalp.


We soon have young Griffo. He was an all time great, although admittedly a little lighter, by this time, McCauliffe was not far off retiring.

Even when he came out of retirement, he still has some good wins. The carroll win is impressive, but perhaps the most impressive is his No contest/Exhibition with George Lavigney. Lavigney himself was about to reign as the next lightweight champion. The young lion could not and did not knockout the old past it champion.

When you consider these wins and the length of his reign, which is unsurpassed in the lightweight division, i dont think that there is any doubt that he is top 10 all time. (For his own time), he was more dominant than Hagler or Monzon, or Welterweight Ray Robinson, Heavyweight Marciano, the list goes on.

Ask yourself this, how much much better can your record be than to hold the world championship for 9 years, and never ever lose a fight? This is not a Joe Calzaghe or Sven ottke situation where the majority of the time that he has the championship, he is not the real champion, Jack was the man for 9 years and was never beaten. That is an ATG achievement. In fact, it is something that no one has ever done (that i can think of off hand).

I am sorry but leaving Jack Mcauliffe off a top 10 is like leaving Ray robinson or Monzon, or Archie moore etc of a top 10 list. He even has a case for P4P all time great

Ok ,lets look at what we know.
Billy Frazier scaled 128lbs for his fight with McAuliffe ,10lbs lighter than Jack ,his KNOWN RECORD is what?
Harry Gilmore, possibly Champion of Canada?
Even today when their population has vastly increased such a title means nothing,how many pro lightweights do you think operated in Canada then? Every Canadian fighter of that era had to go to the States to get fights the competition was non existant, and so was the prestige of their domestic titles. Nearly 40 years later the Canadian heavyweight Champion [Larry Gains] was working as a sparring partner for Dempsey,that puts the Canadian Lightweight Championship of the 1880's in perspective.
What is glaring to me is the number of times McAuliffe rematched men he had allready beaten handily,this suggests a dearth of competition to me.
Frazier ,who was not a lightweight at 128lbs,x2
Myer x3
Carroll who was 35 and over 40 x2
McCarthy x2
Hopperx2
Thats 5 of his principal foes that accounts for 11 fights!
If the talent pool was deep why did he keep having repeat figths with men he had allready beaten?
The best men McAuliffe met were Carney,and accounts say Carney was in front when McAuliffes supporters broke down the ring ,forcing the referee to declare a draw.And Griffo who was a feather weight and likely drunk at the time,[Griffo lost his next fight to a nobody]this was a draw.
So the two best men he fought held him to a draw, one of them being cheated out of a win.and the other being a smaller man.
Do you really think Lavigne tried to stop McAuliffe in their exhibition?
Ask yourself this ,if in 9 years you only meet one truly world class man ,and he is winning the fight before your supporters break down the ring ,to prevent his victory, what sort of acheivment is that?
Top ten ? I would not put McAuliffe in my top 15 and probably not 25.
How can I ,in all conscience rate him above men I have left off my list ? Greats such as,
Chavez
Buchanan
Mandell
Petrolle
Arguello
Welsh
Near greats like Jack ,Montgomery, Ambers, Dejesus, Tendler.
NO WAY.

[McGrain]

I think that the rematch with Carroll was meaningless. It reads like a nothing fight.

I do think that holding McAuliffe's rematching the top men of his era against him is ridiculous. His proving his superiority over the top contenders of the time without fear of contradiction is something that he should not only be lauded for, but something he should be held up as the example of how a champion should do things.

How good were they? If my read on Carroll is correct, very. The era that came immediatly after was stronger, possibly the strongest in the history of the division, but not by all that much, I don't think.

[turpinr]

Ok ,lets look at what we know.
Billy Frazier scaled 128lbs for his fight with McAuliffe ,10lbs lighter than Jack ,his KNOWN RECORD is what?
Harry Gilmore, possibly Champion of Canada?
Even today when their population has vastly increased such a title means nothing,how many pro lightweights do you think operated in Canada then? Every Canadian fighter of that era had to go to the States to get fights the competition was non existant, and so was the prestige of their domestic titles. Nearly 40 years later the Canadian heavyweight Champion [Larry Gains] was working as a sparring partner for Dempsey,that puts the Canadian Lightweight Championship of the 1880's in perspective.
What is glaring to me is the number of times McAuliffe rematched men he had allready beaten handily,this suggests a dearth of competition to me.
Frazier ,who was not a lightweight at 128lbs,x2
Myer x3
Carroll who was 35 and over 40 x2
McCarthy x2
Hopperx2
Thats 5 of his principal foes that accounts for 11 fights!
If the talent pool was deep why did he keep having repeat figths with men he had allready beaten?
The best men McAuliffe met were Carney,and accounts say Carney was in front when McAuliffes supporters broke down the ring ,forcing the referee to declare a draw.And Griffo who was a feather weight and likely drunk at the time,[Griffo lost his next fight to a nobody]this was a draw.
So the two best men he fought held him to a draw, one of them being cheated out of a win.and the other being a smaller man.
Do you really think Lavigne tried to stop McAuliffe in their exhibition?
Ask yourself this ,if in 9 years you only meet one truly world class man ,and he is winning the fight before your supporters break down the ring ,to prevent his victory, what sort of acheivment is that?
Top ten ? I would not put McAuliffe in my top 15 and probably not 25.
How can I ,in all conscience rate him above men I have left off my list ? Greats such as,
Chavez
Buchanan
Mandell
Petrolle
Arguello
Welsh
Near greats like Jack ,Montgomery, Ambers, Dejesus, Tendler.
NO WAY.what number do you have buchanan ?? i nearly put a sober lew jenkins on mine

[Boilermaker]

I think that the rematch with Carroll was meaningless. It reads like a nothing fight.

I do think that holding McAuliffe's rematching the top men of his era against him is ridiculous. His proving his superiority over the top contenders of the time without fear of contradiction is something that he should not only be lauded for, but something he should be held up as the example of how a champion should do things.

How good were they? If my read on Carroll is correct, very. The era that came immediatly after was stronger, possibly the strongest in the history of the division, but not by all that much, I don't think.

I really dont put too much stock in rating one era against another. Unless you have an era that overlaps, such as George Foreman or Larry Holmes causing havoc against the 90s champs, Or Joe Louis dominating 2 decades and competing when past his prime. Even then i think that there is limited value. I think that it is fair to say that most eras are very similar, even though popular opinion often says otherwise. McAuliffe dominated his era. He simply could not do any more. No one was good enough to beat him.

I agree that rematching the beaten foes should be applauded. If you criticise McAuliffe for asserting superiority, shouldnt you also criticise Sam Langford, Harry Wills and others, who did the same thing. The only real difference is that unlike these guys, McAuliffe was never beaten in his fights.

I cant see how McVey can say that fighters were not world class when he cannot point to other fighters who were better than these fighters. They were good fighters. Just because little is known about them doesnt mean that they were good fighters.

It seems that i rate fighters different to most people on this board, but i believe that the fighters need to be rated in the form of their dominance against the fighters of their time. I must say, i would rather go undefeated for 9 years against the best fighters around, than have 4 wins and 3 losses against supposedly better fighters.

[bodhi]

what number do you have buchanan ?? i nearly put a sober lew jenkins on mine

I was thinking about Lew, too. He´s my favourite lw but just to inconsistent to be ranked anywhere in the Top10.

[teeto]

1. Roberto Duran
2. Benny Leonard
3. Joe Gans
4. Pernell Whitaker
5. Carlos Ortiz
6. Ike Williams
7. Henry Armstrong
8. Ken Buchanan
9. Freddie Welsh
10. Alexis Arguello

I just want to say that Jose Luis Castillo was a great lightweight, not fit for this list by any stretch of the imagination, but no matter how limited he may have been, he achieved a degree of greatness as the best lightweight of his era (bar a small passing through of the division of one Floyd Mayweather),

[Rattler]

1. Roberto Duran
2. Benny Leonard
3. Joe Gans
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Pernell Whitaker
6. Barney Ross
7. Tony Canzonerri
8. Ike Williams
9. Jack Blackburn
10. Carlos Ortiz

[bodhi]

9. Jack Blackburn


Nice one! Definitly a fighter worth mentioning.

[Mr Butt]

blackburn ,nelson ,mclarnin, berg .cant find room for all maybe not even one this is the hardest weight so far, i have made about 4 list's so far

[turpinr]

blackburn ,nelson ,mclarnin, berg .cant find room for all maybe not even one this is the hardest weight so far, i have made about 4 list's so far
who is No1 ?

[Mr Butt]

who is No1 ?


for me duran but only just over leonard but again not 100% sure i like what i have read about leonard will look at some arcel quotes as he saw both ,trained both leonard was on his comeback then but arcel new him in and out of the gym when he was in his prime

[Drew101]

1. Duran
2. Leonard
3. Whitaker
4. Gans
5. Williams
6. Armstrong
7. Ortiz
8. Tony Canzoneri
9. Barney Ross
10. Joe Brown

[mcvey]

what number do you have buchanan ?? i nearly put a sober lew jenkins on mine
I have Buchanan at eleven ,I agonised about leaving him out ,but in the end opted for Joe Brown .

[Sweet Pea]

I'm not drinking the McAuliffe Kool-Aid.

1. Benny Leonard
2. Roberto Duran
3. Joe Gans
4. Carlos Ortiz
5. Pernell Whitaker
6. Ike Williams
7. Henry Armstrong
8. Barney Ross
9. Tony Canzoneri
10. Packy McFarland

[mcvey]

Rematching men so many times indicates a dearth of quality competition to me.

[mcvey]

I really dont put too much stock in rating one era against another. Unless you have an era that overlaps, such as George Foreman or Larry Holmes causing havoc against the 90s champs, Or Joe Louis dominating 2 decades and competing when past his prime. Even then i think that there is limited value. I think that it is fair to say that most eras are very similar, even though popular opinion often says otherwise. McAuliffe dominated his era. He simply could not do any more. No one was good enough to beat him.

I agree that rematching the beaten foes should be applauded. If you criticise McAuliffe for asserting superiority, shouldnt you also criticise Sam Langford, Harry Wills and others, who did the same thing. The only real difference is that unlike these guys, McAuliffe was never beaten in his fights.

I cant see how McVey can say that fighters were not world class when he cannot point to other fighters who were better than these fighters. They were good fighters. Just because little is known about them doesnt mean that they were good fighters.

It seems that i rate fighters different to most people on this board, but i believe that the fighters need to be rated in the form of their dominance against the fighters of their time. I must say, i would rather go undefeated for 9 years against the best fighters around, than have 4 wins and 3 losses against supposedly better fighters.
Your analogy between McAuliffe and the Black dynamite trio is easily refuted,simply because Langford ,Mcvey ,Jeanette, and, later Wills fought each other so often because the top champions and contenders would not fight them , because the colour of their skin meant they could be safely bypassed. and when they occasionally did they often insisted on a handcuff arrangement.
McAuliffe fought 5 guys a total of eleven times.Why ?

Ask yourself why he NEVER rematched Griffo or Carney ,who both held him to draws?
You make a nonsensical statement like" I know nothing of Billy Dacey , but I am sure he was not a novice".:huh


MAuliffe really didn't dominate his era did he? He was held to a draw in three fights one by a featherweight who was an alcoholic , another was in front at the premature end,and he had a draw with Billy Myer,and when he beat him both men were over 137lbs, so it was not a lightweight defence, as the limit was 133lbs .
If he had rematched Carney and Griffo and beaten them I would give him more slack ,but he didnt.
The Carney fight saw Carney coming in at 129lbs McAuliffe at 126lbs.
It was a prvate fight ,with both men being allowed to invite 14 guests ,who had to be vetted.
Carney scored a knockdown in the 7th round but rallied strongly.As the 60th round came up Mcauliffe was seriously weary,[no wonder] ,his backers attempted to stop the affair but were subdued .In the 70th rd Carney again dropped
McAuliffe,and again McAuliffes friends interfered with the proceedings and gained him an extended rest. In the 74th round Carney again put McAuliffe down ,and at this McAuliffe's backers rushed the ring once more, the referee, a Mr Stevenson declared the contest a draw,because of fears of a police intervention, at the time of the stoppage Carney was clearly in front whereas McAuliffe looked all in.
Carney and McAulife reenacted their fight 27 years later in London[1914],it was refereed by the former British heavyweight Champion Charley Mitchell,and photos of it can be seen in Nat Fleischer's " A Pictorial History Of Boxing"Along with an account of the fight , and a picture of McAuliffe in old age [65] posing with the gloves he wore for the fight,they are open ended with a separate thumbpiece that is also open ended.

It seems you rate fighters different to me ,thats for sure.C:\Documents and Settings\OEM\My Documents\My Pictures\McAuliffe and Carney


C:\Documents and Settings\OEM\My Documents\My Pictures\McAuliffe and Carney



C:\Documents and Settings\OEM\My Documents\My Pictures\McAuliffe and Carney


Tried to show the photos ,looks like I failed.:oops:

[mcvey]

blackburn ,nelson ,mclarnin, berg .cant find room for all maybe not even one this is the hardest weight so far, i have made about 4 list's so far
I think Mclarnin belongs in the welterweight tournament myself.

[Mr Butt]

I think Mclarnin belongs in the welterweight tournament myself.


yeah i know what your saying but he and berg were avoided at lightweight and mclarnin i am sure i have read somewhere was a better lightweight than welter but did not get a shot i will could be wrong as i think i read this in baby face goes to hollywood

forgot mclarnin lost to mandell

[mcvey]

I wouldnt necessarilly say inarguably, but i agree with what you say.

I know it proves nothing, but how awesome would the 1920 exhibition fight between McAuliffe and Leonard have been?
Carney and Mcauliffe re enacted their fight 27 years later.

[McGrain]

I think Mclarnin belongs in the welterweight tournament myself.

I agree. I think he was better at that weight, too.

[My2Sense]

I'm not drinking the McAuliffe Kool-Aid.


:lol:

[mcvey]

I agree. I think he was better at that weight, too.
Mac I took a couple of pic from Fleischers book, to show you Carney and McAuliffe , unfortunately I can't get them up .sorry!

[McGrain]

Mac I took a couple of pic from Fleischers book, to show you Carney and McAuliffe , unfortunately I can't get them up .sorry!


Pisser! Well cheers for the thought anyway.

[Boilermaker]

Your analogy between McAuliffe and the Black dynamite trio is easily refuted,simply because Langford ,Mcvey ,Jeanette, and, later Wills fought each other so often because the top champions and contenders would not fight them , because the colour of their skin meant they could be safely bypassed. and when they occasionaly did they often insisted on a handcuff arrangement.
So there was a lack of quality in the Coloured division? I dont think the argument holds water. It was just different times, matchmaking attitudes, communication methods and transport methods. It would be like holding it against todays fighters because they hardly ever seem to fight each other (much less top contenders).



McAuliffe fought 5 guys a total of eleven times.Why ?



Because they were the money fights? Ali fought Norton, Frazier, Quarry, Chuvalo, Liston. 5 fighters a total of 12 times. Difference being that he lost to some of them. Why?

You can hardly say that Ali should suffer because of this.



Ask yourself why he NEVER rematched Griffo or Carney ,who both held him to draws?

Ok then (not sure where this will go).

Nov 3 1887 is when the Carney fight took place. Apparently on 22 Jan, it was reported that Carney had a small fortune tucked away and friends did not expect him to fight again! Sounds hard to rematch so far. Carney doesnt seem to have fought for a year in 1890 and he may have even relocated to England because his next fight was in 1891 for the English lightweight title. Incidentally, it was a lossto Dick Burge. In 1892, Austin Gibbons challenged Carney to a return fight. Nothing seemed to eventuate, thoush we do know that McAuliffe fought and beat Gibbons.

I think he gets a pass on the Carney situation.

Now i will try Griffo.

Griffo-mcauliffe was on 27 August 1894. In September 1894, Griffo lost his next fight to Alf Duncan. He then finished the Year with a string of exhibition and short No Decision fights. McAuliffe, meanwhile, broke his arm and retired from the sport! Again, you can hardly blame him for failing rematch griffo. Like many champions, Mcauliffe came out of retirement and started to fight again. He fought some exhibitions or short NO decision fights until his first reported fight which was a 2 round KO of Gus Brown on April 6 1896. The same month that Griffo has lost a decision after coming off a 1st round ko loss to Hugh Behan. Interestingly, in 1897 Griffo lost a fight to Philadelphia Tommy Ryan, when he quit after 3 rounds. In September McAuliffe fought Tommy Ryan to a 10 round draw, but the referee had leaned toward giving Jack the decision but it was prearranged to be a draw. I think that McAuliffe gets a pass also on failing to give Griffo a rematch also.


You make a nonsensical statement like" I know nothing of Billy Dacey , but I am sure he was not a novice".:huh

Do you honestly think that a one or two fight novice gets a world title shot? One thing that is agreed is that they fought more regularly in the old days. Once a week, a fortnight or at worse once a month. Are you suggesting that they stood around with most fighters in the area fighting this regularly and said okay, you havent had a fight, but i think you are the best fighter to take this challenge. That is ridiculous.

I havent got time (or ability to be honest) to research but i will see if a quick google might turn up anything at all. (again not sure where this will head, but i doubt that this is a complete novice). So, the first result i get is Dacey fighting on the undercard of a Jim Corbett - Charlie Mitchell benefit fight against Mike Leary. Quite interesting actually. Leary Lost a fight to MCauliffe early in McAuliffe's carreer. For anyone interested here is the card which has some pretty good fighters on it, but some wrestling also.

New York City: February 24, 1894
(Madison Square Garden benefit card) … (boxing) Jim Corbett sparred Charley Mitchell (4 rds.) … (boxing) George Dixon sparred Eddie Loeber (3 rds.) ... (boxing) Mike Leary sparred Bill Dacey (3 rds.) … (broadsword contest) Duncan C. Ross beat F.S. Castellano (5-0 points-10 minutes) ... (boxing) Charles Kelly sparred John Carroll (3 rds.) ... (boxing) Walter Campbell sparred Walter DeBaurn (3 rds.) … (boxing) Tommy Ryan sparred Billy Vernon (3 rds.) … (boxing) Mr. Kangaroo (animal) sparred Thomas Tully (3 rds.) … (boxing) Jack Levy sparred Casper Leon (3 rds.) ... (boxing) Bill Slavin sparred brother Jack Slavin (3 rds.) … (boxing) Dolly Lyon sparred Tom (Spider) Kelly ... (boxing) Frank Craig sparred Jim Foley (3 rds.) … (catch as catch can style) Hugh Leonard drew with A.B. McFadden (10 minutes) ... (graeco-roman style) William Muldoon (retired champion) drew with Ernest Roeber (present champion) (15 minutes ... Professor Attila put on a strength and balancing art

As you can see there were some big names on this card, quite strange that Dacey would be included if he were a nobody. I would guess that he must have been a pretty decent fighter to compete here. Either that or he was the luckiest novice alive to make the card of such a prestige event and get a title shot as a novice.

Next up is a book about the Non Pareil Jack Dempsey. It talks about his war with Billy Dacey. Dempsey did win, but again I would say that Dacey is starting to look like a handy fighter, if he is considered good enough by two all time greats to fight. Certainly not a total nobody.

The final thing i found was an 1893 fight where Dacey fought as the main fight on Joe Walcott card.[Only registered and activated users can see links]
He apparently showed up fat and out of shape and lost a points decision.

So, off a google quickie it is clear that if Dacey was a novice when he fought MCauliffe, he certainly went on to be a well thought of fighter. Who was at least world class contender level. So MCAuliffe must have had a hell of an eye for talent. Realistically, i think it safe to say that he was one of the best contenders available.


Carney claimed the British title he did not win it,and was never awarded it.
MAuliffe really didn't dominate his era did he? He was held to a draw in two fights one by a featherweight who was an alcoholic , the other was in front at the premature end, if he had rematched them and beaten them I would give him more slack ,but he didnt.

Well he was the champion, and he didnt lose. They were not good enough to take his title and they were not good enough to beat contenders and force a rematch. I would say that he did in fact dominate his era. No one stayed champion (and unbeaten) for as long as he did. You cant get away from that.

It seems you rate fighters different to me ,thats for sure.
Agreed.

I just dont like penalising legacies for not losing fights.

Incidentally dont forget that under the rules of the time, Ali's record could have easily included 2 draws and a loss with Frazier, 2 draws and a loss to Norton, a draw with Chuvalo and a KO loss to Kent green. That would have made his legacy look quite ordinary, particularly when guys like quarry start to be considered nobody englishman, Shavers and lyle as novices with 1 and 0 records, etc.

[Boilermaker]

yeah i know what your saying but he and berg were avoided at lightweight and mclarnin i am sure i have read somewhere was a better lightweight than welter but did not get a shot i will could be wrong as i think i read this in baby face goes to hollywood

It is hard to rank fighters at these lighter levels. Incidentally, a young bob fitzsimmons fought for and won the New Zealand lightweight championship in a tourament. I am not saying that he deserves to rank as a light weight, but inexperience of not he would be one hell of a sleeper in any lightweight head to head tournament. The absolute ultimate punchers chance, i would have thought.

[Mr Butt]

It is hard to rank fighters at these lighter levels. Incidentally, a young bob fitzsimmons fought for and won the New Zealand lightweight championship in a tourament. I am not saying that he deserves to rank as a light weight, but inexperience of not he would be one hell of a sleeper in any lightweight head to head tournament. The absolute ultimate punchers chance, i would have thought.


mclarnin i forgot lost to mandell :patsch but still deserves consideration as a lightweight i think

[mcvey]

So there was a lack of quality in the Coloured division? I dont think the argument holds water. It was just different times, matchmaking attitudes, communication methods and transport methods. It would be like holding it against todays fighters because they hardly ever seem to fight each other (much less top contenders).



Because they were the money fights? Ali fought Norton, Frazier, Quarry, Chuvalo, Liston. 5 fighters a total of 12 times. Difference being that he lost to some of them. Why?

You can hardly say that Ali should suffer because of this.



Ok then (not sure where this will go).

Nov 3 1887 is when the Carney fight took place. Apparently on 22 Jan, it was reported that Carney had a small fortune tucked away and friends did not expect him to fight again! Sounds hard to rematch so far. Carney doesnt seem to have fought for a year in 1890 and he may have even relocated to England because his next fight was in 1891 for the English lightweight title. Incidentally, it was a lossto Dick Burge. In 1892, Austin Gibbons challenged Carney to a return fight. Nothing seemed to eventuate, thoush we do know that McAuliffe fought and beat Gibbons.

I think he gets a pass on the Carney situation.

Now i will try Griffo.

Griffo-mcauliffe was on 27 August 1894. In September 1894, Griffo lost his next fight to Alf Duncan. He then finished the Year with a string of exhibition and short No Decision fights. McAuliffe, meanwhile, broke his arm and retired from the sport! Again, you can hardly blame him for failing rematch griffo. Like many champions, Mcauliffe came out of retirement and started to fight again. He fought some exhibitions or short NO decision fights until his first reported fight which was a 2 round KO of Gus Brown on April 6 1896. The same month that Griffo has lost a decision after coming off a 1st round ko loss to Hugh Behan. Interestingly, in 1897 Griffo lost a fight to Philadelphia Tommy Ryan, when he quit after 3 rounds. In September McAuliffe fought Tommy Ryan to a 10 round draw, but the referee had leaned toward giving Jack the decision but it was prearranged to be a draw. I think that McAuliffe gets a pass also on failing to give Griffo a rematch also.


Do you honestly think that a one or two fight novice gets a world title shot? One thing that is agreed is that they fought more regularly in the old days. Once a week, a fortnight or at worse once a month. Are you suggesting that they stood around with most fighters in the area fighting this regularly and said okay, you havent had a fight, but i think you are the best fighter to take this challenge. That is ridiculous.

I havent got time (or ability to be honest) to research but i will see if a quick google might turn up anything at all. (again not sure where this will head, but i doubt that this is a complete novice). So, the first result i get is Dacey fighting on the undercard of a Jim Corbett - Charlie Mitchell benefit fight against Mike Leary. Quite interesting actually. Leary Lost a fight to MCauliffe early in McAuliffe's carreer. For anyone interested here is the card which has some pretty good fighters on it, but some wrestling also.

New York City: February 24, 1894
(Madison Square Garden benefit card) … (boxing) Jim Corbett sparred Charley Mitchell (4 rds.) … (boxing) George Dixon sparred Eddie Loeber (3 rds.) ... (boxing) Mike Leary sparred Bill Dacey (3 rds.) … (broadsword contest) Duncan C. Ross beat F.S. Castellano (5-0 points-10 minutes) ... (boxing) Charles Kelly sparred John Carroll (3 rds.) ... (boxing) Walter Campbell sparred Walter DeBaurn (3 rds.) … (boxing) Tommy Ryan sparred Billy Vernon (3 rds.) … (boxing) Mr. Kangaroo (animal) sparred Thomas Tully (3 rds.) … (boxing) Jack Levy sparred Casper Leon (3 rds.) ... (boxing) Bill Slavin sparred brother Jack Slavin (3 rds.) … (boxing) Dolly Lyon sparred Tom (Spider) Kelly ... (boxing) Frank Craig sparred Jim Foley (3 rds.) … (catch as catch can style) Hugh Leonard drew with A.B. McFadden (10 minutes) ... (graeco-roman style) William Muldoon (retired champion) drew with Ernest Roeber (present champion) (15 minutes ... Professor Attila put on a strength and balancing art

As you can see there were some big names on this card, quite strange that Dacey would be included if he were a nobody. I would guess that he must have been a pretty decent fighter to compete here. Either that or he was the luckiest novice alive to make the card of such a prestige event and get a title shot as a novice.

Next up is a book about the Non Pareil Jack Dempsey. It talks about his war with Billy Dacey. Dempsey did win, but again I would say that Dacey is starting to look like a handy fighter, if he is considered good enough by two all time greats to fight. Certainly not a total nobody.

The final thing i found was an 1893 fight where Dacey fought as the main fight on Joe Walcott card.[Only registered and activated users can see links]
He apparently showed up fat and out of shape and lost a points decision.

So, off a google quickie it is clear that if Dacey was a novice when he fought MCauliffe, he certainly went on to be a well thought of fighter. Who was at least world class contender level. So MCAuliffe must have had a hell of an eye for talent. Realistically, i think it safe to say that he was one of the best contenders available.



Well he was the champion, and he didnt lose. They were not good enough to take his title and they were not good enough to beat contenders and force a rematch. I would say that he did in fact dominate his era. No one stayed champion (and unbeaten) for as long as he did. You cant get away from that.

Agreed.

I just dont like penalising legacies for not losing fights.

Incidentally dont forget that under the rules of the time, Ali's record could have easily included 2 draws and a loss with Frazier, 2 draws and a loss to Norton, a draw with Chuvalo and a KO loss to Kent green. That would have made his legacy look quite ordinary, particularly when guys like quarry start to be considered nobody englishman, Shavers and lyle as novices with 1 and 0 records, etc.

I have allready explained why the black fighters met so often so won't repeat myself.
Reading further about McAuliffe I find that claims that he held the title for 13 years are wrong ,his title reign cannot confidently be given as more than 7 years, from when he beat Harry Gilmore, in 1887 to when he beat Billy Myer, in 1893.
That is accepting him as champion something ,he never actually won in the ring, after his fight with Gillmore who was probably the standout other lightweight.
There is a very good site ," boxing biographies .com", which gives reams of detail about McAuliffe, around 4 pages,and is very complimentary towards him.
Wikipedia also states a title reign of 7 years-1886-1893.
The Biography site points out that in at least 3 instances draws that were questionable saved McAuliffe from defeat.

[Mendoza]

The lightweight divison is loaded with talent.

1. Leonard
2. Armstrong
3. Gans
4. Duran
5. Whitaker
6. Mosley
7. Williams
8. Cazonneri
9. Pryor
10. Ross

[mcvey]

The lightweight divison is loaded with talent.

1. Leonard
2. Armstrong
3. Gans
4. Duran
5. Whitaker
6. Mosley
7. Williams
8. Cazonneri
9. Pryor
10. Ross

It certainly is ,But I think you have a cuckoo in its nest in Pryor, who did he beat at the weight to get him in an all time top ten ?

[Mendoza]

It certainly is ,But I think you have a cuckoo in its nest in Pryor, who did he beat at the weight to get him in an all time top ten ?

He KO'd Arguello twice. Pryor was one of the hardest punching lightweight / jr. welter's I've ever seen. With his power and determination, his opponents simply could not hold him off.

Pryor was something of a two fisted Joe Frazier type. He could eat up boxers and spit them out... and the light weight division is mostly full of boxers. Only losing once in his career, I feel Pryor is under rated. He's the type of fighter you only have to see once or twice to know he's trouble for anyone.

[mcvey]

He KO'd Arguello twice. Pryor was one of the hardest punching lightweight / jr. welter's I've ever seen. With his power and determination, his opponents simply could not hold him off.

Pryor was something of a two fisted Joe Frazier type. He could eat up boxers and spit them out... and the light weight division is mostly full of boxers. Only losing once in his career, I feel Pryor is under rated. He's the type of fighter you only have to see once or twice to know he's trouble for anyone.
The fights with Arguello were at JNR WELTER,with Arguello at the tail end of a great career ,coming up in weight for the fourth time ,that is four divisions from where he originally started.
I know about Pryor 's capabilities ,and no one questions his quality,but I do question his right to be ranked as an all time top ten LIGHTWEIGHT, because he simply did not beat anyone of stature whilst performing at that weight.

[Boilermaker]

I have allready explained why the black fighters met so often so won't repeat myself.
Reading further about McAuliffe I find that claims that he held the title for 13 years are wrong ,his title reign cannot confidently be given as more than 7 years, from when he beat Harry Gilmore, in 1887 to when he beat Billy Myer, in 1893.
That is accepting him as champion something ,he never actually won in the ring, after his fight with Gillmore who was probably the standout other lightweight.
There is a very good site ," boxing biographies .com", which gives reams of detail about McAuliffe, around 4 pages,and is very complimentary towards him.
Wikipedia also states a title reign of 7 years-1886-1893.
The Biography site points out that in at least 3 instances draws that were questionable saved McAuliffe from defeat.

You are right about that being an excellent site. There are 7 pages. The Jim Corbett article about the fight with Billy Myer - the Streator Cyclone, where the majority of the crowd bet their savings on Myer and game to the fight with their shotguns and knives, with fans attacking the legs every time he got near the ropes is unbelievable. How many other all time greats would have maintained their zero in those circumstances? Also interesting that in the Carney fight, McAuliffe was badly out of shape and the prize had apparently been reduced by $500 because of McAuliffes sickness. Once again, McAuliffe was great in retaining the zero. It also sounds that under modern rules McAuliffe would ahve definitely won by KOs as he seems to have got hit by more low blows than an Andrew Golota opponent.

I have to read some different bios on that site. Thanks for the link!

[My2Sense]

Guess I'm the only one who managed to squeeze Willie Ritchie into my list...

:conf

[mcvey]

Guess I'm the only one who managed to squeeze Willie Ritchie into my list...

:conf

Fine Champion ,though I would rate Welsh above him.

[Ezzard]

1. Roberto Duran
2. Joe Gans
3. Benny Leonard
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Tony Canzoneri
6. Pernell Whitaker
7. Carlos Ortiz
8. Julio Cesar Chavez
9. Jackie Blackburn
10. Dave Holly

[mckay_89]

1. Roberto Duran
2. Benny Leonard
3. Pernell Whitaker
4. Ike Williams
5. Carlos Ortiz
6. Tony Canzoneri
7. Joe Gans
8. Henry Armstrong
9. Sugar Shane Mosley
10. Barney Ross

[BoppaZoo]

1. Roberto Duran
2. Benny Leonard
3. Joe Gans
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Carlos Ortiz
6. Pernell Whitaker
7. Ike Williams
8. Lou Ambers
9. Tony Canzoneri
10. Jose Luis Castillo

[Manassa]

1. Roberto Duran
2. Joe Gans
3. Benny Leonard
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Tony Canzoneri
6. Pernell Whitaker
7. Carlos Ortiz
8. Julio Cesar Chavez
9. Jackie Blackburn
10. Dave Holly

I always regarded you as one of the more reasonable posters, which why it astounds me to see no Ike Williams on your list.

Not to say mine is anywhere near perfect, obviously. But it doesn't seem possible that some people remain adament about his #3 placing whereas other don't include him in a top ten. It's like a Lennox Lewis situation.

[mcvey]

1. Roberto Duran
2. Joe Gans
3. Benny Leonard
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Tony Canzoneri
6. Pernell Whitaker
7. Carlos Ortiz
8. Julio Cesar Chavez
9. Jackie Blackburn
10. Dave Holly

I don't know what to make of Holly he has 3 fights with a guy called Donkey King
Did he have big


ears?

6 fights with Joe Grim,but beats all time greats as well,then his career falls apart.

You don't have Ike Williams in your 10? :huh
Each to their own ,but I would have thought he was a given .
No Ross either?

[IntentionalButt]

14 days. :err

Why does it seem we had twice as long with the other divisions? :yep

[Boilermaker]

No Ross either?

Or McAulliffe:admin:D

[mcvey]

Or McAulliffe:admin:D
Well ,Ill say this much McAuliffe, was better than I thought ,I learned quite a bit reading about him,he still doesnt make my ten ,but he has risen appreciably in my estimation .:good

[Rumsfeld]

14 days. :err

Why does it seem we had twice as long with the other divisions? :yep

Really?

:lol:

I have the start and closing dates for the other ones posted in the Sticky here. I thought the last one was shorter, too, but I can't be arsed to look.

[Ezzard]

I don't know what to make of Holly he has 3 fights with a guy called Donkey King
Did he have big


ears?

6 fights with Joe Grim,but beats all time greats as well,then his career falls apart.

You don't have Ike Williams in your 10? :huh
Each to their own ,but I would have thought he was a given .
No Ross either?

Feel worse about leaving Ross out.

I don't know... Whittaker should be in the top 10 BUT I think Chavez did more at 135 and I think their actual fight was more lop-sided than if it have had been at 135 a few years earlier. So IMO the gap is not as big as many believe.

It's possibly me being biased towadrs fighters of my own era.

[Ezzard]

I always regarded you as one of the more reasonable posters, which why it astounds me to see no Ike Williams on your list.

Not to say mine is anywhere near perfect, obviously. But it doesn't seem possible that some people remain adament about his #3 placing whereas other don't include him in a top ten. It's like a Lennox Lewis situation.

Thanks, Manassa,

This is the hardest poll. I always write down all the greats from the division and then slowly wittle them down. I look at this list today and think Ross, Williams, McFarland, Ambers and Tendler should be on the list.

[mcvey]

Feel worse about leaving Ross out.

I don't know... Whittaker should be in the top 10 BUT I think Chavez did more at 135 and I think their actual fight was more lop-sided than if it have had been at 135 a few years earlier. So IMO the gap is not as big as many believe.

It's possibly me being biased towadrs fighters of my own era.

Hey ,they are your picks ,and that is what's requested.:good

[Manassa]

Thanks, Manassa,

This is the hardest poll. I always write down all the greats from the division and then slowly wittle them down. I look at this list today and think Ross, Williams, McFarland, Ambers and Tendler should be on the list.

No worries. You know I'm an Ike Williams nuthugger.

[Sweet Pea]

I don't know... Whittaker should be in the top 10 BUT I think Chavez did more at 135 Chavez had 4 fights at the weight, while Whitaker unified the division and beat all comers. Typo, maybe?

[Minotauro]

1. Roberto Duran
2. Joe Gans
3. Benny Leonard
4. Ike Williams
5. Pernell Whitaker
6. Barney Ross
7. Tony Canzoneri
8. Carlos Ortiz
9. Packey McFarland
10. Jack Blackburn

[mcvey]

No worries. You know I'm an Ike Williams nuthugger.
Oh fickle youth .How long ago was it when Roberto Duran was a god ,and Marvin Hagler his right hand man?



ps Three a's in adamant, if you are going to use flowery verbiage, like me ,spell it right.

[IntentionalButt]

This thread is giving me an ulcer.

[Manassa]

Oh fickle youth .How long ago was it when Roberto Duran was a god ,and Marvin Hagler his right hand man?



ps Two a's in adamant, if you are going to use flowery verbiage, like me ,spell it right.

Fuck me, the amount of mistakes I could pull you up on.

And I have a lot of favourite fighters, true, and I like talking about some more than others depending on who I haven't talked about in a while. People love to pick up on this as though it is high treason.

[Mr Butt]

bump

[mcvey]

Fuck me, the amount of mistakes I could pull you up on.

And I have a lot of favourite fighters, true, and I like talking about some more than others depending on who I haven't talked about in a while. People love to pick up on this as though it is high treason.

I am allowed mistakes, I am senile.

[frankenfrank]

1. Manny Pacquiao
2. Oscar Delahoya
3. Julio Cesar Chavez
4. Roberto Duran
5. Hector Camacho
6. Pernell Whitaker
7. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
8. Joe Walcott
9. Henry Armstrong
10. Alexis Arguello

worth mentioning : Miguel Angel Gonzales , Lou Ambers , Tony Canzoneri , Mysterious Billy Smith , Joe Gans
and it is possible there might be some minor swaps in places in this list.

[McGrain]

1. Manny Pacquiao
.

How do you think Manny's LW resume compares to Benny Leonards?

[frankenfrank]

How do you think Manny's LW resume compares to Benny Leonards?
i knew it will cum.
why didn't you complain about the rest ? the same can be said about them too.
the thing with pac is that he is a LW doing good at LWW and the majority even consider him the favorite to beat Cotto. how many elite fighters did Benny Leonard beat ? :huh and to how many not elite did he lose ? but i bet that you consider him h2h better than pac , cause ur d defender of old time nuthugery .

[McGrain]

i knew it will cum.

:lol::huh


the thing with pac is that he is a LW doing good at LWW and the majority even consider him the favorite to beat Cotto. how many elite fighters did Benny Leonard beat ? :huh .

How many elite fighters did Pac beat at 135?

I will tell you the answer. The answer is "none".

His entire lightweight resume is comprised of David Diaz.

[frankenfrank]

:lol::huh




How many elite fighters did Pac beat at 135?

exactly what i'm sayin : pac's a LW beating elite fighters ABOVE LW.
does not even bother making the weight.
that what made langford what he was.
not that i say pac's at langford's level but who knows - maybe if they fought pac would've just overwhelm him too.

but again , why about pac it bothers you and not about the others in my list ?

[McGrain]

exactly what i'm sayin : pac's a LW beating elite fighters ABOVE LW.

...so you rank Pacquiao as the #1 lightweight because he once beat a lightweight and has since gone 2-0 above that weight?

[frankenfrank]

...so you rank Pacquiao as the #1 lightweight because he once beat a lightweight and has since gone 2-0 above that weight?
it just counts even more , considering his undoubted ability to still make 135 , and he just might some day.

[KOTF]

...so you rank Pacquiao as the #1 lightweight because he once beat a lightweight and has since gone 2-0 above that weight?

:lol:

[McGrain]

it just counts even more , considering his undoubted ability to still make 135 , and he just might some day.

Right, right...so because he could make lightweight if he wanted to, you're counting these two additional wins towards his ATG status at lightweight? Right...

Interesting that you have Armstrong at #9 then. Armstrong, as well as beating a raft of top lightweights, as opposed to Pacquiao's one, beat guys like Garcia, Barney Ross and Pacho, who weighed in at welterweight whilst actually weighing 135, as opposed to just doing it in future, in your head.

[Boilermaker]

I have to say that this is the toughest decision yet.

Jack McAuliffe, Joe Gans, Henry Armstrong, Benny Leonard and Roberto Duran are the standouts and could go in any order.
This leaves excellent champions with good records (some of which dont even seem to have been mentioned in this thread) like:
Ike Williams, Lou Ambers, Carlos Ortiz, Pernell Whittaker, Joe Brown, sammy Mandell, Julio Cesar Chavez, Lou Jenkins, Battling Nelson, Willie Ritchie and Freddie Welsh.

Since the deadline is approaching i will split as follows:
1. Jack McAuliffe - In a talent ridden division, his longevity is better than anyones and he was never beaten and he was the undisputed best lightweight for the longest time. I can see why others can rank higher, but it is the lack of knowledge about his era which seems to have dragged him down so much.
2. Henry Armstrong - What an awesome fighter. He was a truly great lightweight (as well as other weights) He swayed me by beating heavier fighters (world class ones) at the light weight. In other circumstances i would elevate him to number one.
3.Benny Leonard - I put him here, with the biggest thing being the praise from his contemporaries. I have penalised him a little because technically most of his fights were slightly over the lightweight limit, but the fact that most of his opponents did not want to be considered in the same class as him tends to suggest that he was a very special fighter. Of course, his actual record itself is also something to behold.
4. Roberto Duran - A long reigning champion who dominated at lightweight. His career is boosted by the technicolour dream coat, but the reality is that he can do it all in the ring.
5. Joe Gans - A defensive master with a brillian record. He was as dominant as anyone.
6. Ike Williams - A very good and long reign. He has some big supporters who rank him even higher, but i dont think he was quite as special as the 5 above.
7. Sammy Mandell - Definitely one of the underated ones. He Defended his title against Kansas, McLarnin and Canzoneri. He has a pretty solid legacy, imo.
8. Carlos Ortiz - A long reigning champion who seems to have a lot of supporters in this thread.
9. Pernell Whittaker - More common to most on this thread, and for those who saw him fight at light weight, it really is hard to imagine fighters dealing with those tremendously quick hands of his.
10 Lou Ambers - The decision is getting too hard on this one. But, Lou Ambers was a great fighter and he gets the nod here because I just watched the Rocky Marciano telemovie the other day, and Lou Ambers was serving behind the bar and when Marciano tried to give him a charity tip, Ambers abused him and threw him out of his hotel. A show of courage that tips the scales slightly in his favour for the coveted 10th spot.

[Boilermaker]

Right, right...so because he could make lightweight if he wanted to, you're counting these two additional wins towards his ATG status at lightweight? Right...

Interesting that you have Armstrong at #9 then. Armstrong, as well as beating a raft of top lightweights, as opposed to Pacquiao's one, beat guys like Garcia, Barney Ross and Pacho, who weighed in at welterweight whilst actually weighing 135, as opposed to just doing it in future, in your head.


It is extremely strange that he ranked Sam Lanford as the greatest Welterweight ever, based on the notion that he would be a head to head monster for any welterweight that ever lived. Why then, is there no ranking of Sam Langford at lightweight?

[My2Sense]

it just counts even more , considering his undoubted ability to still make 135 , and he just might some day.

"Undoubted ability"??

The guy came into the ring even heavier than DeLaHoya when they fought up at 147.

I'll believe he can still make 135 if/when he actually does it.

[My2Sense]

Right, right...so because he could make lightweight if he wanted to, you're counting these two additional wins towards his ATG status at lightweight? Right...

Interesting that you have Armstrong at #9 then. Armstrong, as well as beating a raft of top lightweights, as opposed to Pacquiao's one, beat guys like Garcia, Barney Ross and Pacho, who weighed in at welterweight whilst actually weighing 135, as opposed to just doing it in future, in your head.

Good point.

[VX.Nefarious]

1. Manny Pacquiao
2. Oscar Delahoya
3. Julio Cesar Chavez
4. Roberto Duran
5. Hector Camacho
6. Pernell Whitaker
7. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
8. Joe Walcott
9. Henry Armstrong
10. Alexis Arguello

worth mentioning : Miguel Angel Gonzales , Lou Ambers , Tony Canzoneri , Mysterious Billy Smith , Joe Gans
and it is possible there might be some minor swaps in places in this list.




:rofl:deal

[VX.Nefarious]

it just counts even more , considering his undoubted ability to still make 135 , and he just might some day.

:huh oooooh! so paul williams is the #1 welter, and also the Greatest welter of all time!!!! :admin:good

[Mr Butt]

you can all make great points about frankenfranks list but it will make no difference to him

god bless him if he was not here we would all miss him

[Minotauro]

1. Manny Pacquiao
2. Oscar Delahoya
3. Julio Cesar Chavez
4. Roberto Duran
5. Hector Camacho
6. Pernell Whitaker
7. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
8. Joe Walcott
9. Henry Armstrong
10. Alexis Arguello

worth mentioning : Miguel Angel Gonzales , Lou Ambers , Tony Canzoneri , Mysterious Billy Smith , Joe Gans
and it is possible there might be some minor swaps in places in this list.

Good to see Gans get an honourable mention.

[frankenfrank]

:huh oooooh! so paul williams is the #1 welter, and also the Greatest welter of all time!!!! :admin:good
(1) i don't know if he can still make 147
(2) and a loss to quintana does not put him too high even if well avenged.
but he really is awesome as both a 147 and 154.
though p4p - in its true intention - he is nothing special

[frankenfrank]

It is extremely strange that he ranked Sam Lanford as the greatest Welterweight ever, based on the notion that he would be a head to head monster for any welterweight that ever lived. Why then, is there no ranking of Sam Langford at lightweight?
because he could have never stay too much time in that weight.

[frankenfrank]

"Undoubted ability"??

The guy came into the ring even heavier than DeLaHoya when they fought up at 147.

I'll believe he can still make 135 if/when he actually does it.
don't forget from what weights he came from.
he was 126-130 for 5 years (2003-2008) till he was 29.
so he can still make 135.
very simple.
maybe you think he can't make 140 any longer cause dlh was a long time 154 and pac came in heavier according to you.

[IntentionalButt]

J. Gans
B. Leonard
R. Duran
I. Williams
C. Ortiz
H Armstrong
P. Whitaker
A. Arguello
T. Canzoneri
B. Ross

So many guys just spent too few fights at the weight, despite having absolutely terrific wins and/or ability-demonstrating performances there (Chavez, Mosley, etc.) to make it in. :-(

I knew I would hate doing this, and not be happy with my final selections no matter how much time there was. But here they are. Sticking with these. Want real bad to push Pea higher or squeeze Sugar in. Won't.

be strong, ib

[My2Sense]

don't forget from what weights he came from.
he was 126-130 for 5 years (2003-2008) till he was 29.
so he can still make 135.
very simple.


Paul Williams was at 147 just last year too, yet you just said you don't believe he can still make that weight.

[BoppaZoo]

How do you think Manny's LW resume compares to Benny Leonards?Im saving Manny for Super Feather. Thats were i will unleash him.:good:lol:


Also i wanted to add this.

If you said to any Pure Boxing Fan 3 Years ago that Pacquaio would one day fight Dela Hoya at 145, Hatton at 140 and Cotto at 145 Everyone in here would have said BULLSHIT NEVER HAPPAN.

And he may even fight PBF at a catchweight.

Thats why he gets nothing but the up most respect from me.

I mean in 2006
Cotto was fighting Quintana at 147
Dela Hoya fought Mayorga at 154
Hatton fought Collazo at 147

I have to take my hat for that. Have too. But because of only 1 fight at 135 it lets him down.

But i see the other guys point. If he was to stay at 135 he would have ruled and beat all fighters like

Casamayor
Marquez Again Maybe
Juan Diaz
Amir Khan
Michael Katsidis
Joan Guzman
Edwin Valero
Nate Campbell

But Instead he really pushed his bounderies IMO. I never thought Pacman would after seeing the David Diaz fight, fight above 135. He could have had all those scalps but instead choose Dela Hoya, Hatton now Cotto and maybe even PBF in the future.

[IntentionalButt]

Im saving Manny for Super Feather. Thats were i will unleash him.:good:lol:

Rumsfeld is only doing the original 8 divisions. Next stop: featherweight. :nono

[BoppaZoo]

Rumsfeld is only doing the original 8 divisions. Next stop: featherweight. :nonoWell Manny is going to have to make that list then IB, He deserves to be on a list that is for sure.

[Sweet Pea]

Well Manny is going to have to make that list then IB, He deserves to be on a list that is for sure.Manny didn't do enough work at any particular weight to crack any of the lists. His merits are as a weight jumper, therefore he'd place higher P4P (comparatively) than he would at any particular weight. He didn't accomplish enough at Featherweight to be included in the top 20, much less top 10.

[Henke67]

This is a hard one. Lighweight might be the most talent-stacked division in history but here goes;

Roberto Duran
Benny Leonard
Pernell Whitaker
Joe Gans
Henry Armstrong
Carlos Ortiz
Ike Williams
Packy McFarland
Tony Canzoneri
Alexis Arguello

There's 2 or 3 guys I can't quite believe didn't make the top 10 but there it is.

[danceken1]

1 roberto duran
2 benny leornard
3 joe gans
4 pernell whitaker
5ike williams
6 henry armstrong
7 carlos ortiz
8 tony canzonori
9 barney ross
10 alexis arguello

[IntentionalButt]

Well Manny is going to have to make that list then IB, He deserves to be on a list that is for sure.

Manny didn't do enough work at any particular weight to crack any of the lists. His merits are as a weight jumper, therefore he'd place higher P4P (comparatively) than he would at any particular weight. He didn't accomplish enough at Featherweight to be included in the top 20, much less top 10.

My understanding is once the original weights are completed, Rummy will be doing a p4p all-time survey as well. If you have Pac in your top ten based on his weight-jumping success, you can certainly include him there. As it is, going strictly by the original weights, he didn't stay put long enough at either 126 or 135 to warrant consideration under either. You'd certainly be more justified holding out for the p4p survey to give him his props. :good

[Rumsfeld]

Rumsfeld is only doing the original 8 divisions. Next stop: featherweight. :nono

That is the plan for now.

When they are done, I may still want to do the rest. Not sure. Tabulating these lists is a more daunting task than I had realized at first.

I definitely intend to do the original 8 followed by a P4P. Those will definitely happen.

After the P4P list, I'll see if I'm still feeling ambitious.

:smoke

[IntentionalButt]

Two days left!

Decision time.

:pc

[Sweet Pea]

My understanding is once the original weights are completed, Rummy will be doing a p4p all-time survey as well. If you have Pac in your top ten based on his weight-jumping success, you can certainly include him there. As it is, going strictly by the original weights, he didn't stay put long enough at either 126 or 135 to warrant consideration under either. You'd certainly be more justified holding out for the p4p survey to give him his props. :goodP4P I'd have him in the top 40 for sure, but how high I couldn't say. Let's see how the rest of his career goes.

[McGrain]

P4P I'd have him in the top 40 for sure, but how high I couldn't say. Let's see how the rest of his career goes.


When it's time for the p4p top ten, you better to a proper list, not one of your fucking "experimental" ones.

[Manassa]

When it's time for the p4p top ten, you better do a proper list, not one of your fucking "experimental" ones.

Not long left for the lightweight list - got any revisions? I'm thinking Sammy Mandell :?

[McGrain]

Not long left for the lightweight list - got any revisions? I'm thinking Sammy Mandell :?

I basically stopped reading this thread. It's horrible trying to narrow it down to ten. I'm leaving my list alone now, I think it's basically okay, and you could put yourself clean wrong.

[IntentionalButt]

It's kind of funny actually - looking ahead to the featherweight list, Marquez is an absolute lock but Pac won't make it even though they're neck and neck head to head (as demonstrated in their first real-life encounter). It'll be strange to have to disclude him, but you really have to as it was such a pitstop.

[IntentionalButt]

I basically stopped reading this thread. It's horrible trying to narrow it down to ten. I'm leaving my list alone now, I think it's basically okay, and you could put yourself clean wrong.

This thread damn near got me fired with all the footage pored over on the clock. My position might not survive feather.

[Manassa]

I basically stopped reading this thread. It's horrible trying to narrow it down to ten. I'm leaving my list alone now, I think it's basically okay, and you could put yourself clean wrong.

I'm most looking forward to bantamweight list. I wonder how many people will include kids Herman & Williams.

[McGrain]

It's Marquez is an absolute lock.

:think



My position might not survive feather.

I think it'll be easier.

I'm most looking forward to bantamweight list. I wonder how many people will include kids Herman & Williams.

I'll struggle with Bantam.

EDIT: In fact featherweight is an absolute nightmare...horrible. Dixon? Atell? Canzoneri? Armstrong? Sanchez? Kilbane? There seem to be some fighters where it's hard to know exactly what to do with them...and from a personal perspecive, there are guys like Kid Chocolate, Johnny Dundee and Pedroza who are there or thereabouts and I just don't have deep knowledge about them...

[IntentionalButt]

:think

Is he not? I've not yet even begun to give it thought. Something like ten title bouts all told...though in the final analysis this could still fall short of some old-timers I'm just not thinking of yet.

[McGrain]

Is he not? I've not yet even begun to give it thought. Something like ten title bouts all told...though in the final analysis this could still fall short of some old-timers I'm just not thinking of yet.


Is it poor form to discuss the featherweight list in the lightweight thread? :think

I think he will struggle to get in. He'd have to find his way past guys like Arguello, McGovern, Saldivar, Pedroza to get in...can he do that? My list is a mile from sorted at this point, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him slip from my list.

[janitor]

Perhaps my least controvertial list.

1. Joe Gans
2. Roberto Duran
3. Benny Leonard
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Tony Canzonerri
6. Barney Ross
7. Ike Williams
8. Pernel Whitaker
9. Jack Blackburn
10. Dave Holly

[McGrain]

Holly definitely has a case on paper.

[janitor]

Holly definitely has a case on paper.

Sombdy should notify the IBHOF of his existence.

[McGrain]

And everyone else.

No Jack McAuliffe though? If someone had asked me, I would have said I could have rellied upon you, haha.

[Mr Butt]

1.benny leonard
2.roberto duran
3.henry armstrong
4.pernell whitaker
5.ike williams
6.joe gans
7.alexis arguello
8.carlos ortiz
9.julio cesar chavez
10.tony canzoneri


still not sure on ortiz ,gans that low ,changed it a bit after thinking at night,taken this list to serious

[McGrain]

Gans below Whitaker, Chavez, Arguello....huge shout.

[Manassa]

Some people are underselling Gans. Let's not forget that he defended his lightweight title 14-17 times.

Although that's not the important bit. His fights with Dave Holly and Jack Blackburn are.

[Minotauro]

Gans is a top five, has a good case for number one. Surprised there are a few who place him so low even some who leave him out all together.

[janitor]

And everyone else.

No Jack McAuliffe though? If someone had asked me, I would have said I could have rellied upon you, haha.

To be fair I did not put John L Sullivan on my heavyweight list.

It was not from lack of unquestioning reverence.

[IntentionalButt]

Gans is a top five, has a good case for number one.

Somehow, I'm the only one to have propped him up there. :shock:

edit: and janitor :good

[McGrain]

Gans is a top 5 lock IMO.

[Minotauro]

Gans is a top 5 lock IMO.

For sure.

[Boilermaker]

Any chance somebody could pass me a bit of Jack Blackburn Coolade or maybe some Canzoneri, before this thread sinks to the bottom of the ESB pit?

[IntentionalButt]

Any chance somebody could pass me a bit of Jack Blackburn Coolade or maybe some Canzoneri, before this thread sinks to the bottom of the ESB pit?


You've only got ten hours to submit your list!

[Rumsfeld]

You've only got ten hours to submit your list!


Oh shit!
:lol:

Let's extend that a day, or possibly a few days. I'm transcribing interviews like a machine and am not sure when I can get to this, so I may as well give people a few extra days.

[mcvey]

Some people are underselling Gans. Let's not forget that he defended his lightweight title 14-17 times.

Although that's not the important bit. His fights with Dave Holly and Jack Blackburn are.

Not me ,he is my no 2 and allways has been .After all, I have seen him in the flesh.:good

[Boxing Girl]

1. Roberto Duran
2. Benny Leonard
3. Joe Gans
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Pernell Whitaker
6. Ike Williams
7. Carlos Ortiz
8. Jack McAullife
9. Julio Cesar Chavez
10. Tony Canzoneri

[TBooze]

10 Young Griffo
9 Carlos Ortiz
8 Julio Cesar Chavez
7 Bob Montgomery
6 Ike Williams
5 Joe Gans
4 Pernell Whitaker
3 Henry Armstrong
2 Benny Leonard
1 Roberto Duran

[IntentionalButt]

Oh, guys. As a fierce admirer, nothing would make me happier than ranking Whitaker ahead of a name like Gans (with all due respect to the old master) but it really isn't conscionable at the end of the day.

[teeto]

I hope Carlos Ortiz tops Ike Williams but i don't know if he will.

[Manassa]

I hope Carlos Ortiz tops Ike Williams...

Fuck you.

[teeto]

Fuck you.
Haha, you a skitzo mate?! What happened to the Ortiz love???

[Minotauro]

Hope Gans tops Whitaker and Williams tops Ortiz.

[WhataRock]

I hope Jack McAullife tops them all.

[teeto]

Started something here haven't i?

I think Williams is gunna top Ortiz, the fix is in.

[Manassa]

Haha, you a skitzo mate?! What happened to the Ortiz love???

I'm a big fan of both, but come on... Williams is my #1.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Bummy Davis]

1)Benny Leonard
2)Roberto Duran
3)Joe Gans
4)Henry Armstrong
5) Ike Williams
6)Tony Canzaneri
7)Carlos Ortiz
B)JC CHAVEZ
9)Ken Buchanan
10)Pernell Whitaker

Sorry for Packy McFarland and Joe Brown....I went with one of my favorite divisions with a modern lean

[Rumsfeld]

nothing in the lists above can be serious without JCC

1. Julio Cesar Chavez
2. Roberto Duran
3. Benny Leonard
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Pernell Whitaker
6. Ike Williams
7. Henry Armstrong
8. Tony Canzoneri
9. Barney Ross
0. Ismael Laguna

You have 3 hours 36 minutes to fix this or you won't be counted.

[Rumsfeld]

1. Manny Pacquiao
2. Oscar Delahoya
3. Julio Cesar Chavez
4. Roberto Duran
5. Hector Camacho
6. Pernell Whitaker
7. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
8. Joe Walcott
9. Henry Armstrong
10. Alexis Arguello

worth mentioning : Miguel Angel Gonzales , Lou Ambers , Tony Canzoneri , Mysterious Billy Smith , Joe Gans
and it is possible there might be some minor swaps in places in this list.

Is this guy just a wind-up artist?

I was going to exclude some of his previous entries into these polls, but I wound up counting them, anyway. I have faith in the overall strength of the Classic Forum, so one or two wind-ups will not disrupt the system, but for fuck's sake!

:patsch

[Boilermaker]

I hope Jack McAullife tops them all.

I am cheering for Jack, but he is in a bit of trouble. I think his supporters might need to storm the ring and call for a ND.

[Rumsfeld]

10 Young Griffo
9 Carlos Ortiz
8 Julio Cesar Chavez
7 Bob Montgomery
6 Ike Williams
5 Joe Gans
4 Pernell Whitaker
3 Henry Armstrong
2 Benny Leonard
1 Roberto Duran


:roll:

[Rumsfeld]

Just under three hours to go. So far the following lists are accounted for:

1. Rumsfeld
2. WhataRock
3. bodhi
4. mcvey
5. rileyjj123456
6. turpinr
7. McGrain
8. the cobra
9. My2Sense
10. ricardoparker93
11. Manassa
12. Gpater11093
13. Unforgiven
14. teeto
15. Rattler
16. Drew101
17. Sweet Pea
18. Mendoza
19. Mendoza
20. Mckay_89
21. BoppaZoo
22. Minotauro
23. frankenfrank
24. Boilermaker
25. IntentionalButt
26. Henke67
27. danceken1
28. janitor
29. Mr Butt
30. Boxing Girl
31. Tbooze
32. Bummy Davis

[Sweet Pea]

Griffo would surely be rated at Featherweight, not Lightweight.

[Rise Above]

Not sure if I'm too late for this but will post my list anyway.

1. Benny Leonard
2. Roberto Duran
3. Joe Gans
4. Carlos Ortiz
5. Pernell Whitaker
6. Henry Armstrong
7. Ike Williams
8. Barney Ross
9. Tony Canzoneri
10. Jack McAullife

[Manassa]

Williams has disappointed me. Most people seem to rate him between five and seven, whereas I expected something more like three to five. Mango.

[Rumsfeld]

Not sure if I'm too late for this but will post my list anyway.

1. Benny Leonard
2. Roberto Duran
3. Joe Gans
4. Carlos Ortiz
5. Pernell Whitaker
6. Henry Armstrong
7. Ike Williams
8. Barney Ross
9. Tony Canzoneri
10. Jack McAullife

You're good.

This is the last official entry.

POLL CLOSED.

[teeto]

Make sure the right thing happens Rumsfield.

Ortiz>Williams.

[McGrain]

Williams has disappointed me. Most people seem to rate him between five and seven, whereas I expected something more like three to five. Mango.


I would say his range is 4-8, this division being so tight at the top. I'm in broad agreement within a wider range. I had him at #5.

[IntentionalButt]

Make sure the right thing happens Rumsfield.

Ortiz>Williams.

:lol:

[McGrain]

Where the list?

Rummy is such a cock-teast these days.

[IntentionalButt]

Where the list?

Rummy is such a cock-teast these days.

coquettiste? :think

[Mr Butt]

coquettiste? :think

what:?

[IntentionalButt]

what:?

hi, yiddle :hi:

[Mr Butt]

hi, yiddle :hi:


hello most important butt

[Rumsfeld]

Guys, I apologize for the long delay. I have been very busy lately with transcribing stuff.

Unfortunately, I am going to continue to be busy as tomorrow night I have an apron spot at a card in NYC and the same on Friday for a card in Newark, so I'm going to be swamped with pictures.

I'll try and get the basics down in a moment.

[Rumsfeld]

OFFICIALLY LOGGED:
1. Rumsfeld
2. WhataRock
3. bodhi
4. mcvey
5. rileyjj123456
6. turpinr
7. McGrain
8. the cobra
9. My2Sense
10. ricardoparker93
11. Manassa
12. Gpater11093
13. Unforgiven
14. teeto
15. Rattler
16. Drew101
17. Sweet Pea
18. Mendoza
19. Mendoza
20. Mckay_89
21. BoppaZoo
22. Minotauro
23. Boilermaker
24. IntentionalButt
25. Henke67
26. danceken1
27. janitor
28. Mr Butt
29. Boxing Girl
30. Tbooze
31. Bummy Davis
32. Rise Above

===============

Guys, I have decided to exclude frankenfrank from this poll and all future polls. I was considering doing so in earlier versions, but after giving this some thought, I have made a decision.

I like variety, and I like hearing debates on various topics in these types of threads, but his list is simply indefensible.

[Rumsfeld]

Here are the official results:

1. 605 Roberto Duran (15)
2. 593 Benny Leonard (14)
3. 348 Joe Gans (2)
4. 243 Pernell Whitaker
5. 230 Henry Armstrong
6. 217 Ike Williams
7. 168 Carlos Ortiz
8. 87 Tony Canzoneri
9. 51 Barney Ross
10. 47 Jack McAulife (1)
11. 38 Alexis Arguello
12. 15 Julio Cesar Chavez
13. 14 Joe Brown
14. 10 [tie] Packey McFarland
14. 10 [tie] Sugar Shane Mosley
16. 9 Ken Buchanan
17. 7 Jack Blackburn
18. 5 Freddie Welsh
19. 4 [tie] Lou Ambers
19. 4 [tie] Bob Montcomery
19. 4 [tie] Sammy Mandell
22. 3 Ismael Laguna
23. 2 [tie] Dave Holly
23. 2 [tie] Willie Ritchie
23. 2 [tie] Arran Pryor
26. 1 [tie] Jose Luis Castillo
26. 1 [tie] Young Griffo

[IntentionalButt]

You know something? That list doesn't much upset me.

We deserve a pat on the back.

[The Morlocks]

1. Benny Leonard
2. Roberto Duran
3. Ike Williams
4. Carlos Ortiz
5. Pernell Whitaker
6. Joe Gans
7. Henry Armstrong
8. Tony Canzoneri
9. Packy McFarland
10. Joe Brown

So many guys I wanted to put in there...Ambers, Welsh, Laguna, Jack, Tendler, Chavez, Ross..but again this is hard and my head would have hurt to much after it.

The greatest and most talent rich division that boxing has ever seen.
1. Ray Mancini
2. Vinny pazienza
3. Art Frias
4. Hilmer Kenty
5. Claude Noel
6. Johnny Lira
7. Jimmy Britt
8. Howard Davis
9. Alvaro Rojas
10. Orlando Romero:hat

[teeto]

You know something? That list doesn't much upset me.

We deserve a pat on the back.
I'm thinking the same way. Good list.

I have only one beef but let's let by gones be by gones, haha.

[McGrain]

...don't like it.

[Mr Butt]

damn i forgot to put vinny paz on my list to McGrain :lol:

[IntentionalButt]

...don't like it.

Bullshitter. :lol: Your boy squeaked in at the VIP table, and at Arguello's expense.

[McGrain]

Bullshitter. :lol: Your boy squeaked in at the VIP table, and at Arguello's expense.

:D

I'm 1-2 though :-(

I looked again and I actually do quite like it, but i'm really not keen on Duran in over Leonard. I also don't like Whitaker in over Williams. Other than that the ten is decent, but it disturbs me to see Buchanan outside of the fifteen...there certainly weren't 15 LW's better than Ken IMO. Toughest division, and maybe this list mirrors that fact?

Anyway, get to work on your FW list.

[Mr Butt]

McGrain you got any info on/or know where i can get any info on benny valger ,i know he beat johnny kilbane in 1920 but did not get the feather tittle cause the fight went the distance ,ray arcel said he was a better boxer than buchannan

[McGrain]

Sorry chum, you'll have to try knocking on another door over that one.

[Mr Butt]

Sorry chum, you'll have to try knocking on another door over that one.


ok thanks:good

[Rise Above]

Good list but would have loved Leonard to be number 1.

[IntentionalButt]

Good list but would have loved Leonard to be number 1.

By far the closest finish between 1 & 2 yet and in the final analyis may prove the tightest overall.

edit: Greb was actually only 18 points back, to Leonard's 12 here...

[essexboy]

Cant believe I forgot to vote in this. Is it too late?

EDIT: It is, you'll just have to do without my completely irrelevant opinion.

[IntentionalButt]

Cant believe I forgot to vote in this. Is it too late?

It is.

Unless you have Gans #1. Then your submission can be accepted. :D

[essexboy]

It is.

Unless you have Gans #1. Then your submission can be accepted. :D

I certainly wouldnt have Duran no.1, he'd be no.2 behind Leonard, with Gans most probably third or fourth. Lou Ambers as the dark horse, he'd be in my top ten.

[IntentionalButt]

janitor and I are like the Ron Paul (or any other high-profile indie candidate) constituency, spoiling one of the two major parties with our principled stubbornness! :lol: Whoops.

[Minotauro]

Thought Williams should be top 5 but good list. Shame McFarland didn't make the top ten.

[Rumsfeld]

Guys, sorry for the delay.

I've been extremely busy doing other boxing related things. This time tomorrow I will have finished my lightweight write-up and I will start a new survey!

:good

[Mendoza]

Here are the official results:

1. 605 Roberto Duran (15)
2. 593 Benny Leonard (14)
3. 348 Joe Gans (2)
4. 243 Pernell Whitaker
5. 230 Henry Armstrong
6. 217 Ike Williams
7. 168 Carlos Ortiz
8. 87 Tony Canzoneri
9. 51 Barney Ross
10. 47 Jack McAulife (1)
11. 38 Alexis Arguello
12. 15 Julio Cesar Chavez
13. 14 Joe Brown
14. 10 [tie] Packey McFarland
14. 10 [tie] Sugar Shane Mosley
16. 9 Ken Buchanan
17. 7 Jack Blackburn
18. 5 Freddie Welsh
19. 4 [tie] Lou Ambers
19. 4 [tie] Bob Montcomery
19. 4 [tie] Sammy Mandell
22. 3 Ismael Laguna
23. 2 [tie] Dave Holly
23. 2 [tie] Willie Ritchie
23. 2 [tie] Arran Pryor
26. 1 [tie] Jose Luis Castillo
26. 1 [tie] Young Griffo

Pretty good list.

[IntentionalButt]

Guys, sorry for the delay.

I've been extremely busy doing other boxing related things. This time tomorrow I will have finished my lightweight write-up and I will start a new survey!

:good

Featherweight. Crap. :err

[McGrain]

Featherweight. Crap. :err

I've generally been one of the first in, but I think I might hold off on this one.

[Mr Butt]

well i think rumsfeld should let frankenfrank post a list

like him or not it is always worth reading others opinions

[McGrain]

well i think rumsfeld should let frankenfrank post a list

like him or not it is always worth reading others opinions

I disagree, he's clearly wrong in the head.

[Mr Butt]

I disagree, he's clearly wrong in the head.


yeah i just feel a bit guilty for having a pop at him the other day:oops:

[McGrain]

yeah i just feel a bit guilty for having a pop at him the other day:oops:

:lol:

I don't think you'll find many guys on the forum who haven't.

[IntentionalButt]

Here's frank's FW list in absentia, if that's what you meant:

Pac and of his 9 victims or victims' victims.

Actually, his LW list reads the same.

[Rumsfeld]

1. 605 Roberto Duran (15)
2. 593 Benny Leonard (14)
3. 348 Joe Gans (2)
4. 243 Pernell Whitaker
5. 230 Henry Armstrong
6. 217 Ike Williams
7. 168 Carlos Ortiz
8. 87 Tony Canzoneri
9. 51 Barney Ross
10. 47 Jack McAulife (1)
11. 38 Alexis Arguello
12. 15 Julio Cesar Chavez
13. 14 Joe Brown
14. 10 [tie] Packey McFarland
14. 10 [tie] Sugar Shane Mosley
16. 9 Ken Buchanan
17. 7 Jack Blackburn
18. 5 Freddie Welsh
19. 4 [tie] Lou Ambers
19. 4 [tie] Bob Montcomery
19. 4 [tie] Sammy Mandell
22. 3 Ismael Laguna
23. 2 [tie] Dave Holly
23. 2 [tie] Willie Ritchie
23. 2 [tie] Arran Pryor
26. 1 [tie] Jose Luis Castillo
26. 1 [tie] Young Griffo

Here is the distribution of votes.
TOTAL LISTS MADE - NAME - (1st-2nd-3rd-4-5-6-7-8-9-10)

32 Roberto Duran (15 12 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0)
31 Benny Leonard (14 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0)
30 Joe Gans (2 3 14 5 2 3 1 0 0 0)
32 Pernell Whitaker (0 0 7 5 10 2 2 1 3 2)
31 Henry Armstrong (0 3 3 7 2 5 7 3 0 1)
30 Ike Williams (0 1 3 5 7 7 5 1 1 0)
29 Carlos Ortiz (0 0 0 5 7 4 6 5 1 1)
28 Tony Canzoneri (0 0 0 0 2 3 3 9 6 5)
15 Barney Ross (0 0 0 0 1 4 2 2 3 3)
6 Jack McAulife (1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1)
11 Alexis Arguello (0 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 2 3)
7 Julio Cesar Chavez (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 2)
7 Joe Brown (0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 4)
5 Packey McFarland (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1)
4 Sugar Shane Mosley (0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1)
4 Ken Buchanan (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1)
4 Jack Blackburn (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1)
2 Freddie Welsh (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0)
2 Lou Ambers (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1)
1 Bob Montcomery (0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0)
1 Sammy Mandell (0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0)
2 Ismael Laguna (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1)
2 Dave Holly (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2)
1 Willie Ritchie (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0)
1 Arran Pryor (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0)
1 Jose Luis Castillo (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1)
1 Young Griffo (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1)

[Rumsfeld]

Here's more raw data for the lightweight survey. I just realized I had a slight error on the averages for the welterweight and middleweight polls. Does nothing to change the results of the sruvey. I just had part of the raw data (as follows for this poll) a tad off.

I shall remedy this.

1. Roberto Duran
Total Lists: 32 (100%)
First Place: 15 (46.9%)
Top Three: 28 (87.5%)
Top Five: 32 (100%)
Average Points: 18.9

2. Benny Leonard
Total Lists: 31 (96.9%)
First Place: 14 (43.8%)
Top Three: 31 (96.9%)
Top Five: 31 (96.9%)
Average Points: 18.5

3. Joe Gans
Total Lists: 30 (93.8%)
First Place: 2 (6.3%)
Top Three: 19 (59.4%)
Top Five: 26 (81.3%)
Average Points: 10.9

4. Pernell Whitaker
Total Lists: 32 (100%)
First Place: 0 (0%)
Top Three: 7 (21.9%)
Top Five: 22 (68.8%)
Average Points: 7.6

5. Henry Armstrong
Total Lists: 31 (96.9%)
First Place: 0 (0%)
Top Three: 6 (18.8%)
Top Five: 15 (46.9%)
Average Points: 7.2

6. Ike Williams
Total Lists: 30 (93.8%)
First Place: 0 (0%)
Top Three: 4 (12.5%)
Top Five: 16 (50.0%
Average Points: 6.8

7. Carlos Ortiz
Total Lists: 29 (90.6%)
First Place: 0 (0%)
Top Three: 0 (0%)
Top Five: 12 (37.5%)
Average Points: 5.3

8. Tony Canzoneri
Total Lists: 28 (87.5%)
First Place: 0 (0%)
Top Three: 0 (0%)
Top Five: 2 (6.3%)
Average Points: 2.7

9. Barney Ross
Total Lists: 15 (46.9%)
First Place: 0 (0%)
Top Three: 0 (0%)
Top Five: 1 (3.1%)
Average Points: 1.6

10. Jack McAulife
Total Lists: 6 (18.8%)
First Place: 1 (3.1%)
Top Three: 1 (3.1%)
Top Five: 2 (6.3%)
Average Points: 1.5

[Brian Zelley]

WILLIE RITCHIE and FREDDIE WELSH

Not surprised to see these two fine lightweights pushed down
the ladder, so taking Freddie Welsh as an example
the question that needs to be asked is: Was he given a fair rating
based on his ring performance. Considering Willie Ritchie defeated
Ad Wolgast then lost the title to Freddy Welsh likely
minimizes his ratings becaused he was not a long term champion.

Freddy Welsh won the title in 1914 and lost the title
to Benny Leonard in 1917, but did his overall record
get taken into consideration in the rankings?