Ranking Fighters in the Expansion Divisions

A recent article speculating on a match up between James Toney and Carl Froch, indirectly got me thinking about an problem that occurs when I rank fighters, especially in the expansion divisions.

Everyone has their own method for ranking fighters so mine wont be the same as the next person but usually I tend to rank mine with quite a large emphasis on tangible achievements and record with less emphasis being on actual perceived talent. I find this to be easier to be consistent in and also more grounded in something tangible rather than something variable, speculative and ultimately unknown or unproveable (such as who would beat who or who was better). This method tends to work well for me for the original weight classes where you have fighters compared often across large timespans, but I find it much less effective for the more modern divisions.

My initial reaction to the question posed in the beginning was that Toney was a better a Super Middleweight than Froch and would beat him. I still think that to be the case but when I pondered it I realised that Froch actually has the better record at the weight. Although less talented, he has the better wins and greater longetivity. Thus by my usual ranking method Froch would feature higher. But being of the belief that Toney at his best (which I think he was at SMW) would beat Froch and was the better fighter there with a bit to spare its kind of unsatisfying to have Froch above him as it feels contradictory. This highlights the difficulty with ranking fighters especially in the new weight divisions.

Another example would be Hatton at light welterweight. Hatton would be seen by many to be a top 10 light welterweight. On achievement and record there he probably deserves it. But theres no way I think he was genuinely one of the ten best in the division. You have fighters like de la Hoya or Mayweather there who only spent a very brief time there. You have Pacquaio who emphatically beat Hatton. In these three examples I think they are all clearly better fighters. But if you place a heavy amount of emphasis on record/achievement/longetivity at the weight then Hatton would trump them in spite of the obvious. So by my usual ranking method Hatton would rank ahead even though common sense says otherwise.

With so many weight classes around now, weight hopping has become a must almost, especially lower down. As a result ranking fighters in the more recent divisions by the same criteria one might rank fighters in the historical divisions quite often doesn’t really work properly and can be tricky.

Yeah I know what your saying. Do you rank the fighters record at the weight or rank the fighters greatness even though they may not have fought at the weight for long. I feel like that Manny Pac he is a great fighter but you could never say 'He is a great Lightweight' or he is a great 'Welterweight' as he hasnt really established himself at any weight for that long and half of his fights are at Catchweight

I have overall ratings and then seperate ratings for divisions. Some guys like Pacquaio do alot better in overall ratings but not so good in divisional ones.

I think alot of older era fighters from the mainly 8 division days will be hard to displace for modern fighters in divisional rankings because its much rarer for top modern fighters to stay in one or even two divisions.

Interesting point, Manos. In one sense you'd want the best who fought in a division at the top of the tree, but then it's as if you're punishing the less talented fellas who proved themselves time after time. For example, I think Mayweather has done enough to find his way into the LW top 10, but not WW even though he could be ranked as one of the top 10 fighters to compete in that division.

Good article, Manos, and the points you raise are valid. I suspect that many of those who would kike to see all of the additional weight classes scrapped would point to this article as evidence as to why!

It's not unreasonable at all, I suppose, to suggest that we use one method for rating fighters who campaigned for the majority of their careers in one of the original eight divisions, and then an entirely different one for those who did their best work inbetween them. Of course, it causes a bit of a headache and nobody likes to be seen as contradicting themselves in the way in which they rate fighters. But as you allude to, if we end up boldly stating that Gianfranco Rosi was a better Light-Middleweight than Ray Leonard then it's always going to be with a feeling of unease, even if the record books do strictly suggest that this is the case.

There are the odd exceptions, of course; Aaron Pryor, Nicolino Locche, Khaosai Galaxy and the like are all fighters who I'd happily place in the 'great' class despite spending most of their careers (and all of their title careers) in the additional weight classes, and as such they're a lot easier to place in an all-time, pound for pound list. But as we've said before, even in the better additional weight classes (primarily, Super-Featherweight and Light-Welterweight), it's notable that the majority of names who'd be considered as the cream of the crop in those weight classes also have a list of meritorious achievements in the original divisions either side of them.

I've usually tried to find a middle ground in the debate about whether or not the additional weight classes should be scrapped, believing that seventeen is far too much, but that perhaps cutting them down to twelve, for instance, might be the fairest solution. I've tried my best to reject the idea that such divisions (even Super-Featherweight and Light-Welterweight, which boast some truly excellent names) exist merely as a smaller-risk oasis between the more dangerous weight classes in which lesser fighters can grab their own slice of history without testing themselves to the fullest. I still do believe that such a description may be unfair, but not long ago I was watching the second 'Flash' Elorede-Carlos Ortiz fight, and I have to admit it did get me thinking a little. Here's a man, in Elorde, who reigned for an eternity at Super-Featherweight, arguably being the sole reason the division survived throughout the sixties. But his opposition in title fights at 130 lb, much of the time, could hardly be described as top drawer. At the weight immediately below him were Saldivar, Winstone and Ramos, and at the weight directly above him were Ortiz and Brown, all much better than the competition Elorde defended his Super-Featherweight belt against - and when he did contest Ortiz's Lightweight crown, he was totally outclassed (I had him losing all but two of the rounds before getting stopped in the fourteenth in their second bout).

Now of course, Elorde deserves great credit for earning the Super-Featherweight divison credibility when it had so little beforehand, and his victories in non-tile fights over the likes of Saddler and Laguna show that he clearly was a very capable performer anywhere between 126 lb and 135 lb. But it does seem to illustrate the point that such additional weight classes have propelled cetain fighters to 'great' status in the context of history when, in fact, they may merely have been very, very good.

88Chris05 wrote:Good article, Manos, and the points you raise are valid. I suspect that many of those who would kike to see all of the additional weight classes scrapped would point to this article as evidence as to why!

It's not unreasonable at all, I suppose, to suggest that we use one method for rating fighters who campaigned for the majority of their careers in one of the original eight divisions, and then an entirely different one for those who did their best work inbetween them. Of course, it causes a bit of a headache and nobody likes to be seen as contradicting themselves in the way in which they rate fighters. But as you allude to, if we end up boldly stating that Gianfranco Rosi was a better Light-Middleweight than Ray Leonard then it's always going to be with a feeling of unease, even if the record books do strictly suggest that this is the case.

There are the odd exceptions, of course; Aaron Pryor, Nicolino Locche, Khaosai Galaxy and the like are all fighters who I'd happily place in the 'great' class despite spending most of their careers (and all of their title careers) in the additional weight classes, and as such they're a lot easier to place in an all-time, pound for pound list. But as we've said before, even in the better additional weight classes (primarily, Super-Featherweight and Light-Welterweight), it's notable that the majority of names who'd be considered as the cream of the crop in those weight classes also have a list of meritorious achievements in the original divisions either side of them.

I've usually tried to find a middle ground in the debate about whether or not the additional weight classes should be scrapped, believing that seventeen is far too much, but that perhaps cutting them down to twelve, for instance, might be the fairest solution. I've tried my best to reject the idea that such divisions (even Super-Featherweight and Light-Welterweight, which boast some truly excellent names) exist merely as a smaller-risk oasis between the more dangerous weight classes in which lesser fighters can grab their own slice of history without testing themselves to the fullest. I still do believe that such a description may be unfair, but not long ago I was watching the second 'Flash' Elorede-Carlos Ortiz fight, and I have to admit it did get me thinking a little. Here's a man, in Elorde, who reigned for an eternity at Super-Featherweight, arguably being the sole reason the division survived throughout the sixties. But his opposition in title fights at 130 lb, much of the time, could hardly be described as top drawer. At the weight immediately below him were Saldivar, Winstone and Ramos, and at the weight directly above him were Ortiz and Brown, all much better than the competition Elorde defended his Super-Featherweight belt against - and when he did contest Ortiz's Lightweight crown, he was totally outclassed (I had him losing all but two of the rounds before getting stopped in the fourteenth in their second bout).

Now of course, Elorde deserves great credit for earning the Super-Featherweight divison credibility when it had so little beforehand, and his victories in non-tile fights over the likes of Saddler and Laguna show that he clearly was a very capable performer anywhere between 126 lb and 135 lb. But it does seem to illustrate the point that such additional weight classes have propelled cetain fighters to 'great' status in the context of history when, in fact, they may merely have been very, very good.

I agree completely in terms of the added divisions acting as a vehicle simply that serves to turn merely good into great at times. Kosta Tszyu is another more recent example of the phenomenon I think. He carved out a career for himself at light welter mainly but while he has some good wins there you have to look at what was either side of him for most of his reign (de la Hoya, Mosley, Mayweather, Castillo, Trinidad, Quartey etc) and feel that the division that consisted for the most part of Chavez's corpse, Judah, Mitchell and Tackie was pretty second rate by comparison.

One of the reasons Ive been less interested in the lower weights (usually below feather) is because there is just far too much dilution in terms of weights and belts. The quality of match ups is generally quite poor and the competion spread awfully thin.

For top fighters below light heavyweight, weight hopping is almost a neccessity now to ensure a strong level of opposition. As a result its very hard to establish "legacies" in a particular division and those that do - like Hatton or even Tzsyu for instance is often at the expense of actually acheiving elsewhere. Conversely, and somewhat unfairly, the fighters that move around the weights to seek better fights suffer from being unable to establish any kind of longetivity in a division. For example Ward moving up to light heavyweight to face Dawson is cleary a positive move given hes all but confirmed his status at 168 (especially with Froch demolishing Bute). But it will probably come at the expense of having the kind of longetivity there needed to rival Calzaghe who was there for eons but whos opposition was much more variable and match making far less ambitious.