Ah, I don't even like these types of discussions when it comes to rankings. How one judges fighters in a historical sense should be their own thing. A lot of people use a so-called "resume" like what
@XThe GreatestX referred to in the thread on McVey when trying to. What does "resume" even mean? Actually I know what people mean when they say "resume". But why is a "resume" limited to simply just a list of names (and often times incomplete with a lot of old fighters) based on what some record keeping site says? Why can't a fighter's accolades, awards, successes, testimonials, influence, etc., etc, all be included on a fighter's so-called "resume"? If a resume is something we do when we apply for a job, and if a fighter was applying for a job in boxing after his actual fighting career was over, does anyone here think his resume is only going to be limited to the opponents he fought and/or defeated? No, of course not. He's going to include whatever he can to make himself look in the brightest light possible.
And that's even including the fact that a simple result can fool people. A good name doesn't mean it was a positive result for a particular fighter. Especially when discussing fighters like McVey and other black fighters at least into the 1940's and even moreso when facing other black fighters. Often times that good name on a fighter's record was a negative performance regardless of what the official result says. Sometimes two black fighters would go after each other with real animosity back then and would try to give their best efforts for a few different reasons. But often times they wouldn't either. In fact it was more common not to just because there was a "gentlemen's agreement" of sorts when it came to the communities of black fighters. They tried to respect and protect each other in there just so both could go on to the next town in a couple of weeks and earn another dollar. Actually a lot of the animosity that took place in the first half of the 20th century with two black fighters was in retribution for one black fighter taking advantage of another black fighter in a previous meeting (and a lot of times it wasn't the same black fighter attempting retribution, but one of his friends). The "code" amongst black fighters was a real thing and lasted at least into the 1940's. Guys like Archie Moore, Eddie Booker, Bob Montgomery, Ike Williams, etc., all talked about it at one time or the other. A result meant nothing in a lot of fights back then. Often times that result came from a glorified sparring session where both fighters were slammed in the papers the next day for not giving nearly their best effort. A lot of times a result came after a fight in which one of the participants entered the ring with a broken hand, injured shoulder, a facial injury, or whatever due to them hurting themselves in a bout they had a week or two before, but because they needed the money they couldn't back out. Sometimes the decision was the wrong one or featured some kind of unfair officiating along those lines (just like nowadays but more frequent then). Sometimes a result was a straight up dive. And yes, sometimes a result was after both fighters came in ready and performed to the best of their ability. But a result by itself means very little when it comes to a lot of those old fighters. It's the details behind the result that matters. If a fighter back then got more credit and was considered to have performed better in a 'W 10' over a fighter that history has forgotten than that same 'W 10' result over a then-future HOF'er who is still remembered fondly today, who are we to sit here all these years later and say otherwise.
