A weekly exercise in ranking fighters... This week-Stan Jonathan

[srehm1]

When I sat down and ranked the greatest bruins fighters of all-time a few years back, I thought Stan was the best, edging out jay Miller. He was a small fighter- 5'8, 175? That's insane considering the kind of reputation he had. He was sort of a precursor to Tie Domi, very small and seemed to use it to his advantage. Stan had that low center of gravity and could pull bigger fighters into him as he threw punches. He switched hands very well, fluidly in fact. He also had some pop in those punches as well. He had a great chin-I think he was dropped the one time by Clark Gillies. He seemed to relish the open fights where he could really let loose. I remember him battling behn Wilson and he had that smile on his face after the fight was over. he said something to Wilson. i always thought he said something like "Now that's a fight!" he just seemed like the consumate battler, unafraid and always willing.

He had some nice wins during his run with Boston-all the more impressive to me because of his diminutive stature. Of course there was the pierre Bouchard bloodletting, his win over Paul Stewart, andre dupont, Clackson, Nilan, the aformentioned battle with Behn wilson, the playoff fight with dave schultz in his rookie year and that great battle with Brad Maxwell. He had some good battles and vaulted into a few top-10's during his run with boston. I've always considered the Bouchard fight as one of the most memorable fights in bruins history. talk fights with any bruins fan and that fight will get mentioned right away.

Jonathan only had 4,5 losses in his career and he really had only one clear cut loss (Gillies). In about 80 or so fights that's not bad. i think he has about 50 or so fights on tape from what i can recall. that is a small amount of losses in his career and puts him in elite company.

Jonathan had a fairly short career. He played 6 seasons and very small parts of two others. that was it. i have always felt that this costs him somewhat when compared to some of the long term enforcers we would see down the road in the 80's and 90's.

Jonathan also had a habit of body slamming fighters. he was so small, pit bull-like, that he would just go for the slam. I don't really knock him for it too much. I guess being his size, I'm willing to let something like that go but I have heard it brought up plenty in the past as a knock on him. i don't know, I certainly don't think he's in mick vukota territory or anything like that.

At one time, I ranked him in the mid teens but he has since fallen off. He has slipped for me and i sometimes scratch my head when i try to find a spot for him.

So i open this up to the board to see what range he would fall into. Same options as usual:

a)1-5
b)6-10
c)11-15
d)16-20
e)21-25
f)26-30

Thanks, guys.

[GOON 21]

Tough lil fighter and was Domi before Domi


For whatever reason the guy literally 'done' in the NHL at the young age of 26-27 (not 100% sure why) but he was DONE, POOF NO MAS!! Actually was a pretty good player as well, averaging about a point for every 2 games played, including a 52 point season in 1 year


Great battle with Wilson, Nilan and catching Bouchard with those big rights - Just not a long enough career imo to be in the top 20 or so range, perhaps with another couple seasons in the NHL/longer fight card, i would consider it, but to be done at such a short age hurts him imo
but still a DAMN GOOD scrapper

[BENNETTWOLF]

Quick answer says: 21-25

[BaddaBing Badda Boom]

First off before anything, I want to say this. I think it does a great dis-service to Stan J if we go on comparing him to Domi, myself included.

For Pete's sake Wendl Clark was the same height and weight as Domi
Domi 5' 10 213 lbs
Clark 5' 11 200

I mean Jonathan is 5' 8 175 lbs - That is patently unfair IMO, despite the fact that SJ always punched above his weight - Now, if you wanna get more in line with SJ - Hey, there is Polonich, Howatt, Williams, Paiement, Ruskowski (5' 9 168 lbs ), McPhee (5' 9 170 lbs), Melnyk - To really quantify his greatness we should look at his opponents as he was always outta his weight class - whats fair is fair. Have to do more thinking about this one as far as ranking ---

[srehm1]

[quote][quote=BaddaBing Badda Boom;2469200]First off before anything, I want to say this. I think it does a great dis-service to Stan J if we go on comparing him to Domi, myself included.

For Pete's sake Wendl Clark was the same height and weight as Domi
Domi 5' 10 213 lbs
Clark 5' 11 200

I don't know, bbbb. SJ and domi had similar builds, very short and stocky. Both seemed to have very squat features. Short arms, short legs. Both carried HW/enforcer reputations. Clark was a little taller, leaner. A powerforward who took on all kinds, big or small but not necessarily a designated enforcer type. Jonathan and Domi being short, squat HW's makes the comparison natural to me.

[mikebflorida]

High teens to low 20's. He's a little tough to rank but if you factor in the skills, he is top 20 for sure, one of top fighters of his era, bested only by a handful of guys, Nystrom, Gillies, Schultz, Holmgren, Fotiu, Cochrane are the big names of SJ era and he fits right in there. A pit bull with great balance, hand speed, intimidation for a small guy, could take a punch and laugh it off, switched hands easily, he had all the attributes except size.

Could easily play in today's game and would be the best middleweight fighter in the league fighting guys like Tootoo, Neil, Barch, etc and stepping up to the bigger guys a bit as well.

[Churla22]

26 - 30

[brawl lover]

Are you guys ranking these fighters by all time status? Because I just can't believe that you can't find 40 fighters over the last 40 years that Stan Jonathan would lose a 10 fight series convincingly. Before you ask to name the 40...I've done it on a few occasions. I'd put Jonathan in the bottom 1/3 of a top 100 list. It is just too hard to rank 200 or so good to great fighters down to a top 25 especially in different eras...when some of these guys fought less in their careers than some have fought in 3 seasons.

[mikebflorida]

Originally Posted by brawl lover

Are you guys ranking these fighters by all time status? Because I just can't believe that you can't find 40 fighters over the last 40 years that Stan Jonathan would lose a 10 fight series convincingly. Before you ask to name the 40...I've done it on a few occasions. I'd put Jonathan in the bottom 1/3 of a top 100 list. It is just too hard to rank 200 or so good to great fighters down to a top 25 especially in different eras...when some of these guys fought less in their careers than some have fought in 3 seasons.

That's an interesting way to put it. If that's how you rank your fighters, if you think they'd lose a series to player X, they should be ranked below player X.

I tend to do it more based on skills.

Strength
Intimidation factor
Quickness(hand speed)
Fairness
Balance
KO Punch
Taking a punch
Switching Hands
Tying Up


If you use a 10 point system to grade Jonathan, he rates very high in every category, certainly for his era, there weren't too many guys that wanted to fight him, to be honest. In today's game, his intimidation factor would be less because the players are so much bigger. Back then, Behn Wilson and Clark Gillies were 2 of the biggest guys in the league at 6'3 and about 220 or whatever and that's not big by today's standards and Jonathan fought them anyway.

I'm still trying to get a lock down on how to grade fighters with this system so perhaps Jonathan may fall a bit from top 20-25, I don't know yet, but he was a great fighter, certainly for his size.

[mikebflorida]

Another thought I had was if you are ranking fighters on an all time list, shouldn't there be 2 different lists?

A guy like Jonathan was highly skilled at fighting but was tiny compared to today's monsters. How can you compare him to say, John Scott or Jody Shelley or so many others 6'4 230+? It's not unreasonable to say that they would maul a little guy like SJ.

Shouldn't there be a ranking by size? Has this been discussed before?

Less than 6' and 6'+? It's hard to do it by weight because there have been some real bean poles that were 6'3 190 over the years and there have been plenty of 5'10 210 pound guys too, Tie Domi springs to mind.

Middleweight class and heavyweight class seems like a good idea and we can pretty easily classify who's who. Domi is one of the exceptions at 5'10, he fought mostly heavyweights his whole career but he was good enough to hang with and even beat guys much bigger than himself.

Thoughts?

[Johnny Pie]

Originally Posted by brawl lover

Are you guys ranking these fighters by all time status? Because I just can't believe that you can't find 40 fighters over the last 40 years that Stan Jonathan would lose a 10 fight series convincingly. Before you ask to name the 40...I've done it on a few occasions. I'd put Jonathan in the bottom 1/3 of a top 100 list. It is just too hard to rank 200 or so good to great fighters down to a top 25 especially in different eras...when some of these guys fought less in their careers than some have fought in 3 seasons.

I also feel that it would be unfair to rate fighters on who might have beaten them in a series. No one knows for sure. What I believe you must rate them on is who they fought in their era. Did they best the highest ranked fighters they played against ? Fighters from the 70's would have a hard time making an alltime list if it was all on conjecture. How can you reasonable argue a Player that stood 5'8 or 5'10 would beat some one 6'3 or 6'4? but it happened plenty of times. I would rank Stan in the 25- 30 range .Along with the fights Srehm mentioned he also did beat Bert Wilson,Bridgman, Gare although some were more wrestling. He also showed some pop in Fights with Hilworth, Jackson, Zanuzzi, Harper, Murdoch, and Lorimer, either cutting them up or dazing them. I think he is comparable in some way with Domi although not as impressive. One thing in my opinion I don't believe he is the Bruin all time best. That position I believe belongs to Oreilly.

[brawl lover]

Originally Posted by mikebflorida

That's an interesting way to put it. If that's how you rank your fighters, if you think they'd lose a series to player X, they should be ranked below player X.

I tend to do it more based on skills.

Strength
Intimidation factor
Quickness(hand speed)
Fairness
Balance
KO Punch
Taking a punch
Switching Hands
Tying Up


If you use a 10 point system to grade Jonathan, he rates very high in every category, certainly for his era, there weren't too many guys that wanted to fight him, to be honest. In today's game, his intimidation factor would be less because the players are so much bigger. Back then, Behn Wilson and Clark Gillies were 2 of the biggest guys in the league at 6'3 and about 220 or whatever and that's not big by today's standards and Jonathan fought them anyway.

I'm still trying to get a lock down on how to grade fighters with this system so perhaps Jonathan may fall a bit from top 20-25, I don't know yet, but he was a great fighter, certainly for his size.

That really isn't how I rank them...because to be fair there is no way of differentiating eras this way. The way I rank is pretty simple...who would you rather have fighting on your team. Again it is hard to do between eras but I know for sure I'd take Big Jim McKenzie over Jonathan and even Rob Ray over Jonathan...and so on and so on. There are many many fighters that I'd take over Jonathan.

[mikebflorida]

Originally Posted by brawl lover

That really isn't how I rank them...because to be fair there is no way of differentiating eras this way. The way I rank is pretty simple...who would you rather have fighting on your team. Again it is hard to do between eras but I know for sure I'd take Big Jim McKenzie over Jonathan and even Rob Ray over Jonathan...and so on and so on. There are many many fighters that I'd take over Jonathan.

You'd rather have McKenzie or Ray over Jonathan?

Jonathan was 10 x the better player than either of them and could fight really well. He had a couple of 20+ goal seasons and a couple of good playoff performances, think I'd pick SJ long before those other 2 but that's just me.

I don't doubt that McKenzie could beat SJ in a 10 fight series, that's not unreasonable but he wasn't half the player SJ was and I'd certainly have a bigger enforcer on my team along with SJ.

If it's only based on fighting then I see what you mean, there are quite a few I would take ahead of Jonathan but certainly not Rob Ray.

[brawl lover]

Originally Posted by mikebflorida

If it's only based on fighting then I see what you mean, there are quite a few I would take ahead of Jonathan but certainly not Rob Ray.

That is all I am Ranking. I'd take Ray all day long.

[BENNETTWOLF]

Stan is an interesting case for me as well for several reasons. He was a "short term" force, in fact his whole career was basically his prime. Possibly the 2nd best that i think of that way behind only John Kordic. However these types of guys tend to have smaller cards and fewer huge names, etc, than so many of the guys competing against them in all time ratings.

On the positive side, as srehm pointed out (off the top of my head), he basically only ever lost ONE fight conclusively or badly. Always thought Brad Maxwell won their outstanding, memorable war clearly as well but that fight does credit to both men and showed so much of stan's trademark willingness. Don Cherry always said that "unlike most players, stan actually liked to fight"

All of his other losses i'm aware of were edges and there were exceedingly few. What, about 6-9?. I'd have to refresh my memory but i'm recalling Jim Nill. I wish the schultz fight would show up in higher resolution. Stan was highly competitive in virtually every bout he ever fought and holds an exceptional non-losing%.

One of the very best of the "first arms race" to counter the broad street bullies who has a strong claim as being the king of inch for inch, pound for pound. He was also a truly exceptional blend of abilities. Brilliant at getting inside, tying up and switching hands with the very best ever. He had a versatile offense and showed power. His other intangibles and abilities were first rate as well. Fireplug strong and balanced with a great chin and a truly unique "warrior spirit". He engaged much bigger men and mostly left them looking awkward trying to fend him off or get a hand free..................a truly well balanced, versatile fighter.

An original member of my top 20, he's been slipping for me but he'll always be among the group i loosely pare down as "honorable mentions". Somewhere currently in my 23-30 range. It's a good thing that quite a bit more than half of his career fights are on video. I wish i had better recall of the 50 or so i've watched to cite "this or that" but i've always come away highly impressed.

Tough man to beat, tougher still to dominate. One of the best of his era who, i believe, ranked as high as #2 one year. I think of him as the best bruin fighter ever as well. Terry for longevity, skill and being an icon..............jonathan for success. HIGHLY debateable there as o'reilly had many big time wins etc.

Like most of those "legends" from our first tapes (our late 70's-early 80's heroes), it's too bad he didn't meet up with a few of the other top guys (nystrom, playfair, semenko, fotiu etc) but IMO not considering stan among the best ever is a disservice. Maybe i can someday find 40 better but his place is secure. Possibly the most unique NHL great ever between his size and technical abilities.

At 6-3, 220, he might have killed everyone