I am a long time lurker first time to post. My question to the board is this. Starting in 1931 when the 5 family structure we have now was created and going through present day, how would you rank the families all-time 1-5 and why? I have been doing this myself for a while now and my rankings are ever changing. For example, take the Bonannos. Under Joe Bonanno they were arguably one of the top two families for 30 years. Then they start to fall off in terms of power in the early 60's. It gets so bad that by time Rastelli takes over they are kicked off the commission. They are looked down upon by all the families. Then Massino gets out in 91 and precedes to make them the dominate family behind the Genovese. After his arrest they slide back to the back of the line. My point is this. Even though at times they have been the laughing stock of the mafia, for some 40 years since the creation of it all they were one of the top 2-3 families. I am curious to see if you really break down each family and compare them from 1931 to present day how your rankings would look. I know this is long winded and I apologize for taking your time if this topic is not interesting to you reading this or the board.

The Genovese and Gambino families have always been the #1 and #2 families since the beginning. They were always much bigger, wealthier, and more powerful than the other three NY families.

The Genovese have always been #1. Though for a time, perhaps from the 1960's to the early 1990's, the Gambinos could be argued to be #1A, as they rivaled the Genovese in many ways.

The Luccheses, Colombos, and Bonannos have fluctuated in the #3, #4, and #5 spots at different points.

During the 1990's, the Bonannos would have been #3. Before that it was the Luccheses going back to maybe the 1960's. I don't think the Colombos have ever been as high as #3. Maybe the highest they were was #4 at certain times.


Note: I'm aware that the FBI had the Bonannos at #2 in the late 1990's but it's one of the very rare times where I question them. While it could be argued the Bonanno were more stable and smooth running at the time, the Gambinos were still a much larger, more expansive, and more diverse organization.

Just my opinion but i think the Gambino's were the #1 family from 1967 after Tommy Lucchese died up to Carlo's death in 76. Maybe with Paul for a few years, but mostly 1967 to 76 would be my guess.

Ivy, do you have mangano and his family #2 from 31-51. In rabb's history of the 5 families he mentions Bonanno being #2 only to the Genovese family at that time in terms of money making. Don't have it right in front of me but do remember reading that. I'm not disagreeing with you just stating his point of view because I know that book is well respected. I have always found mangano to be one of the men I am most interested in. An extremely powerful boss but when you look at other bosses from that time (Luciano, Costello, Bonanno, Profaci) he seems to get lost in the shuffle. Him and Gagliano.

How does anyone rate and rank power? How is that done? There is no way we would know all the connections all the bosses and members had. And how would we know exactly how much money all the members made? It´s impossible to know that. But if we are talking pure size, and going back to 1920s/1930s, the Gambinos are no 1, the Genoveses are no 2 (but they are bigger in size than the Gambinos today and have been for the last 20 years or so), Bonannos are no 3, Luccheses no 4 and Colombos no 5.

Welcome to gangsterbb!

Rank the families throughout the U.S. please.

In the late 90s, when the Bonannos reached their traditional strenght of 150 made members, they weren't much smaller than the Gambinos at about 200 made members.

This has been done before numerous times, but why not...

Genovese
Gambino
Lucchese/Bonanno
Colombo

New England
Chicago
Philly
DeCavalcante
Detroit
Buffalo

Why do you think New England is stronger than Chicago?

And how do you know how much money these families bring in to make determinations about "wealth?" Does Google have more powers when its accessed from Utah?

In 2013, size should not equal strength. Chicago and Detroit are two strong borgatas where familial relationships run rampant throughout the organizations via marriage of their children...like Sarno's daughter marrying Jimmy Inendino's son or Albie Vena marrying a Spina. This is why rats are so rare in those cities. Creating a smaller power base and making a very select few (mostly those you are related to through marriage) is way more effective than having "150 made guys on the street" in 2013.

More members, more activity. Just my humble opinion.

Utah? I think you got the wrong person, pal. And because you got the wrong person, I will let the other person respond...

The correct italian translation is:
"Credo che Chicago sia davanti al New England"
(I Think that Chicago was in advance of the New England)

New England doesn't even have many made members active right now it seems like they're all in jail.

I agree with you Sonny

I don't recall that part in the book. And I'm not sure what Raab would be basing that on. The Genovese and Gambinos were always much bigger than the Bonannos. The Gambinos rivaled the Bonannos in the drug trade and also had far more extensive labor rackets. As well as operated more widely in general.

To go back to your first question, I believe the Gambinos have always been a strong #2 since the beginning. Even rivaling the Genovese in many ways for a time. But I don't believe they ever supplanted the Genovese as the most powerful family in both New York and the country. It was the Genovese family who represented many east coast families on the Commission. The Genovese family always had more union clout. And even when the Gambinos were slightly bigger in size, the Genovese were still considered both richer and more sophisticated.



Some law enforcement agencies actually do have ways to figure stuff like this. For instance, Canadian law enforcement uses something called the "Sleipnir Version 2.0" which measures an organized crime group's "capability measurement matrix." Possible criteria that is considered includes the following...

1. Corruption
2. Violence
3. Infiltration
4. Expertise
5. Sophistication
6. Subversion
7. Strategy
8. Discipline
9. Insulation
10. Intelligence Use
11. Multiple Enterprises
12. Mobility
13. Stability
14. Scope
15. Monopoly
16. Group Cohesiveness
17. Continuity
18. Links to Other OC groups
19. Links to extremists groups


Of course, one doesn't necessarily need to get this in depth to see one LCN family is more powerful than another. Size is obviously a factor. Big difference between a 200 member family and a 20 member a family. Diversification is another. Sophistication in terms of labor unions and legitimate businesses is another. How widely they operate is another. And so on.



First, while being aware of the 150 members being cited in certain articles and books, I'm still a little dubious about it. A little over 100 members were cited by the government in the 2002 indictment against TG Graziano. And 115 members were cited by the government in the 2003 indictment against Frank Coppa.

But even if we assume they did reach 150 members at one point, they still lacked the involvement the Gambino's had in things like construction, trucking, the Brooklyn waterfront, some garbage, etc. And even in terms of the more traditional street rackets, the Bonannos didn't operate as widely as the Gambinos, either in New York or elsewhere. They certainly seemed to be operating much smoother at the time. But the house of cards eventually crumbled once the feds got on the ball again and the indictments started coming down.



In my opinion...

#1 Genovese

#2 Gambino

...big drop off...

#3-5 The Luccheses would probably be #3 right now but there really isn't a wide gap between any of the three smaller NY families. Toss up between the Colombos and Bonannos regarding who #4 and #5.

...big drop off...

#6-8 I would still put Chicago ahead of New England and Philadelphia but not by much. The modern day Outfit is much closer in size and scope to these families than it is to any of the NY families. Toss up between New England and Philadelphia regarding who is #7 and #8.

#9 New Jersey. The DeCavalcantes would have been among the families above at one time but they are slightly smaller in size, according to the most recent official estimates, and have had nowhere near as much activity in recent years.

...big drop off...

#10 Detroit. Almost not even on the radar.


No other family is considered viable by the FBI. Anywhere else you just have remnants of a family that once was.



Who are you talking to? None of the guys you responded to live in Utah.

Anyway, to argue that the size of a family doesn't matter is absurd. It's basically saying there's no inherent difference in a 200 member family or a 20 member family.

And it's a stretch to call Detroit a "strong borgata." They're easily the next family to cross the line into history. Familial ties may help maintain more loyalty but it doesn't help to stave off general attrition.

Finally, you need to quit bringing up Google like you never use it. We all use it. I don't care who you are, where you live, what you may hear on "the street" from time to time, or whatever. All of us get most of our information from the same public sources. Anyone who pretends otherwise is full of it.

[quote=HairyKnuckles]How does anyone rate and rank power? How is that done? There is no way we would know all the connections all the bosses and members had. And how would we know exactly how much money all the members made? It´s impossible to know that. But if we are talking pure size, and going back to 1920s/1930s, the Gambinos are no 1, the Genoveses are no 2 (but they are bigger in size than the Gambinos today and have been for the last 20 years or so), Bonannos are no 3, Luccheses no 4 and Colombos no 5.

Welcome to gangsterbb! [/quote

There's plenty of ways to make an educated guess when it comes to who's is the most powerful. It's done by research as you've done and making a summary judgement of unions controlled, do they have racketeers or dope traffickers or both? Gambling? Loan sharking or all. It's quite simple to comprise a list. It's been done to people's best judgement thousands of times.

lol you need to quit acting like anyone takes you seriously enough to follow any type of direction you give dipshit .

Both the Outfit and Detroit stay extremely under the radar and out of the media, which means dorks like you can't find out that much information about them. Both retain acting bosses and Capo's on the street for 3-4 times as long as any East Coast family and both have only had one made guy flip in their entire 75+ year existence.

These threads are always so fucking stupid that just by their title I know to stay away. But I accidentally clicked this one open today. I'm glad I wasn't disappointed .

So in other words, the powers that be are going to close this topic as well anytime soon, no?

If people are going to continue to get into geographical pissing matches, then probably, yeah. My mob is better than your mob, blah blah blah .

And you know exactly what I'm talking about, Sonny. These arguments always chase away the few remaining quality posters we have here. You're a perfect example. You're a high quality poster, but you've seen the bullshit and you hardly post anymore.

And I'll tell you, the other board is devolving, too. Not that I post there much because you know I don't. But they have their problems, too. These boards were better when they were a well kept secret. I'll take quality over quantity any time.

Since they supposedly made a lot of new members to replace members that had supposedly passed away, which names they took from the telephone book, I think 150 members would be in the right ballpark. The Bonannos have had about 150 members from the 1960s to the early 1980s, and since it is said that they recovered during the 90s under Massino's reign, I deem it plausible that they also restored their strenght in numbers.



So even though New England has almost double the amount of members you think the Outfit is still more powerful? Please explain; I'm open-minded.

Agreed.

lol

Not so much "my mob" vs. "your mob." More or less people with no credibility making dumbshit statements. But I just broke my own rule and engaged with them (Italians are bullies) so I'm done with this piss match...please continue.

Italians are bullies? How so?

Hey in my neighborhood we ran all the poles, romanians and ukrains and spanish. Think you could help yourself if you saw a little juvenile officer from Utah with glasses walk down the street? I just can't.

people in new york don't understand the syndicate

so u being a netherlands it would be hard to grasp, chicagoland is very corrupt so members of the mob are able to make more money because they're dealing with contracts. chicago is a mobtown and everybody (all races) work together once you reach a certain level of greenbacks

chicago has better scams than other cities that gives them $ and power

Thanks for answering my question even though I did not ask you. You seem to be a very credible guy, and there's no question you live in Chicago, so I believe you.

Ivyleague, don't bother answering anymore, you live in Indian territory and have to worry about protecting your farm against savages and bears, so how could you possibly know?

I can guarantee you I'm taking a lot more seriously here than you are. Most have pegged you for what you are...yet another Chicago fanboy come to waive the Outfit flag. This crap played for a while on the forums 5 years ago but most people are onto it now. They see past the BS.

And speaking of BS...



The whole "under the radar and out of the media" thing has been done to death. It's just an excuse to explain away lack of activity.



If we're comparing apples to apples and going by the latest official estimates of both families, the total manpower is pretty much the same. The member-to-associate ratio is just different. Chicago has maybe 30 members and a little over 100 associates. New England has 40-50 members and 100 associates. So perhaps 150 total for either family. So the relative size is comparable.

I put Chicago ahead, though not by much mind you. I still put them in the same category, just with Chicago being at the top of the remaining small families outside NY. It still does have more interest in legitimate businesses. Things like strip clubs, trucking companies, the trade show industry, etc; whereas New England is not far from a total street operation and Philadelphia almost completely so. That said, it's certainly possible either of those families could outlast Chicago if they prove to be more durable in terms of general attrition.



You say I have no credibility because I don't agree with you. But I usually back up everything I saw with evidence. All you have is "I live in Chicago."

By the way, you never answered my question. Are you Fratto from the RD/Grand Ave from the Black Hand?



Gotta love the tough talk from behind the computer. You're automatically tough because you're from Chicago and you ran with other ethnic groups. Zzzzzzzzzzz.

And I don't wear glasses.



That's another crap line that most people have learned to see past. Given the level of information available today, a person doesn't need to live in Chicago or even visit there to understand the Outfit. You're just playing the geography card again, as many other Chicago posters have done before.

Chicago certainly has a lot of corruption. That's no secret. But you calling it a "mob town" is a perfect example of you equating all that corruption with the mob. And that's not reality. Everything in the city, including it's corruption, doesn't revolve around the Outfit. Rather, the Outfit is one entity that may benefit from that corruption. But getting public contracts certainly isn't unique to the Chicago family. There's been several news articles in recent years reporting how the NY families have continued to receive hundreds of millions in contracts.

Scams? Things like stock fraud, telecommunications fraud, health care fraud, etc. have been almost solely the done by the NY families in recent years.



Exactly. When all these guys have left is, "I live in Chicago and you don't," you know they're running on empty. It's almost sad.