Originally Posted by he grant
An argument can be made that pound for pound Fitz, Langford, Greb and Charles were better pound for pound fighters ...
In the modern era Charles dominance of Moore and Burley speaks volumes and then his very respectable run at heavyweight to me extends beyond anything Robinson did ...
Surely, Armstrong merits inclusion though as well? His resume and accomplishments are about as immense as any, even more so considering he damn well beat Garcia for the middleweight title, giving him him four of eight. It's sort of astonishing to me that people have actually criticized the lack of title defenses made at 126 & 135. It really takes nothing from the accomplishment, and he needn't of held the fourth simultaneously either. Was the only man to stop Sarron in winning the featherweight title, a chockful of great wins over Ross, Ambers, Montanez, Wright, Arizmendi, Wolgast, all of whom were very relevant at time if not the outright Man
; others avenging one defeat against conqueror Zivic; beating Angott, Jenkins, Larkin when on the slide...
In some ways, he could be described as the definitive pound-for-pound fighter, but there are many different forms and angles for which it can be interpreted. I do agree that Charles going 3-0 against Archie Moore and beating Burley twice orders high praise and placing, even with a weight advantage regarding the latter.
In terms of defining the modern era, I tend to lean towards the approach and reasoning Stonehands outlined in his Gods of War series introduction. Unfortunately, that takes Fitz and Langford out of the picture for the sake of organization, although we can't just brush off their incredible careers.