I'm not familiar enough with the other guys in that tier other than say Armstrong to provide a convincing enough argument.
Ramirez might be worth considering for the bottom tier. Mando Ramos, too. Lightweight, like middleweight, is hell on earth to rate, though. Lots of really good fighters in the lower tiers.
Sammy Angott way too high, Alexis Arguello too low and Rodolfo Gonzalez nowhere in sight?? But hey, that's just my taste.
Gonzalez is 3-3 versus ranked men. Angott beat: Bob Montgomery (lots), Willie Pep, Lew Jenkins and, by my count, seven other ranked men. That's outstanding.
I've found lightweight easier so far tbh, but that might just be me getting used to it. Ramos and Ramirez both got a look and came up short.
You wouldn't include Blackburn at all? He'd be excluded? Are some of his reported weights wrong? I'd stretch the definition to either 137.5 or 138.
I totally understand if your rankings are on a numbers basis. I rank on head-to-head and I'll get intrinsic on what I have seen in a fighter that I am blown away by and, conversely, what I am unimpressed by - despite the stats. if I was to do a rankings on my opinion on fighters in the same tiered style you did, we would have a completely different set of rankings. So, I do understand where you're coming from.
Well when you post an equal number of losses to top men as you do wins, surely that's an enormous inhibitor on claims you can make on his behalf, head to head? I mean whoever you have him beating, you presumably don't have him beating Guts or Cervantes?
Stevie Johnston and Jose Luis Castillo are IMO more deserving of being there than Crawford and Casamayor but overall its a good list.
Juan Manuel Marquez probably warrants inclusion for the same reason that Chavez, does. Quality wins during a short stay and became lineal at the weight.