Lou Ambers on a pound-for-pound list

Thin air, of course.

My 'values' when rating the great boxers concentrate on all the things that matter, and each fighter is based on his and his era's own merit - to a certain extent. Henry Armstrong gets big points for ruling a mediocre welterweight division because he was barely a lightweight himself. At the same time, hard accomplishments need to be emphasised - I wouldn't rate Albert Bombercat the #1 middleweight because he scraped by his lone title defence with a gammy knee and a nasty case of rock blindness, because objectively he wouldn't be in the same class as more dominant hypothetical champions, injuries or not.

Dominance of a division makes for a generous evaluation, but the strength of that division and how victories were concluded is of much importance. Head-to-head ability also ties in here (a dominant champion is not going to be rubbish, except Sven Ottke), but exceptions and understandings need to be made (see Ottke). Rules change, styles change, and I am not one to **** on Bob Fitzsimmons because he looked like a 'freckly, spindly legged nerd' and didn't fight with the expected finesse of a more modern champion. Therefore, I credit fighters most importantly with how good they were for their time; who they beat and how they beat them, how long they carried on for, how far ahead of their contemparies a fighter was, and so on.

One thing I will say is that outside-the-ring activities mean little to me with these kinds of lists. Barney Ross was a great man inside the ring, but his war efforts will never add to his legacy there, just as Muhammad Ali's popularity and title of 'most photographed person on the planet' will not persuade me to bump him up a few places, no matter how much the opposing army will nag me. Similarly, a fighter's media status subconsciously glorifying his opponents will not stand up; George Chuvalo was not more noteworthy than Freddie Dawson, and neither was Zora Folley a more formidable opponent than Willie Ritchie.

I don't believe Hagler deserves a rating of #20-25 unless you're thinking about actual fighting ability. That is, if you plucked him from his own era and matched him up with anyone else, and concluded he'd beat most. But then that's even more subjective, so I prefer to rate by what actually happened, or as best we can gather.

Hagler not deserving that rating may sound harsh, but if we put him there, so many other great boxers would suffer as a result. When fans make lists, the main problem above all else is that they forget how many great fighters there has actually been. Newsboy Brown, Kid Norfolk, Pedro Montanez, Young Corbett III, Lou Brouillard - who'd have these in a top one hundred? Not many, despite the fact they probably deserve to be there.

I like to use Jose Napoles as an example of what I mean, because too often, he's rated quite a few places below Marvin Hagler and for no good reason (as I see it) other than that Hagler is more famous. It seems criminal, however in this fan's opinion, Napoles beat a slightly better level of opposition, more times, and over a longer period. And if you really wanted me to back it up, I'd suggest he physically declined as champion earlier than Hagler did, was equally dominant, and back as a lightweight, was as good as Hagler ever was. That's about it, really.