Saddler was rated No.13 in a list of the best 50 fighters in the 50 years leading up to `97 by te ring mag, Charles was rated 14, were their rankings in this list correct and which of them was better P4P? Further info given on Sandy: Quality of competition: 9 Bouts vs Top 50 fighters: 2 Why he was on the list; Licked Pep three of four. What he could have done to better his ranking: Defended the 126 crown with more regularity. Charles info: Quality of competition: 8 Bouts v Top 50 fighters: 2 Why he was on the list: He was the best light heavyweight of all-time. What he could have done to better his ranking: Beaten Rock just once.
And why is there only two top fifty fighters on Charles' record? Moore, Burley and Louis are staples.
Charles is still curiously underrated by the publications and pundits, and this this placing is another example of that. Not close for me, he easily outranks Saddler.
You have insights that do not cross the minds of any other poster. Charles not top 100? No one else could have conjured that up. It would be a tragedy if you kept all those gifts inside.
You don't have to have beaten them either so you can throw Marciano into that mix. Someone had a bad day at the office here.
