The three title wins is probably the big difference. Even more astonishing given that there were so few titles to win back then.
Its a very hard question. Unless you have an objective set criteria I think it basically is subjective. However I think you can compile a list that can be objective if youre willing to take the time and not just bow to consensus as many so often do. For me Greb I think is the only one I can absolutely put at number 1 with very little hesitance. The rest of the list for me has to include in no particular order Sam Langford, Henry Armstrong, Roberto Duran, Ray Robinson, Willie Pep, Bob Fitzsimmons, Tony Canzoneri, Benny Leonard, and probably Joe Gans. But I have yet to rank these fighters in an actual list because I have not developed an objective set of criteria. Iḿ not sure where to rate Langford for example because he never won a ¨proper¨ world title since he was denied the opportunity. Pep prob has the greatest overall record ever winning 95% of his fights, however he only fought at featherwieght except for a few fights at lightweight. But should he be penalized for fighting primarily at just one weight? I dont think so. As much as I like Ray Robinson its hard to rank him as high as Armstrong overall and possibly Duran due to them achieving I think overall more than Robinson did. Fitzsimmons was the first 3 division champ and thats a true milestone. The rest I do tend to go back and forth on.
Have you changed your ordering since the brilliant top 100 p4p all time thread on here, as you had Charles #5 and Fitz #6 then?
No, not necessarily, but I don't think identifying the guys who shouldn't be left off the ten under any circumstances is the same as listing your top fighters.