Vitali is tough. Don’t think RJJ is though. He didn’t fall off till he was older. Top tier in my book
Tough one is Ricardo Lopez for me. His resume is a bit- uninspiring for his talents and ability it’s just his greatness is so apparent and the paper tells us so little but consistent domination.
I have noticed that a few people who are better versed in the smaller fighters have Canto at or near #1. I would like to see an in-depth comparison between Wilde and Wolgast. A face-value reading of their records seems to give an edge to Wilde, who has a shinier record, won the Flyweight Championship, looks more dominant (more conclusive finishes because of his power), and spent his entire career as a physical flyweight. Wolgast, however, boxed in a more competitive era, did win big in a #1 vs. #2 matchup (though he wasn't awarded the The Ring's belt), and may have had the higher ceiling talent wise. In regard to Wilde's dominance, I remember going over a few sources in his bouts against Memphis Pal Moore and Joe Lynch (I could be wrong here) and there seemed to be a real question as to whether he won those bouts. Maybe he deserved those wins but it raises questions that most didn't know existed and highlights that we need a fuller examination to get a genuine feel of how great he truly was.
Dempsey is certainly one. You have anything from Ray Arcel saying that he was greatest heavyweight ever to him being written off almost completely by some.
He certainly is, I'm just not sure if I overrate him. In his prime I think he was almost unbeatable, but the resume is a bit thin.
John L Sullivan. As was said in the Sullivan Tunney thread, you could make a plausible case for him being anywhere from #1-100 at heavyweight.