Yeah, it's fine, I actually had a wee think and I was hasty, Napoles doesn't have to be above Moore at all, either way is fine all things considered. The problem is that there isn't much footage of Charles in his LHW prime, and as a HW he's just not the same man. Marshall-Charles is up now, and that fight will make your eyes pop out your head. So it depends upon how lax you're going to be regarding your own criteria. If you're allowed to take only his best filmed performance into account then he's top 3 or 5, if you need a wider sample, leaving him out of the ten is fine, probably the way to go i'd say.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56fBd7nfmUY[/ame] film quality aint that great, but the talent of ezz is plain to see here, watch him dispose of the adept murderers row legend lloyd marshall during his lhw peak
for sure but in a thread relying SOLELY on visual evidence, those one or two films wouldn't be enough. that's sort of the nature of the thread, which is why pac rates so high: there's so much footage across so many weights he looks like a dynamo (which he is but others did come before him) the louis example is interesting and i agree. and if the only fight you had of ali was the williams fight and that was the only criteria, you'd be inclined to rank him in the top 5
****...me. i love roy jones more than my own right testicle but there's no way in hell he'd ever beat a prime charles
On visual evidence you can argue til the cows come home that Duran>Armstrong and nobody could prove you wrong.
VIsual-evidence-based must mean we totally ignore the records and reports and any conclusions we might draw from them, and just say who looks better on their best film ? It's actually very hard to rate them that way. We have to try to forget all this **** we know.
Did Kalambay destroy everyone in the division for ten straight years? Don't get me wrong, I generally don't think Kalambay is rated as highly as he should, but the accomplishments of several heavyweights are better than his.
Lets face it. If we assesed fighters solley on visual evidence, we would get some anomalous and highly inacurate conclusions.
Heavyweights who have technical proficiency and display skill should not be excluded from those lists. Interesting note about Kalambay though; Below is the p4p list compiled by the Ring Magazine in 1988 and guess what? 2 heavyweights were on that list and both of them were above Kalambay and one of them even tops the list. 1988 1. Mike Tyson 2. Julio Cesar Chavez 3. Evander Holyfield 4. Ray Leonard 5. Jeff Fenech 6. Michael Nunn 7. Azumah Nelsoin 8. Jung Koo Chang 9. Buddy McGirt 10. Sumbu Kalambay
Well it isn't very bad but I miss Ezzard Charles here. Ali, Whitaker, Jones, Pac, Leonard are too to high. Ol' Archie should be in top 10 just like Benny Leonard. Still HARRY GREB #1 for life!