I just can't see the justification in rating Griffith above Napoles. Superior Title reign(s): Napoles; Head-to-head contest: Napoles; Higher regard at time of peak quotient: Napoles; most likely to have sex with a woman: Napoles.
Who would have thought wee Patty ave beaten Benitez and Duran back to back before his 17th fight. Granted Benitez stuck it out tho
Yes, if that is true. I just never considered Burley a Welterweight; in 95 fights did he have five at Welterweight? Looking at his numbers, no. He was a better fighter than Zivic and if he had weighed 147 or less more often he would be on the list I suspect and probably top 10, but that is all hypothetical now...
The same reasons I rate him above Girrifth in a previous post, obviously head-to-head I couldn't say because you have every Ryan fight on DVD of course. Ryan's reputation as a great fighter came more as a middleweight than welter (what I've read of him anyway). I never said Ryan didn't deserve his place up there, it was you that said it about Napoles. While Napoles is Top 3 due to his title reign and his rating at the time as 'probably the best pound-for-pound fighter since Ray Robinson'. I'm not sure whether Ryan was ever regarded as #1 in the sport, but Jose was for five years- that's after being ignored when he was the best light-welter in the world and also the #1 challenger at lightweight (when Ortiz was champ). You same to rate your fighters based chiefly on what Nat Fleischer says it seems, based on CV (not always a bad thing of course) but you penalise fighters when you've actually SEEN them fight it seems. Your earlier comment about '1930' was another one of your embarrassing moments (not quite on par with your middleweight KO'd Witherspoon of course) and your posts are full of bare-faced lies anyway, which you think you can get away with vs some posters. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
I wheel out Futch a lot because everyone - literally, everyone - respects him. But it's really not the case that my rating of him is built around his testomany (though I do find if compelling). If Futch had never seen him or wasn't interested, I'd probably be recycling comments from Moore, Zivic, Dundee, Robinson, Steward, Keplan, Louis etc etc more than I do. But I will say this. There is a great feeling of injustice surrounding Burley, and a lot of these guys try to overcompensate for his situation - probably, and in my opinion. So it's nice to have contemporary testimony from guys like Louis (who twice referred to him as the best in the world at that time, according to what I have) who were waiting for Charley to get his title shot, rather than seething about the fact that he didn't get one. I'll admit this to you - I may be overating him. But I truly beleive, that if that is the case, it is no by much.
I actually think you get too much flak for rating Burley so high (in other instances). He does deserve his place but I just think #2 is a bit high. Of course, contemporary ratings mean a lot and do away with the rose-tinted version that appears years later. On the other hand, there's been so many years since Burley's best so one has to take that into account also.
He was ranked at WW by Ring for, I think, 4 years. 38, 39, 40, 41. He popped up in the WW rankings after that, too, but was mainly rated as a MW after that.
Of course, the same can be said of Robinson, who is an almost universal choice for the #1 spot here - I genuinely beleive there is almost nothing between these two contempories. Peak for peak I go with Robinson something like 51% of the time, but at the time they actually, seriously, tried to make the fight, it's Burley all the way for me. Interestingly, the only online lists i've found since doing mine which don't have Robinson at #1 have your man Napoles at #1.