Please critique my personal top-10...

Seems solid.

I'm considering whether or not the fab 4 belong in the same tier.

 

looks like a solid enough list...Nothing to much to poke holes at, we all have slight varibles...Duran does not crack my top 10, but he does for most....I also like the Louis over Ali pick. Whitaker and burley (although I love the pick) might be a bit high.

01 SRR
02 Greb
03 Armstrong
04 Langford
05 Charles
06 Fitzsimmons
07 B. Leonard
08 Pep
09 Moore
10 Louis

 

Nothing wrong with that list.

 

You seem like a conscientious poster and that list is perfectly reasonable. As a whole top twenty two, I have nearly all of the same names.

My definitive top eleven is, for comparison:

1. Harry Greb
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Ray Robinson
4. Benny Leonard
5. Sam Langford
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Archie Moore
8. Willie Pep
9. Roberto Duran
10. Bob Fitzsimmons
11. Joe Gans

P.S. - I have nothing against heavyweights, but Louis & Ali feature a little lower. Roughly #14 and #15. Perhaps the heavyweight talent pool was slightly smaller and they fought a bit less, and that most fighters bigger were generally less skilled (as opposed to Ike Williams fighting Kid Gavilan above him, say).

 

Gotta have Charles in there IMO but other than that it's a damned good one.

 

Not a major critique (OK it might be), but on second look, I would wonder why Charles did not crack that top 10...I really can't see him lower than 7...just curious.

darn...beat me to it!

 

:smooch :thumbsup

 

delete

 

If you could imagine Muhammad Ali going 3-0 against Joe Louis (Moore), 4-1 against Harry Wills (Bivins) and 5-0 against Ken Norton (Maxim), then you're half way to understanding why Charles is so highly regarded. Charles had Hall of Fame wins over Burley, Yarosz, Louis, Marshall, Walcott and a whole host of contenders to add to that.

 

Yeah that's fine. But in fairness you should maybe rate Armstrong lower if you think that. Armstrong's career before 1937 combined with his post 1940 career would get him rated about #35 all-time on its own as one of the greatest non-champions, but it's that 59-1-1 streak (should have been 61-0) that catapults him right up there, with eighteen welterweight defences as a lightweight and former featherweight.

Charles is similar. He beat some top fighters before and after his peak, but during that peak he went 13-0 over Hall of Famers, three of them over his consensus all-time #2.

 

Louis is difficult. Personally I find it hard to rate him over Ali, but it seems wrong to rate him more than a place or two away. Such a long, dominant reign. But then he simply doesn't have the quality like the others do. Schmeling and Walcott were his best wins, and both also beat him (bad decision against Walcott). Benny Leonard, for example, demonstrated clear superiority over Lew Tendler and Jack Britton (welterweight).

I only really know bits and pieces about Walker but I tend to consider Joe Gans his superior, and Canzoneri his rough equal, all just outside the top ten.

I'd take out Louis personally. Comes down to dominance versus punching above weight.

You could consider Gans. Every now and then people will rate him top five.