I would like to read exactly what Fleischer wrote. He was not one to go to fix talk usually. I don't know if there is much to explain with Carter. His whole title reign was in and out both in title fights and in non-title fights. He could look good, but then struggle. With Salas he won the first title fight easily, but was sent down for a short count in the 15th. In a quick rematch about a month later, Salas before a wild home-town crowd, rose to the occasion in what is described (I have The Ring issues for 1952 which cover these fights) as an extremely close split decision in which an all out 15th round effort by Salas pulled out a win. Carter won easy in their 3rd fight in Chicago, although again Salas rallied in the late rounds, although this time he was well short. DeMarco? Had a pretty good record coming into their first fight. Carter reversed it in the return. Then Carter lost twice in title fights to the ordinary, for a champion, Wallace Smith. Losing his title to Smith seems to me to make it quite understandable that Carter could lose fairly to DeMarco and even Salas.
Fair enough. Two points though. Putting Carter in a top 20 does not mean that Brown shouldn't also be in the top 20. Brown certainly had the better title reign. Arguably perhaps better than any lightweight champion. And thanks for bringing up Araujo. You made my case for Rex Layne. Araujo was 22 when he fought Carter. He had like Layne some really spectacular victories. Saddler. Brown. Flanagan. You obviously consider him a tremendous scalp because of these victories. Okay. But Araujo was really nothing much after the Carter fight. He lost his next two to Teddy Davis. Most of his later victories were over losing fighters. Check out boxrec. The only first level guy he would later fight was Tony DeMarco who KO'd him. He was finished at 27. So do we judge Araujo on what he did at his best? Or dismiss him as inferior to guys who beat him later in his career? Same issues as with Layne.
Yes, that's what I meant, locked into the top top twenty. I'd actually say he's locked in the top twelve, but that's getting a bit picky.
1. Duran 2. Gans 3. B. Leonard 4. Whitaker 5. Williams 6. Ortiz 7. Armstrong 8. Canzoneri 9. Ambers 10. Brown 11. McFarland 12. Welsh 13. Buchanan 14. Montgomery 15. Mandell 16. DeJesus 17. Carter 18. McAuliffe 19. Laguna 20. Erne
So god damned tough. I thought for sure Jack could make the Top 20, but can't quite think of anyone he automatically displaces on my list.
Can we find room for Shane Mosley ? I mean he was very very good and its tough to break into this pack , but id have him in there instead of Buchanan.
I see your point... However when was laynes prime? Was he in your opinion finished after the Marciano fight? But you give him credit for beating Charles in 52. So if he was still in his prime in 1952, then we must criticize him for two inexcusable wide losses to Willie James and Kid Matthews which took place prior to the Charles win When was laynes prime?