Why no Archie Moore

1. "Does Armstrong only get rated as a welter?"

Yes. Only as a welter.

2. "there's no right or wrong answers"

Yes.

3. Still, how impressive do you find these ratings? No Moore. No Conn. No Harold Johnson. No Lewis. No Tiger Jack Fox. Nobody who peaked at lightheavy after 1930.

And what about rating Carpentier over Gibbons?

And no Tunney (#8 at heavy) or Charles.

 

Well, since (as you point out) no one who peaked at light-heavy after 1930 is on the list, it's a fact that I haven't seen much of the fighters who are rated, so I'm kind of in the dark to a large extent. I cant criticize.

I guess Fleischer reckoned Carpentier was far removed from his prime when he fought Gibbons.

Tunney, Charles and Greb aren't rated, but I'm guessing Fleischer tried to keep fighters in one division only ? I dont know, but is Greb rated as a middle ?

 

"is Greb rated as a middle?"

Yes. At #3 behind Ketchel and Ryan. I personally see no problem with Fleischer putting Greb at middle rather than lightheavy.

There is a great deal of film on Carpentier. The only way Fleischer's ratings can be justified is assuming the fighters prior to 1930 were much better on the whole, but there is film on many of these men and certainly we can reach a conclusion about whether such an assumption is justified. For me, it is not.

 

I knew Nat, and no, he didn't!!!