Who deserves accolade of greatest light=heavyweight ever?

Rocky Balboa · Post by **Rocky Balboa** » 03 Jun 2004, 14:16

I read with some interest, an article about the great light heavyweight fighters there have been down the years.

I reckon it is a very interesting subject in determing and trying to work out who the best light-heavyweight boxer there has ever been. It is also a hard topic to come to a conclusion to, as there have been quite a few great light-heavyweight fighters over the years.

Michael Spinks, Archie Moore, Roy Jones Jr, Bob Foster, Ezzard Charles, Matthew Saad Muhammad are just some of the greats there have been.

I would like to hear people opinion of who the best light-heavyweight ever was, and why they have chosen that boxer?

dan1030 · Post by **dan1030** » 03 Jun 2004, 15:01

Just to make the decision harder, I think we need to add a couple of names to your list: Billy Conn (perhaps the best boxer of the lot, but lacking the power and size of most of the others), and Gene Tunney (who spent the vast majority of his career at Lt. Heavy. A case could even be made for throwing Michel Moorer's name in the hat--I think his record was 22-0 with 22 KO's before moving up to heavy.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 03 Jun 2004, 15:23

dan1030 wrote:Just to make the decision harder, I think we need to add a couple of names to your list: Billy Conn (perhaps the best boxer of the lot, but lacking the power and size of most of the others), and Gene Tunney (who spent the vast majority of his career at Lt. Heavy. A case could even be made for throwing Michel Moorer's name in the hat--I think his record was 22-0 with 22 KO's before moving up to heavy.

You're right about Conn, but Moorer was undefeated in a not too strong LHW class, and moved up to HW before having any defining fights at that weight.
I'll try something: Can we agree that, in no real order, the top 5 Light HWs are: Ezzard Charles, Michael Spinks, Archie Moore, Bob Foster, and Billy Conn? That leaves us with a very interesting 6-10. I'll invite any disagreements or suggestions . . . .

crooked nose · Post by **crooked nose** » 03 Jun 2004, 22:43

Yes, that looks like a solid Top 5. But who's the best? All had real champion qualities, but my heart and head narrow it down to Moore and Spinks. I might have put Jones in the final two except for Mr. Tarver's recent quick work. Between The Mongoose and The Jinx, it seems almost sacriligious but I gotta pick Spinks. Mike just had that ability to press the button and turn on the power when he saw an opportunity. Durelle fight aside, Moore wouldn't be able to withstand those wicked accurate shots from either of Spinks' hands. So I gotta go with Leon's little bro and Corey's uncle for #1.

Jukejar · Post by **Jukejar** » 03 Jun 2004, 23:07

My reflex answer is Archie Moore, then I remember that Ezzard Charles owned Moore in their 3 fights, winning 2 decisions and knocking the mongoose cold in the 3rd fight--and this was before Archie was "old." Charles beat a lot of top flight light heavies, some (Maxim, Lesnevich) in defense of the heavyweight title. Tunney also has some great lightheavies on his victim list, especially Loughran, Stribling, Levinsky, Gibbons, Carpentier, and Greb. Good arguments for Spinks and Foster too, but my picks in order would be 1) Charles 2) Moore 3) Tunney 4) Spinks and 5) Foster, although I might insert Greb, Conn, and Loughran somewhere between 4 and 10 as well.

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 04 Jun 2004, 13:06

Good point about Tunney's tenure at light-heavy - I'd overlooked him as an ATG at that weight, too, though I consider his wins over Greb (a natural middleweight) less impressive than (say) Charles' over Moore. I was going to say that I'd put Harold Johnson in the top 5 and move Foster to the 6-10 range, but Tunney in the mix, we wind up with a top 6 consisting of (in alphabetical order)

Charles
Conn
Johnson
Moore
Spinks
Tunney

A couple more candidates (besides the ones people have already mentioned) for the next few spots would be Yaqui Lopez, Mauro Mina, Dwight Qawi (often overlooked at 175 because of his later fame at cruiser) and Saad Muhammad. I'm sure we can find several more to round out a kind of consensus-top-20 list.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 04 Jun 2004, 13:14

1) Ezzard Charles
2) Archie Moore
3) Michael Spinks
4) Gene Tunney
5) Bob Foster

6) Billy Conn
7) Maxie Rosenbloom
8) Philadelphia Jack O'Brian
9) John Henry Lewis
10) Harold Johnson

dan1030 · Post by **dan1030** » 04 Jun 2004, 15:56

A lot of good points raised so far in this thread--and good catches by Eric on Qawi, and Demseyfire on Rosenbloom. I think, as of right now (the llist would probably be different 5 minutes, 5 hours and 5 days from now), I'd go with:

1. Spinks (I can't belive I just typed that)
2. Charles
3. Moore
4. Foster
5. Conn
6. Tunney (or flip 5 & 6--I've never been able to make up my mind on this)

Beyond that it gets tough. If we're going to talk about Rosenbloom and Loughran, then Slattery and Stribling shoud be in the mix. Also, despite the recent post-KO piling-on against Jones, I still think that at his best at 175 he's at least competative with the guys we've been discussing, and should be favored against at least a few of the 6-10 guys. And if we're talking top twenty--or even twelve--even Wille Pastrano (in addition to eveyone esle mentioned here so far) could be in the mix.

Here's a hypothetical stretch: what if there had been a light heavyweight division throughout the career of Bob Fitzsimmons (which is where he would have belonged all along), instead of just at the end, once he was past his prime?

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 04 Jun 2004, 17:23

Ezzard Charles
Michael Spinks
Sam Langford
Bob Foster
Archie Moore

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 04 Jun 2004, 19:57

dan1030 wrote:A lot of good points raised so far in this thread--and good catches by Eric on Qawi, and Demseyfire on Rosenbloom. I think, as of right now (the llist would probably be different 5 minutes, 5 hours and 5 days from now), I'd go with:

1. Spinks (I can't belive I just typed that)
2. Charles
3. Moore
4. Foster
5. Conn
6. Tunney (or flip 5 & 6--I've never been able to make up my mind on this)

Beyond that it gets tough. If we're going to talk about Rosenbloom and Loughran, then Slattery and Stribling shoud be in the mix. Also, despite the recent post-KO piling-on against Jones, I still think that at his best at 175 he's at least competative with the guys we've been discussing, and should be favored against at least a few of the 6-10 guys. And if we're talking top twenty--or even twelve--even Wille Pastrano (in addition to eveyone esle mentioned here so far) could be in the mix.

Here's a hypothetical stretch: what if there had been a light heavyweight division throughout the career of Bob Fitzsimmons (which is where he would have belonged all along), instead of just at the end, once he was past his prime?

You're right, Stribling and Loughran should be there somewhere.

Let's make 11-15

11) Tommy Loughran
12) Roy Jones Jr
13) Young Stribling
14) Tiger Jack Fox
15( Jack Delaney

gensu3k1 · Post by **gensu3k1** » 05 Jun 2004, 01:13

I definitely think Spinks and Charles are a cut above.

gensu3k1 · Post by **gensu3k1** » 05 Jun 2004, 01:16

dan1030 wrote:Here's a hypothetical stretch: what if there had been a light heavyweight division throughout the career of Bob Fitzsimmons (which is where he would have belonged all along), instead of just at the end, once he was past his prime?

I've always thought that we should consider Fitz as a lightheavy.

It does open up a can of worms though: Marciano the best cruiser? Wilde the best strawweight?

theguvnor · Post by **theguvnor** » 05 Jun 2004, 05:56

[/quote]It does open up a can of worms though: Marciano the best cruiser? Wilde the best strawweight?

SRR at Super-Middle would have been unstoppable too

dan1030 · Post by **dan1030** » 05 Jun 2004, 15:50

gensu3k1 wrote:I definitely think Spinks and Charles are a cut above.

That's pretty much my thinking too--I constantly waver on who to put on top.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 06 Jun 2004, 02:09

ezzard charles number one...surprise! a good list of fighters from my favorite weight division. (at one time)....and i'd like to add jimmy bivins...never got shot at the title....but at one time was rated number one by ring in both the heavy and light heavy divisions...and lloyd marshall.

klompton · Post by **klompton** » 06 Jun 2004, 02:28

Why not rank Greb as one of the great light heavies? He fought most of his career in the light heavyweight division, beat Tunney, Gibbons, Weinert, Dillon, Levinsky, Loughran, Rosenbloom, Slattery, and McTigue. Delaney had three chances to fight Greb and opted out of all three, Greb nearly begged for a shot at Berlenbachs title and was flat out denied. He signed three times to face Siki and three times Siki turned down the match. Stribling ran out on a match with Greb literally days before it was to take place. Carpentier wouldnt even spar with Greb much less fight him in a sanctioned bout. There were ten light heavyweight champs from 1912 to 1932. Some of them are considered all time greats and are enshrined in the hall of fame. Of those ten Greb defeated: Dillon, Levinsky, McTigue, Slattery, Loughran, and Rosenbloom. The others avoided Greb like poison. Thats a record that surely speaks of greatness at light heavy.

dan1030 · Post by **dan1030** » 06 Jun 2004, 15:40

Good points on Greb. Several other people in this thread have mentioned his name, and it certainly belongs in the mix--hell, this is the only guy with an official W against Tunney in his whole career!

Jukejar · Post by **Jukejar** » 06 Jun 2004, 21:38

I think Greb is definitely an all-time top ten light heavy, and a candidate for top five. Hard to beat his resume of great light heavies faced and beaten. Apparently he often fought at a weight in the mid-160s, and given the frequency of his fights he was probably not carrying "extra" weight. Big middleweight; smallish light heavyweight. Seems likely that making 160 was draining for him, and if he had lived beyond 32, he might be remembered as a great light heavyweight champion who began his career as a middleweight rather than as a middleweight who beat some talented bigger men. (And it goes without saying that had there been a super middle category in 1925, Greb could have reigned for a long, long time.)

Jukejar · Post by **Jukejar** » 06 Jun 2004, 22:52

One other easily overlooked fighter in this discussion is Sam Langford. The records regarding weight are sketchy, but he probably fought a lot of his peak fights in the 160 to 175 range. As great as he was as an old heavyweight, he must have been particularly tough as a younger man. Just wanted to to tip my cap in his direction.

knockout artist · Post by **knockout artist** » 07 Jun 2004, 09:44

Rocky Balboa wrote:I read with some interest, an article about the great light heavyweight fighters there have been down the years.

I reckon it is a very interesting subject in determing and trying to work out who the best light-heavyweight boxer there has ever been. It is also a hard topic to come to a conclusion to, as there have been quite a few great light-heavyweight fighters over the years.

Michael Spinks, Archie Moore, Roy Jones Jr, Bob Foster, Ezzard Charles, Matthew Saad Muhammad are just some of the greats there have been.

I would like to hear people opinion of who the best light-heavyweight ever was, and why they have chosen that boxer?

The greatest LH is Ezzard Charles. The greatest Champion is Archie Moore.

wouter · Post by **wouter** » 07 Jun 2004, 10:10

Has nobody mentioned Philadelphia Jack O'Brien yet?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 07 Jun 2004, 11:09

Greb may have fought a lot of LHWs, but I'm pretty sure he spent most of his career in the 160s, thus he's always ranked as a middleweight.

From the opposite spectrum, Langford is kind of one of those transcending guys who doesn't really fit into one weight class ranking. Since he fought much of his career at 160-180, one could rank him at lightHW. BUT, the wide majority of his resume consists of HWs. So, is it fair to rank a guy at LHW with no considerable LHW wins on his resume? But then is it fair to rank him a HW?

With myself, other then Johnson I don't include HWs pre-1925 in my all time lists b/c without good film and more info I feel one can't really make a fair comparison with more recent fighters, so Langford would be one of those. But since he fought mostly HWs, I'd be more apt to rank him a HW. And the size issue kind of goes out the window, b/c his HW resume stands up to anybody in history.

klompton · Post by **klompton** » 07 Jun 2004, 17:36

If you spend most of your career in the 160s in era when the weight limit for middleweight is 158 then you are a by very definition above the middleweight limit and thus a light-heavyweight. Whats wrong with ranking Greb as a great middleweight AND light heavyweight?

TheRiverCityHippy · Post by **TheRiverCityHippy** » 14 Jun 2004, 18:34

i agree greb was a great fighter at both middle and lightheavy mainly due to the names on his record e.g walker, loughran etc but while his win over tunney was very impressive its often overlooked that tunney beat greb four times.
if greb is in the list of atg lightheavys he`s got to be pencilled in lower down the list than tunney for me.
i think knockout artist sums it up very well......
the greatest L/H is ezzard charles, the greatest champion is archie moore.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 14 Jun 2004, 19:49

klompton wrote:If you spend most of your career in the 160s in era when the weight limit for middleweight is 158 then you are a by very definition above the middleweight limit and thus a light-heavyweight. Whats wrong with ranking Greb as a great middleweight AND light heavyweight?

Fair enough. I just think it complicates things. Look at Langford, you could rank him anywhere from welter to HW . .

Who deserves accolade of greatest light=heavyweight ever?

Who deserves accolade of greatest light=heavyweight ever?

Greb

more Greb

Sam langford

Re: Who deserves accolade of greatest light=heavyweight ever

greb

Re: greb