The LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT game: *CLOSED*

[Ezzard]

Shocking.

[Ambling Alp II]

I thought it would be very close between Charles and Moore. I knew nobody else had a chance in the voter. Just surprised in the distance between the two.
Would like to know what more Michael Spinks could have possibly done at light heavyweight.

[BoxBuzz]

I think I understand the anomaly.

Most people would probably prefer to rate fighters where they did their best work. And there is nothing "better" in boxing than a championship. And the HW championship is considered the prize jewel. So "work" can mean "prize" in some lexicons.

So if you won the undisputed HW championship, you may stand to lose proper assessment in a lower weight class.

I rated Ezz and Tunney Both in the HW classification. Because they became champions. Undisputed Champions.

Did Spinks achieve that? If so, I need to properly sort him as a HW in my personal sorting process (for future reference)

I think SRR often gets under/over rated depending on how you sort his prime. Not sure anyone could ever over rate his welterweight work. But his MW work can drag him down on the P4P assessment if you use that as his peak.

It's clearly a bias in rating methods within each of us. But I've seen these facts skew the skids on more than one occasion. And my Ezz Vs Moore rating is an example of that. Hell, I often don't even know how to assess Roy Jones Jr, for this reason. Should he have been considered in the HW, LHW stakes? I doubt I'll ever see him or Bernard as LHW's.

So we tend to condense it....Archie had a long quality run at LHW, and the best KO record, and an incredibly long fight career. These things combined put him on "recognition row" without a doubt. So he ends up sort of getting this rating in a round about way.

Honestly, had Ezzard and Tunney never Achieved the HW crown, I think they would be at the top of this list.

I don't see it as good or bad, just assessments taking place within a "compensating lens" of reason/rationalizing.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

How did Langford and bivins make your list without championships? I respect your dedication to Archie, he's in my all-time top 10, but that omission makes a mockery of this poll.

[BoxBuzz]

How did Langford and bivins make your list without championships? I respect your dedication to Archie, he's in my all-time top 10, but that omission makes a mockery of this poll.

Nah, it just means you think I'm sloppy in terms of precision rationalizing, and that I'm somewhat subjective in my ratings. Guilty as charged. But I'm not mocking the poll, it's how I really feel.

I obviously rate Gibbons way high compared to the crowd, and there are some of my votes that seem to be in line with the average or typical voters. Leaving out Ezz and Tunney I would agree is at the very least controversial....but I'm not mocking anything, me speaks me heart at all times. Langford and Bivins appeared in many other lists.....so I don't quite see how it's drawing your fire. I was attempting to describe a "grand unification theory" regarding the outcome. Not describing exactly what I personally used as a model for my ratings.

I even had to think a while before I even wanted to rate any fighter that I have never seen a frame of fighting on. But to leave out Greb and Rosenbloom after all I've read about them seemed a bit to eccentric....even for me.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

How did Langford and bivins make your list without championships? I respect your dedication to Archie, he's in my all-time top 10, but that omission makes a mockery of this poll.

Nah, it just means you think I'm sloppy in terms of precision rationalizing, and that I'm somewhat subjective in my ratings. Guilty as charged. But I'm not mocking the poll, it's how I really feel.

I obviously rate Gibbons way high compared to the crowd, and there are some of my votes that seem to be in line with the average or typical voters. Leaving out Ezz and Tunney I would agree is at the very least controversial....but I'm not mocking anything, me speaks me heart at all times. Langford and Bivins appeared in many other lists.....so I don't quite see how it's drawing your fire. I was attempting to describe a "grand unification theory" regarding the outcome. Not describing exactly what I personally used as a model for my ratings.

I even had to think a while before I even wanted to rate any fighter that I have never seen a frame of fighting on. But to leave out Greb and Rosenbloom after all I've read about them seemed a bit to eccentric....even for me.

The whole concept of rating fighters in one division is extremely obtuse to me. Granted, there aren't even a handful that would be in anyone's top 10 in two divisions. Do you seriously believe that tunney and Charles are more qualified at Heavyweight? Ezzard is an underrated Heavyweight in my estimation, kudos for giving him love , while I think tunney is insanely overrated in the division. He wouldn't be in my top 20.

The mockery i speak of is the two of you that left ezzard out of the top 10 created a ridiculous gap in the poll. I'm all easr as to how Ezzard or Gene had better Heavyweight resumes and it can't be the title because you've already contradicted yourself. I can't even fathom the thought of Moore over Ezzard, but at the very least I'd think Archie's daddy would be right behind him.

Spinks was the 'lineal' champion but that was outdated even by then. He certainly accomplished as much in the division as Tunney did. I mentioned Langford and Bivins because if your method is separating divisions with fighters that had an overwhelmingly better resume in different divisions than titles mean more to you than they do to me. Yet Greb is on your Light Heavy list, thus omitting him from Middle?

I've tried not to argue with anyone's choices because these are fun threads. The thought that anyone could think Archie Moore is the greatest Light Heavy of all time and Charles isn't top 10 is crazier than anybody that rated the Klitschko's in the Heavy thread. It just takes any suspense out of the equation. You've acknowledged your methodology is faulty, rate them how you want.

[Keko]

Moore and Ezzard must be in the top 10 LHW and there is no debate. Now I'm not talking who is the first and so on.


Ezzard is also certainly the top 20 HW.

[BoxBuzz]

Keep this in mind when laughing off anyone who would rate Archie over Ezzard.

Their fights were competitive despite the KO in the final battle. And this clearly gives Ezz the edge.

Their head to heads vs other competition in the era is not all that far apart, probably a wash.

(What if Marciano would simply have not gotten up in time.....would that small difference take this discussion to a different level? Or what if Archie was in the ring with Joe the night Louis lost his belt? Probably should make little difference, but emotions often take precedent over logic.

Their longevity when taken into account surely gives that side of the argument to Archie. And had they fought 6 or 7 times instead of 3....well....I'm just imagining the timelines, and it surely favors Archie.

He was still improving, while Ezz's time was running out.

And that remarkable longevity can not be underestimated. And at the longevity issue alone should bring these two closer than some Ezz enthusiasts would like to admit.

Reminds me of some of the Lennox/Bowe Discussions, but with a different set of dynamics.


I clearly recognize that 3-0 is probably the open and shut case for many. But look how many of us Rate Tyson over Holyfield, (not me in this case) Or Holmes over Spinks, (I'm guilty here) Dempsy over Tunney, ( I wake up on different sides of this depending on the season). So....it's obviously both subjective and entertaining for many of us.

[Keko]

it's very important title and against whom you had defended
Hw fight has nothing to do with the LHW

[BoxBuzz]

it's very important title and against whom you had defended
Hw fight has nothing to do with the LHW

I don't disagree with you. Just attempting to put in perspective this outcome. One I happen in this case to agree with.

If the parameters of the voting were strictly defined, you'd probably have a different outcome. But when it's open to everyone's internal decision making/rationalizing (Not a bad thing at all) I think this is not an unexpected result. Archie campaigned in the LHW division like no other.

[Keko]

it's very important title and against whom you had defended
Hw fight has nothing to do with the LHW

I don't disagree with you. Just attempting to put in perspective this outcome. One I happen in this case to agree with.

If the parameters of the voting were strictly defined, you'd probably have a different outcome. But when it's open to everyone's internal decision making/rationalizing (Not a bad thing at all) I think this is not an unexpected result.

This is not essential with respect to the situation.

Actually it is a criterion which is more important, titles and long years first on the list as a champion or their mutual fights

[BoxBuzz]

Well.....ok.....can I quote you on that?

[Keko]

Well.....ok.....can I quote you on that?

that, what is your list?

I'm sorry now I see

[BoxBuzz]

Yeah...I was kiddin' round. I do that on occasion.

[Keko]

I'm just saying that someone can be in several lists of these categories.

[pound per pound]

A who beats who list @175 pounds

Tunney
Charles
Fitzsimmons
Langford
Moore
Spinks
Jones
Kovalev
Foster
Greb

[Crease]

7 days to go...

[Tomasino]

1 Archie Moore
2 Tommy Gibbons
3 Michael Spinks
4 Harold Johnson
5.Maxie Rosenbloom *(sight unseen)
6 Sam Langford
7 Jimmy Bivins
8 Billy Conn
9 Harry Greb *(sight unseen)
10. Joey Maxim


I need clarification. Do former HW champions have a place here? It won't change my #1 pic....but could effect others.

I don't think Ezzard, Tunney, Patterson, Jones, Braddock etc should be in this discussion. But I suppose I'll wait to hear the ruling.

Surely if you are not putting certain people in because they won a HW title, then Spinks shouldn't be in.
Or Greb who spent 90% of his career a MW.
There's barely a name on your list didn't come up from 160 or leave the LHW division to step up and face the big boys.

I honestly think he does it just to downgrade Ezzard, the old weirdo! By not even including him but having Spinks and Greb just makes his list look stupid.

[BoxBuzz]

1 Archie Moore
2 Tommy Gibbons
3 Michael Spinks
4 Harold Johnson
5.Maxie Rosenbloom *(sight unseen)
6 Sam Langford
7 Jimmy Bivins
8 Billy Conn
9 Harry Greb *(sight unseen)
10. Joey Maxim


I need clarification. Do former HW champions have a place here? It won't change my #1 pic....but could effect others.

I don't think Ezzard, Tunney, Patterson, Jones, Braddock etc should be in this discussion. But I suppose I'll wait to hear the ruling.

Surely if you are not putting certain people in because they won a HW title, then Spinks shouldn't be in.
Or Greb who spent 90% of his career a MW.
There's barely a name on your list didn't come up from 160 or leave the LHW division to step up and face the big boys.

I honestly think he does it just to downgrade Ezzard, the old weirdo! By not even including him but having Spinks and Greb just makes his list look stupid.

Your such a nasty woman....

I think I covered all that already....But Ezz is in my top ten fighters.....
I just rate Ezz as a HW...and Archie as LHW. I don't rate anyone in more than one category....I notice that Boxrec takes that tact as well.

I mentioned a few times that it's a bit arbitrary....which is probably a synonym for stupid in your lexicon. I wasn't the only one who operated that way, from what I saw. Don't feel bad, the more we disagree, the more genius you show, right?

Now thinking "Gred" was a great boxer....that's...uh....um......"arbitrary" ......right?

[Tomasino]

Surely if you are not putting certain people in because they won a HW title, then Spinks shouldn't be in.
Or Greb who spent 90% of his career a MW.
There's barely a name on your list didn't come up from 160 or leave the LHW division to step up and face the big boys.

I honestly think he does it just to downgrade Ezzard, the old weirdo! By not even including him but having Spinks and Greb just makes his list look stupid.

Your such a nasty woman....

I think I covered all that already....But Ezz is in my top ten fighters.....
I just rate Ezz as a HW...and Archie as LHW. I don't rate anyone in more than one category....I notice that Boxrec takes that tact as well.

I mentioned a few times that it's a bit arbitrary....which is probably a synonym for stupid in your lexicon. I wasn't the only one who operated that way, from what I saw. Don't feel bad, the more we disagree, the more genius you show, right?

Now thinking "Gred" was a great boxer....that's...uh....um......"arbitrary" ......right?

Woman? What the hell are you on about you senile, stinking old toad?

[cfang]

The point of these lists is to work out who was the best in a particular weight class and promote discussion around that. Instead we've got people rating people in one list and not in others. It's about how good fighters were.

Rating charles at heavy and not at light is unfair on him and doesn't show his true ranking. Same with langford. So at heavy he's like whatever i can't recall - 15 or something but drop him down to middle or lt heavy and we're talking top3/5. Choosing to rate someone in a higher class just cos thats the highest class they got to or won a championship there doesn't make sense - it doesn't put their abilities into true perspective against others - and surely thats the point of these lists?

Who won the championship is kind of irrelevant too if someone either didn't get the chance or moved up for money reasons - both these apply to ezzard. One things for sure.....he was better than moore - he proved it and he should be higher on this lh list than moore, Otherwise its mockery.

[BoxBuzz]

I honestly think he does it just to downgrade Ezzard, the old weirdo! By not even including him but having Spinks and Greb just makes his list look stupid.

Your such a nasty woman....

I think I covered all that already....But Ezz is in my top ten fighters.....
I just rate Ezz as a HW...and Archie as LHW. I don't rate anyone in more than one category....I notice that Boxrec takes that tact as well.

I mentioned a few times that it's a bit arbitrary....which is probably a synonym for stupid in your lexicon. I wasn't the only one who operated that way, from what I saw. Don't feel bad, the more we disagree, the more genius you show, right?

Now thinking "Gred" was a great boxer....that's...uh....um......"arbitrary" ......right?

Woman? What the hell are you on about you senile, stinking old toad?

I'm as sharp as a razor, I smell like a rose, and the only one getting froggy is you.

Now...relax, get yourself a coke, and enjoy the ambiance.

[Keko]

But he was not first on the list as long as Moore in the category.
It certainly is not as important as or against whom all More defended the belt. For me, certainly no 1 and it is not surprising to me why so often.

People confuse the better boxer of the best results in category.It is not the only measure of mutual fights but also all other battles and fight for the belt and defend the belt.

[Ambling Alp II]

That is pretty much what I think. We have two issues here which can skew ratings:

Rating guys in more than more division: Never understood why this is such a difficult concept for people. A fighter can be great in more than one weight class. It's happened over and over and over. Just look at what he did at one weight class and rate him for that weight class. Then look at what he did at another weight class and rate him for that weight class.
Say a guy was a light heavy and a heavyweight. When rating him as a light heavy, look at what he did at light heavy. When rating him at heavyweight, look at what he did at heavyweight.
This is not exactly rocket science here.

The other issue is titles. Yes titles are supposed to mean something. However, they obviously don't mean as much as they should for many reasons.
One of them being that some guys never got a title shot.
Again, this should not be such a difficult concept to grasp. You should not hold it against someone for not winning a title when they deserved a title shot and never got it.

[davie]

For what it is worth - I am going with 'who could have beat whom' on his best night:

1. Gene Tunney
2. Michael Spinks
3. Ezzard Charles
4. Archie Moore
5. Billy Conn
6. Sam Langford
7. Tommy Loughran
8. Maxie Rosenbloom
9. Bob Foster
10. Joey Maxim

Couple of questions


Going by your criteria, how does RJJ not make that top 10?

And how does Maxie Rosenbloom survive 15 rounds against Bob Foster?