BoxRec

gilgamesh wrote:

Keko wrote:
Is not top 30
but it has nothing to do with the fact that Moore was long a champion Ezzard unfortunately not. One of them from teasing fighters but need not exaggerate.

Edit
I respect your position but there are plenty of lists where Moore No1Lhw

Charles beat Moore all 3 times they fought. Once by KO. That's why it's not debatable who was better.

It's not who is the better boxer but who was more successful in the LHW category and there is Moore ahead with holding 'titles and long it lasted. After one fight was and hw, so he has nothing on the topic.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Well, Charles was greater than Moore wherever you rank them. Honestly, the way you justify it is even more laughable than the ranking itself. Straight up buffoonery.

The worst is when you are so biased and heart just watch. The facts are all in front of me and we talk about the LHW category and not who is the better boxer and one to whom received care about titles and success of the category, Moore was long No1 in that category.

You facts and rank no excess as I saw the leaves you more heart go


A lot of people put Moore at No. 1 but some say his reasons such as on the most list so.

Biased heart? Lol, yeah. is best.

I can understand Archie being a favourite, he's easy to like. Due to the fact he got beaten three out of three I can't see how Archie ranks over Ezzard at the weight he was beaten at. Ezzard was a greater heavyweight also.

Keko wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Well, Charles was greater than Moore wherever you rank them. Honestly, the way you justify it is even more laughable than the ranking itself. Straight up buffoonery.

The worst is when you are so biased and heart just watch. The facts are all in front of me and we talk about the LHW category and not who is the better boxer and one to whom received care about titles and success of the category, Moore was long No1 in that category.

You facts and rank no excess as I saw the leaves you more heart go


A lot of people put Moore at No. 1 but some say his reasons such as on the most list so.

Is Google translate involved in this post?

Keko wrote:Good job.
This category is full of world-class boxer and really not easy to choose the 10.We have a quality boxer(Tunney,Charles) with great victories but without the title, which is a very important part in this sport. Place them among the best but I can not ignore that fact.
My view is that it is definitely the place for them in this list but not in the very top of that fact. I respect everyone's opinion but I am the opinion expressed . I love them both and their boxing was great,the possibilities are top category but were not champions of what is unfortunately a fact.
Neither are they to blame because we know what it was but the title is very important in these lists.

Keko-Have to disagree with you about the title part. It would be one thing if Charles and Tunney had title shots and lost. However, they didn't get the chance at the light heavy title.
They each defeated multiple fighters who got title shots and won title fight.

The bottom line is that there fighters that were never got title shots who were better than some who won titles.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Keko wrote:Good job.
This category is full of world-class boxer and really not easy to choose the 10.We have a quality boxer(Tunney,Charles) with great victories but without the title, which is a very important part in this sport. Place them among the best but I can not ignore that fact.
My view is that it is definitely the place for them in this list but not in the very top of that fact. I respect everyone's opinion but I am the opinion expressed . I love them both and their boxing was great,the possibilities are top category but were not champions of what is unfortunately a fact.
Neither are they to blame because we know what it was but the title is very important in these lists.

Keko-Have to disagree with you about the title part. It would be one thing if Charles and Tunney had title shots and lost. However, they didn't get the chance at the light heavy title.
They each defeated multiple fighters who got title shots and won title fight.

The bottom line is that there fighters that were never got title shots who were better than some who won titles.

The thing is that on this list we see success in this category, not who is the best boxer in general. The belt is an important thing in boxing and on such a list can be crucial. Ezzard and Tunney are great boxers and for me are generally better but the LHW Moore has more success, because it has long held the belt. It is no accidentally that so many of them holds the No1 in the LHW. Charles and Tunney are better P4P.

Tomasino wrote:

Keko wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Well, Charles was greater than Moore wherever you rank them. Honestly, the way you justify it is even more laughable than the ranking itself. Straight up buffoonery.

The worst is when you are so biased and heart just watch. The facts are all in front of me and we talk about the LHW category and not who is the better boxer and one to whom received care about titles and success of the category, Moore was long No1 in that category.

You facts and rank no excess as I saw the leaves you more heart go


A lot of people put Moore at No. 1 but some say his reasons such as on the most list so.

Is Google translate involved in this post?

I'm sorry for the language but writing was not exactly easy. I prefer to read. I try and I hope it will eventually get better. German, Croatian and Italian I know better.

If you are ranking light heavyweight champions then moore at number 1 is fine. However, if you are ranking lt heavyweights - you just can't put him above charles - both in or near primes charles goes 3/3 with a ko and much much better heavy resume to boot.

Keko wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

Keko wrote:
The worst is when you are so biased and heart just watch. The facts are all in front of me and we talk about the LHW category and not who is the better boxer and one to whom received care about titles and success of the category, Moore was long No1 in that category.

You facts and rank no excess as I saw the leaves you more heart go


A lot of people put Moore at No. 1 but some say his reasons such as on the most list so.

Is Google translate involved in this post?

I'm sorry for the language but writing was not exactly easy. I prefer to read. I try and I hope it will eventually get better. German, Croatian and Italian I know better.

I only asked because of the random words like heart etc keep posting man

This is a list of the most successful boxer in the LHW category and only results in this category is seen as the only titles in this category.

Never mind that he was a great hw for this theme, because the theme LHW list


Edit
I respect everyone's attitude or know the criterion which I believe and I know I'm not the only such an attitude. I do not watch as a fan, nor do I care. Boxing is the best thing in this life and I am happy to exchange opinions. For me, boxing has always been No. 1 in my life and I am glad to see that there is still a lot of people who appreciate and love this wonderful sport.

Tomasino wrote:I can understand Archie being a favourite, he's easy to like. Due to the fact he got beaten three out of three I can't see how Archie ranks over Ezzard at the weight he was beaten at. Ezzard was a greater heavyweight also.

Not going to get into the Charles vs Moore thing, though I can see both sides. I will say about why I have Greb over Tunney that although Tunney was officially 3-1-1 over him it doesn't tell the whole story: The first fight Greb marmalises him*, the second fight ends with most observers convinced Greb should've had his hand raised*, the third fight was a close but clear win for Tunney*, the fourth had Greb again being unlucky to only get the draw*, and the last fight was a beatdown by Tunney* but was fought over the LHW limit. So given that, Greb's much much better resume, even just in fights fought between 161-175lbs, puts him overall over Tunney at Light Heavy to me.

1. Ezzard Charles
2. Archie Moore
3. Harry Greb
4. Gene Tunney
5. Bob Foster
6. Sam Langford
7. Tommy Loughran
8. Michael Spinks
9. Billy Conn
10. Roy Jones Jr

*allegedly, of course.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Biased heart? Lol, yeah. is best.

I have been thinking about this topic just to explain how I see it. Topic does not make sense if you're going to make fun of the fact, and if we're going to force people to convince that someone has to be in front of someone or to be in the top 10th .
The discussion had to be postponed to the end and see what it will be. Thus it makes no sense when attempting to influence other people's choice as you work. And results from other categories should not have any bass influence the list of all time in the LHW.

It's amazing that you so difficult for someone else's choice and another which is very often. In most of these lists is More as the longest-running No. 1 champion and not to let the big news even shock.

People should be left in peace to form their own opinion and not to force them to impose their stereotypes.


Let's wait first 1.11 and then discuss

1. Charles
2. Moore
3. Greb
4. Langford
5. Tunney
6. Jones Jr
7. Fitzsimmons
8. Loughran
9. Spinks
10.Foster

Keko wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Biased heart? Lol, yeah. is best.

I have been thinking about this topic just to explain how I see it. Topic does not make sense if you're going to make fun of the fact, and if we're going to force people to convince that someone has to be in front of someone or to be in the top 10th .
The discussion had to be postponed to the end and see what it will be. Thus it makes no sense when attempting to influence other people's choice as you work. And results from other categories should not have any bass influence the list of all time in the LHW.

It's amazing that you so difficult for someone else's choice and another which is very often. In most of these lists is More as the longest-running No. 1 champion and not to let the big news even shock.

People should be left in peace to form their own opinion and not to force them to impose their stereotypes.


Let's wait first 1.11 and then discuss

Ok

Keko wrote:I'm sorry for the language but writing was not exactly easy. I prefer to read. I try and I hope it will eventually get better. German, Croatian and Italian I know better.

It can't be easy trying to write in an unfamiliar language but I think you are doing just fine Keko.

SteveO wrote:

Keko wrote:I'm sorry for the language but writing was not exactly easy. I prefer to read. I try and I hope it will eventually get better. German, Croatian and Italian I know better.

It can't be easy trying to write in an unfamiliar language but I think you are doing just fine Keko.

Thnx

I don't intend to be mean or anything. I just think the reasoning that Moore should be higher than Charles because of a long title reign is misguided.
Yes titles are supposed to mean a lot. The problem is that sometimes they really don't.

And if you are really going to use this reasoning, then you have to do it all the time.

Virgil Hill was a long reigning champion. Shouldn't he be higher than Charles?
Billy Conn was not a long reigning champion. Why is he ahead of Bob Foster?
When you do featherweights, is Johnny Kilbane really going to be #1? His title reign is longer than Moore's.

To me, you should weigh the big wins against quality competition against the losses.

Funny how easily drilled facts no one knows who is really holding the title and with whom he fought and who was nr1 lhw and when.
Moore as champion had competition and does not go with Hill.
We know who we remember.Better 1.11.

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

I am all for it

Moore, Loughran, Foster, Johnson, Conn, Rosenbloom, Spinks M., Jones Jr, Muhammad, Maxim

Spinks & Jones won Heavyweight belts.

No need at all to see the results in hw and it is a mistake that some work on this LHW all time

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Spinks & Jones won Heavyweight belts.

I know, but in that case I did not vote for Spinks as a HW. I figure I can classify and vote for each fighter in one weight division only. Otherwise i guess I'd have to include Greb in every division. I had voted for Ezz on my top 10 HW list so left him out of the LHW. And I considered Tunney a HW. So left him out also.

Top 10 Light Heavyweights of all time

Doesn't say top ten champions at lt heavy or people that you rank in other weight categories so you'll omit them here. It's top ten lt heavys. Charles was a lt heavy, so was tunney - how good where they when they were lt heavy is key.

Surely the most impressive thing any boxer can do is be so good at one weight class that they have to fight and then succeed against bigger men. To exclude them from being ranked at the weight class they were takes away those accomplishments. Langford, Charles and Greb are all like that.

Keko seems to want us to not comment until all the votes are in. Well this is a forum and discussing each others lists - isn't that the point of this whole thing? If my list changes cos of what someone else says - then good for them and thanks, maybe they've pointed out something I missed.