BoxRec

40's

Harold Johnson

Archie Moore

Ezzard Charles

Jimmy Bivins

VS.

20's

Harry Greb

Tommy Loughran

Gene Tunney

Tommy Gibbons

In a head to head matchup with everyone facing everyone who do you think would come out on top?

Tough tough matchups. I'll have to think about this . . .

This is interesting. On a given night any of the four in each era could beat any of the four of the other era.
If they all fought the fighters in the other era once, there would be 16 total fights. It could very well be 8-8.

On average Moore and Charles would have a 50-50 chance against Tunney, but should beat the rest more often then not. So overall, the 1940s fighters would have a very slight edge.

The wildcard is Greb and how the 1940s fighters would deal with him. With his style, I could see Greb doing well the first time against the 1940s fighters. However, I think they may adjust if they fought him more than once. So if they fought say 3 times or more, the edge goes to the 1940s.

Both were great eras in the division.

I do not know enough about the fighters in detail in the
sense that I have not seen much footage of Loughran
and like everyone else none of Grebb.

But from what I have seen of the 1940s guys, I really
do enjoy that era. Though the footage is often poor
quality I get a great joy out of watching the men listed
in the 1940s LHW era here.

Certainly one of my favourites as far as LHWs go.

Robinson wrote:I do not know enough about the fighters in detail in the
sense that I have not seen much footage of Loughran
and like everyone else none of Grebb.

But from what I have seen of the 1940s guys, I really
do enjoy that era. Though the footage is often poor
quality I get a great joy out of watching the men listed
in the 1940s LHW era here.

Certainly one of my favourites as far as LHWs go.

From what I've read from Greb he was a come forward swarmer and I believe he would be crushed by a puncher like Moore.

My opinion of Charles vs Tunney is that Tunney has a 10% chance of winning.

Greb beat Tunney and Tommy Gibbons, but he was not a lightheavyweight.

Grimm wrote:

Robinson wrote:I do not know enough about the fighters in detail in the
sense that I have not seen much footage of Loughran
and like everyone else none of Grebb.

But from what I have seen of the 1940s guys, I really
do enjoy that era. Though the footage is often poor
quality I get a great joy out of watching the men listed
in the 1940s LHW era here.

Certainly one of my favourites as far as LHWs go.

From what I've read from Greb he was a come forward swarmer and I believe he would be crushed by a puncher like Moore.

My opinion of Charles vs Tunney is that Tunney has a 10% chance of winning.

Tunney 10% against Charles? Against anyone!?

Ridiculous. He is a legitimate contender for best fighter in the entire division's history -- which is precisely where I place him.

granberry wrote:Greb beat Tunney and Tommy Gibbons, but he was not a lightheavyweight.

If you weigh in at light-heavyweight and you fight a light-heavyweight and you fight a light-heavyweight for a light-heavyweight title that makes you a light-heavyweight whether you like it or not.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Grimm wrote:

Robinson wrote:I do not know enough about the fighters in detail in the
sense that I have not seen much footage of Loughran
and like everyone else none of Grebb.

But from what I have seen of the 1940s guys, I really
do enjoy that era. Though the footage is often poor
quality I get a great joy out of watching the men listed
in the 1940s LHW era here.

Certainly one of my favourites as far as LHWs go.

From what I've read from Greb he was a come forward swarmer and I believe he would be crushed by a puncher like Moore.

My opinion of Charles vs Tunney is that Tunney has a 10% chance of winning.

Tunney 10% against Charles? Against anyone!?

Ridiculous. He is a legitimate contender for best fighter in the entire division's history -- which is precisely where I place him.

I just disagree. I believe Charles was head and shoulders ahead of Tunney.

Greb could always make the middleweight limit.

He weighed 159 for his last fight.

What is your point?

Eddie Chambers can make cruiserweight but he is not a cruiserweight when he weighs in over 200 pounds.

159 pounds is not a lightheavyweight.

In fact it is a pound below the middleweight limit.

As if that needs to be said.

granberry wrote:159 pounds is not a lightheavyweight.

In fact it is a pound below the middleweight limit.

As if that needs to be said.

167 at that time was not a middleweight.

In fact it is seven pounds above the middleweight limit.

As if that needs to be said.

Greb beat heavyweights.

But no one except the clueless would say he was a heavyweight.

granberry wrote:Greb beat heavyweights.

But no one except the clueless would say he was a heavyweight.

He did not weigh in as a heavyweight.

When he weighed in as a light heavyweight he was a light heavyweight.

You wouldn't call James Toney a middleweight would you?

Then again I forgot who I was asking.

Greb was not a full fledged lightheavyweight, when he beat Tunney for the championship in 1922 he weighed 162,5 pounds.

1926-02-12 169 pounds against Owen Phelps

1926-02-26 a whopping two weeks later he weighed in at 159,5 against Tiger Flowers

so definatly not a natural Lhw wich i believe is what Granberry is trying to emphasize here

Greb could always make the middleweight limit.

That is why he doesn't belong in this list.

And of course Tunney was a significant heavyweight champion.

As good as the other fighters on the list are, Tunney would have come out on top of any of them.

But his bone structure was far bigger than any of theirs and he was eventually a heavyweight.

Panzerfaust wrote:Greb was not a full fledged lightheavyweight, when he beat Tunney for the championship in 1922 he weighed 162,5 pounds.

1926-02-12 169 pounds against Owen Phelps

1926-02-26 a whopping two weeks later he weighed in at 159,5 against Tiger Flowers

so definatly not a natural Lhw wich i believe is what Granberry is trying to emphasize here

Does that mean he never fought at light heavy?

Not what i said, he did several times. however he would be at a disadvantage there against other atg light heavys. He was a middleweight fighting at light heavy

What is germaine to the topic is how Greb would do against the four lightheavyweights from the 1940s. Greb had a lot of success against lightheavyweights. with his style, it's certainly possible that he could beat any of the four; especially the first time they fought him.

Charles did lose the first time he fought Marshall and Bivins. Moore, Johnson, and Bivins all lost a few times as well.
They were all great fighters, but given Greb's unusual style he certainly would have serious chance.

I do disagree with the statement about Charles being head and shoulders above Tunney. Tunney beat some great fighters at lightheavyweight. He was smart, fast, decent power, hard to hit and had a good chin. Charles would not have a signiifcant advantage in any area.He certainly could compete with Charles or any light heavyweight for that matter.

Charles vs Tunney is an even fight.

Panzerfaust wrote:Not what i said, he did several times. however he would be at a disadvantage there against other atg light heavys. He was a middleweight fighting at light heavy

He was one of the best lightheavyweights in one of the best era's for lightheavy's .

Which is the point of the thread.

No need to log in under another name to defend yourself granberry.

Ambling Alp wrote:What is germaine to the topic is how Greb would do against the four lightheavyweights from the 1940s. Greb had a lot of success against lightheavyweights. with his style, it's certainly possible that he could beat any of the four; especially the first time they fought him.

Charles did lose the first time he fought Marshall and Bivins. Moore, Johnson, and Bivins all lost a few times as well.
They were all great fighters, but given Greb's unusual style he certainly would have serious chance.

I do disagree with the statement about Charles being head and shoulders above Tunney. Tunney beat some great fighters at lightheavyweight. He was smart, fast, decent power, hard to hit and had a good chin. Charles would not have a signiifcant advantage in any area.He certainly could compete with Charles or any light heavyweight for that matter.

Charles vs Tunney is an even fight.

& frankly, I think you're bonkers to see it any other way.

Grim is really desperate now.

Ir's grim, isn't it Grim.

granberry wrote:Grim is really desperate now.

Ir's grim, isn't it Grim.

It certainly is when that passes in your mind for amusing.

Even though I view Charles as the greater fighter I actually have to go with Tunney in a head to head. I think Tunney was able to stick to a disciplined fight plan better than Ezzard and that would prove the difference in a very even matchup. Wish there was more footage of Charles though in his 175 prime.