BoxRec

As arguably boxing's most unglamorous division and frequently used a springboard to the lucrative purses but higher risk of the heavyweight scene, who would you rate as the best all light heavy of all time?

There's no shortage of class fighters to choose from including Billy Conn, Bob Fitzsimmons, Archie Moore, Bob Foster, Wille Pastrano, Joey Maxim, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, Dick Tiger and not forgetting Roy Jones Jr. who surely deserves a mention for his seven year tenure (with a DQ blip) of the title.

I, myself, go for "Ageless" Archie but welcome other opinions from all you fans of the BOTP forum. Let's get it back on track. :)

Nice post Tolstoy... it's good to see some people actually interested in discussing boxing rather than throwing out abuse and petty insults like some seem to enjoy doing.
You can't reason with some people.
Anyway enougth of all that.... although the Light-heavies have always been reputed to be one of boxings less glamourous divisions if you look through the roll call of champs theres an awful lot of great fighters there.
Archie Moore has to be in consideration as the greatest champ when you look at his awesome record and realise that he acheieved the high points of his career when at least 36 and over, after being avoided by the champs for over a decade.
Bob Foster comes close .....but I'd just give a peak Moore the edge on Foster. Then there's Mike Spinks.... Saad Muhammad.... and Harold Johnson.... all of whom would give Moore and Foster great fights.
Also up there with the best I'd put Billy Conn, Tommy Loughran and Maxie Rosenbloom, and Battling Levinsky and also someone who may have been able to beat them all Jack Dillon.... who was really little more than a middleweight yet he regularly fought and beat heavies and was never koed in over 240 fights.
Roy Jones I m afraid I ve never been overly fond of and since hearing about his failed drug test (all hushed up) ....I now discount him from such ratings. Some people may find this harsh but in my opinion a drug cheat completely devalues everything he has acheieved.
Plus drugs or no drugs Jones has had an easy ride with his opposition which has been vastly inferiour to that faced by the above fighters... including Spinks and Saad.

I think if Roy can regain the title again, then he should be labelled the greatest Light Heavy of them all. He can't help the lack of real quality in the devision. He has unified the devision once and on Saturday will beat 1 of only 2 names that he has yet to beat. I really don't want to see RJ vs DM anymore.

Just look at the fighters Roy demolished who have gone on to win versions of the title. Its not like he's faught a long line of BUMS. He's made them look like BUMS, but they were the best in the devision.

Only Tarver left.

I'd have Moore in 2nd place, probably Bob Foster 3rd.

However, Tolstoy - you should have mentioned Spinks, certainly a contendor.

Are we talking about the greatest light heavyweight champion or the greatest light heavyweight period?

If we are talking about the greatest LHW period I would have to say Ezzard Charles.

knockout artists...DITTO!!!! (all you regulars can at least act surprised.)

if we include non-champions, gene tunney has a place here, i think....as does jimmy bivins.

actually I've always liked the light heavies....had to be good boxers because they fought so many heavies, had to be fasr because they fought the best middleweights.

i'd rate harold johnson just below moore among the champions...because he was outstanding in so many departments.

Up until 1954 one could argue that Ezzard Charles fought mostly as a LHW.

If you are comparing him with todays LHW you have to allow for the fact that todays guys weigh 175 long before the fight, and by the time they reach the ring they weigh 180 - 187.

Charles weighed 180 when he KO'd Lesnevich

185 when losing 15 rd decision to Marciano
181 when he outpointed Walcott
178 when he KO'd Joe Baksi (who weighed 210) and was a good fighter.
178 when he KO'd Walter Hafer (who weighed 200)
176 when beating Jimmy Bivins in 1948
174 when Koing Archie Moore in 1948
166 when outpointing 184 lb Joey Maxim.

For me Charles was a great fighter, he had every punch in the book, very good handspeed, good power (at LHW) good lateral movement, a good chin, was very fit and could fight equally as weel going forwards or backwards.

He fought in the most competetive era of LHW, when many who could not get a shot at the title fought at Heavyweight.

For me he is the No1.

Harry Greb although a middleweight can also be regarded as a great Light heavy.... also Sam Langford.... both these men would have been too much for Roy Jones and quite a few other Light-heavy champs.
Ezzard Charles was a great fighter too, who was little more than a light-heavy ....he was a dynomite puncher as well as great pure boxer before one of his opponents died, and he was never quite the same afterwards ...becoming much more reserved and cautious as a fighter.

knockout artist wrote:Are we talking about the greatest light heavyweight champion or the greatest light heavyweight period?

If we are talking about the greatest LHW period I would have to say Ezzard Charles.

Interestingly, I left the specificity you asked about deliberately out of my post.

The reason being, when asking about the "greatest" fighters at any weight, almost always the responses involve champions at that weight. Ezzard Charles was never light heavyweight champion and I purposely omitted him to see if anyone would bring his name up...and, indeed, you were the first, my friend.

Charles preferred to mix it at heavyweight and many posters here have him as a top 10 or 20 of all-time which is why I wouldn't class him as the light heavyweight best of all time. True, he beat Archie Moore and Joey Maxim but would we class Chris Byrd as a true great at light heavyweight if he moved down two weights and wiped the floor with everyone?

Having said that, RJJ and James Toney have had only one fight each at heavyweight and already I notice they appear in most posters top 5 heavies of the moment.

I suppose my point is, if you never won the world title at a certain weight (in the days when it meant something) do you deserve to be labelled the best of all-time?

tolstoy wrote:

knockout artist wrote:Are we talking about the greatest light heavyweight champion or the greatest light heavyweight period?

If we are talking about the greatest LHW period I would have to say Ezzard Charles.

Interestingly, I left the specificity you asked about deliberately out of my post.

The reason being, when asking about the "greatest" fighters at any weight, almost always the responses involve champions at that weight. Ezzard Charles was never light heavyweight champion and I purposely omitted him to see if anyone would bring his name up...and, indeed, you were the first, my friend.

Charles preferred to mix it at heavyweight and many posters here have him as a top 10 or 20 of all-time which is why I wouldn't class him as the light heavyweight best of all time. True, he beat Archie Moore and Joey Maxim but would we class Chris Byrd as a true great at light heavyweight if he moved down two weights and wiped the floor with everyone?

Having said that, RJJ and James Toney have had only one fight each at heavyweight and already I notice they appear in most posters top 5 heavies of the moment.

I suppose my point is, if you never won the world title at a certain weight (in the days when it meant something) do you deserve to be labelled the best of all-time?

A good question and one I dont have an answer to, but where does this leave someone like the late, great Charley Burley?

Jimmy Slattery deserves mention.

Jaclem thinks Ezzard Charles? (How's that for acting?)

Bob Foster, Roy Jones Jr., Archie Moore & Billy Conn would make a nice 'foursome'...

Jones has always been impressive with that speed. Bob Foster seemed unbeatable during his reign with that height and power. Archie Moore's record speaks for itself. Billy Conn (a local hero in my area) came within minutes of upsetting perhaps the greatest HEAVYWEIGHT of all time in June, 1941...He fell short, but that has to be one of the best efforts in defeat in history...and can't hurt his rating as a light heavy.

The Mongoose outclasses everybody IMO. My list could not omit Billy Conn, Ezzard,Foster, Spinks, or RJJ......and probably in that order.

tolstoy.....ezzard didn't move up to heavyweight and then drop down to fight the boxers you mentioned. he beat them when he was still a light heavyweight...plus he was fighting heavyweights when still a light heavyweight and before he became heavyweight champion. the only reason he was never light heavy champion is because he couldn't get a shot at the title.....lesnevich's managers flatly turned down a huge offer for that fight.

ezzard was not the only light heavy to fight heavyweights while still in the lower weight class....conn, moore, harold johnson...among others did it as a matter of course.

re:billy conn....most people remember conn's foray into the heavyweight ranks strictly from the louis fights...but he fought and beat heavyweights and was the number one contender at heavy when he got his shot at louis.

because of henry armstrong's holding three of the eight ligit titles at one time, the rule changed so a fighter had to give up his title before officially entering the heavier ranks. this was unfair....as many fighters who went after higher titles could still make the lighter limit. the rule was later amended ...a champion could fight for the title in the next highest division while still holding his other title...if he won, he gave up the lower title..if he lost he was still champion of the lower division.(Gavilan/olsen is one example)

this is why roy jones' heavyweight title is specious....if it was a real title, he couldn't hold the light heavy title too. when he fought ruiz, regardless of the alphabet soup, he was really fighting a top ten heavyweight contender....and no legit title was at stake...and, as i have said (alas, too many times)..the better light heavyweights throughout history did this.

Ezzard Charles, followed closely by Archie Moore.

Bear in mind, Archie was frozen out of a title shot until he was 39, and still
managed to hang on to it for 10 years, and was never defeated as champ.

Charles however was frozen out full stop, and would not have had to have campaigned at a disadvantage.

As for Moore outclassing Charles, he lost to him 3 times, and was knocked out once I believe, so that argument doesn't hold water.

The best champion - Moore
The best LH fighter - Charles.

That was my thinking too. Ezzard Charles was the best lightheavy of all time, whether he ever held the title or not. He fought and beat everybody in the division while he was trying to capture the heavyweight title.

Archie Moore was the best champ who actually held the title, and I'd put Michael Spinks second. He was probably the best lightheavy for two or three years before he won the title, and would have held it for God knows how long if he hadn't gone after Larry Holmes.

Top three on results I'd go

Moore
Foster
Spinks

Charles could've been a great LH champ - but he wasn't. Same way Marciano wouldn't be rated as a great cruiserweight I guess.

I gotta go with Ezzard Charles as well....even if he didn't hold the 175lb belt.

A prime Charles would have beaten anyone I have ever seen at 175, INCLUDING Mr. Jones.............Mob

Who was the greatest light heavyweight, not greatest light heavyweight champion.

Can you imagine what a fight Charles v Holyfield would have been at 190?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
As for Moore outclassing Charles, he lost to him 3 times, and was knocked out once I believe, so that argument doesn't hold water.

It's all in your criterion.....I , for example don't believe that Forrest will be remembered as a greater fighter than Mosely. Just as a great fighter who happenend to have Mosley's number.

a charles/moore irony.... as noted , charles beat moore three times...twice by decision and the last by knockout. ..and it was the knockout that charles came closest to losing. the first two he won by clear non-controverisal decisions. in the third moore was doing pretty good and actually had charles in trouble...right before the kayo. ezzard's punch was described by one writer "like a spring that uncoiled with terrific speed and power"..and it was a devastating one punch kayo. later moore said he was setting a trap for charles, but charles out tricked him with a trap of his own. (no quotation marks because it's a paraprhase, but close.) Moore was known even back then to talk to his opponents, and in this one charles told me that moore kept up a running string of racial slurs.... eg."you're just a n****** in your own home town." ezzard was puzzled as of course moore was black himself. when he asked moore why he did that moore said charles outboxed him twice, so he thought if he got him mad charles might slug with him instead and be more open for a knockout.

both were great dominant light heavyweights in what i think was the greatest era of that division. as both pretty much had wins over the other fighters of that weight, i think the three charles wins tips the scale in his favor as being the greatest. moore's claim..in addition to his obvious quality is the remarkable length of his career.

Great post....but even tho I just motored down Ezzard Charles Drive in Cincy the other day and liked him a lot, I still cast my vote for Archie!
If only by a nose.

Boxer, you can't really tell me that you think Vernon Forrest's achievements are on a par with Ezzard's?

The reason Vernon Forrest won't be remembered (barring an excellent
career at light middleweight) is that Mosley has far greater achievements, including a stint as lightweight and welterweight champion, and two wins over DLH (one in my opinion, but that's another story).

The fact is both Moore and Charles were fantastic fighters, and both would I think in our era, with the luxury of fighting once a year if they so chose, modern training methods, videos of their opponents, nutrition improvements etc, been champions from super middleweight to cruiserweight.

However, not only did Charles beat Moore, he also beat Joey Maxim, Jimmy Bivins, Lloyd Marshall, and Ken Overlin.

Both men are two of my favourite fighter ever, and Archie Moore's is surely the most remarkable career there has ever been in terms of success over a very lengthy period of time. I feel however that as a light heavyweight fighter, Moore was superior.

Archie remains to my mind the greatest champion the division has ever seen.

To be fair though, I don't think I could really disagree too strongly for anyone who argued for Moore over Charles....

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Boxer, you can't really tell me that you think Vernon Forrest's achievements are on a par with Ezzard's?

No, not even close! I was just using the parallel of Vernon beating Mosely multiple times as Charles beat Archie multiple times. I am saying that I don't think Vernon will be remembered as well as Shane in spite of beating him. I think of Moore as more of a great than Charles. Confused? Welcome to my world!
I know I am not being eloquent tonight but my point is a rather simple one. And only, as they say, an opinion.

I'd go Foster, Moore, Charles, Conn, Spinks.

Foster was fast, incredibly powerful, threw good combinations, and could counter punch, and defend.

I'd go for Archie Moore