BoxRec

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

1. ezzard charles
2. sam langford
3. archie moore
4. Billy Conn
5. Gene tunney
6. Bob Foster
7. Micheal Spinks
8. Tommy Loughran
9. Roy Jones jr- roy jones # 1 super middle
10. philadephia jack o brien

HM: harold Johnson, dwight muhammad qawi, maxie rosenbloom, tommy gibbons

i rate greb at middleweight.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:1. ezzard charles
2. sam langford
3. archie moore
4. Billy Conn
5. Gene tunney
6. Bob Foster
7. Micheal Spinks
8. Tommy Loughran
9. Roy Jones jr- roy jones # 1 super middle
10. philadephia jack o brien

HM: harold Johnson, dwight muhammad qawi, maxie rosenbloom, tommy gibbons

i rate greb at middleweight.

Greb beat Loughran several times and beat Tunney to win the LHW crown. If he beat two of the people on your list he deserves to be considered a LHW for the purpose of this list. You're right about Roy Jones' greatness being more at Super Middle but I'm still comfortable where I rated him.

tommy loughran is most certainly a top 5 light heavyweight, i would make a strong arguement for top 3.. some say hes the best ever.. so whats with his lousy ranking and non ranking??????

1. Billy Conn = Roy Jones = Sam Langford
2, 3, 4... [other fighters]

Ezzard Charles
Archie Moore
Sam Langford
Michael Spinks
Gene Tunney
Bob Foster
Billy Conn
Harry Greb
Jack O'Brien
Tommy Loughran
Bob Fitzsimmons

if you're ranking greb at this weight you might as well include ketchel who ko'd the excellent jack o'brien.
no-one ranks stanley but they do harry.both should be ranked at middleweight.

For such a rich talent the division has had it is surprising the lt-heavy division has never recieved the glamour the heavys, middles and even welter have.

Is it because it was seen as todays cruisers are viewed? something of a catch-weight between two recognised weights??

Harry Greb fought most of his bouts at light heavy thats why he often gets ranked as both a light heavy and middle. Ketchel doesnt because not only did he fight the vast majority of his bouts at middleweight but he often weighed far less than 158.

My top 10 Light heavyweights

1. Michael Spinks
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Archie Moore
4. Bob Foster
5. Gene Tunney
6. Roy Jones
7. Harold Johnson
8. Dwight Qawi
9. Billy Conn
10. Tommy Loughran

Honorable Mention - John Henry Lewis, Maxie Rosenbloom,Eddie Mustapha Muhammad, Mathew Saad Muhammad, Marvin Johnson.

- Spinks fought in a great era of lightheavyweights and still stood out. Unfortunately, I think some people think of him more for the Tyson fight than what he did as a lightheavy.

-Roy Jones was a phenomenal talent, but his competition was so bad it's hard to rate him.

- I didn't rate guys who really fought before the lightheavyweight title was taken seriously, which was until the Teens. So I excluded Fitzsimmons,Langford, Choynski, O'Brien.

- There a lot close calls. Rating the lightheavy's afterthe first few is difficult. You could make arguements for McTgue, Galindez, Delaney, Berlanbach, Pastrano, and Torres.

top 3 in order....

1)Ezzard Charles
2)Tommy Loughran
3)Billy Conn

How can so many people not rank tommy loughran in the top 5 of light heavyweights? the man was almost impossible to hit, and he OWNED the light heavyweight division for a while. he had a semi successful heavyweight career beating max baer, but he beat so many great names at light heavyweight, he had maybe the best defense in light heavyweight defense, he couldnt break an egg with his punch, but that didnt stop him from winning most of his fights. WHY IS TOMMY LOUGHRAN,A GREAT HALL OF FAMER, NOT GETTING THE RESPECT HE RIGHTFULLY DESERVES?!!?

This is always a fun division to rate because so many of the top guys actually made their mark elsewhere, or made it here but found fame and prominence elsewhere. Billy Conn is remembered for his fight with Louis, and people know that he was "only" a LHW but that isn't accurate, either. He only fought six times at LHW, winning the title and defending 3 times. His true claim to greatness comes from his career before that, when he fought as a MW against some very stiff competition. He fought Tony Zale in the fight just before Louis II. For a guy that isn't considered much of a puncher I find it interesting that 8 of his 14 kos came against LHWs and HWs; 8 in 20 fights as opposed to 6 in 56 at MW.
It was a suprise to find that RJJ has had 16 fights at LHW; I thought it was around 7 or 8. Not a real impressive bunch he fought either, and, truthfully, his name seems, top me, out of place on a "greatest" list because all we have to go on is hids and Jim Lampley's word for it. They say he's the fastest ever and it becomes true; I haven't seen every fighter and neither have they, nor have you and they have him signed to a huge contract. It is thoufght provoking that HBO never demanded a real fight as part of their deal and that RJJ never clamored for one. He has never convinced me of any superlative skill level- the potential, yes, the fact, no- much less that he would be capable of being the same "great" fighter in a hard fight. Even when he beat Toney he didn't hammer him, or even hit him much.
Still at work on a top ten list.

Ambling Alp wrote:My top 10 Light heavyweights

- I didn't rate guys who really fought before the lightheavyweight title was taken seriously, which was until the Teens. So I excluded Fitzsimmons,Langford, Choynski, O'Brien.

I don't get that logic. If you're trying to determine who was the best fighter at a given weight, why would you eliminate formidable candidates because that division wasn't popular at the time. Sam Langford and Bob Fitzsimmons hit you just as hard whether you took the LHW title seriously or not.

klompton wrote:Harry Greb fought most of his bouts at light heavy thats why he often gets ranked as both a light heavy and middle. Ketchel doesnt because not only did he fight the vast majority of his bouts at middleweight but he often weighed far less than 158.

even so there are enough proper light heavies without greb who is better at middle.ketchel would surely have tested himself with light heavies,heck he'd just beaten one of the best if his life hadn't been cut short.

1. Ezzard Charles
2.Archie Moore
3.Michael Spinks
4.Gene Tunney
5.Bob Foster
6.Billy Conn
7.Harry Greb- really a middleweight and p4p better than anyone else on this list
8.Tommy Lougran
9.Harold Johnson
10.Jimmy Bivins

If Greb fought most often at LHW, clearly beat some of the greatest LHW in history, etc. then why shouldnt he consider him a "proper" LHW?? In his era everyone called him a light HW and during his reign as MW king they always referred to his "inhuman" ability to melt down to 158. If thats not a "proper" LHW then I dont know what is. As for Ketchel he was already past his prime when he died and there is ample evidence that he had no plans in fighting again.

i doubt he was well past his prime.i don't accept he wasn't gonna fight again either.anyway i wouldn't rate ketchel at light heavy.neither would i greb,or at least not top 10 all time.i would certainly rank
foster
moore
spinks
jones jnr
charles
tunney
conn
johnson
john henry lewis
loughran.
and yeah greb split some fights with tommy but so what?dempsey couldn't get the better of that tubby journeyman.

fighters like jack o'brien(beaten by ketchel)and bob fitzsimmons would also feature higher imo.dwight qawi.i give up.
anyway not to detract from a great fighter as i have greb top 5 middles of all time.he did indeed beat a lot of great light heavies.if i rank him at this weight he's not gonna get near 10.

Greb did alot more than just split wins with Lougran at lightheavyweight. He clearly beat 6 hall of fame lightheavies in thier prime, many of them with newspaper decision in no-decision bouts which in these days would have been decision wins. He also held the the repected and prestigious american light heavy title and fought all of these fights within the lightheavyweight weight limits. Remember, a pound over 160 in those days was technically lightheavy.

yeah you misunderstood.that was at reference for having loughran at 10.
greb had some fantastic results over the likes of tunney,slapsie,loughran etc.a great fighter.like i say i've got him top 5 middle.i just can't get him near 10 at light heavy.

sharkeysboy wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:My top 10 Light heavyweights

- I didn't rate guys who really fought before the lightheavyweight title was taken seriously, which was until the Teens. So I excluded Fitzsimmons,Langford, Choynski, O'Brien.

I don't get that logic. If you're trying to determine who was the best fighter at a given weight, why would you eliminate formidable candidates because that division wasn't popular at the time. Sam Langford and Bob Fitzsimmons hit you just as hard whether you took the LHW title seriously or not.

What I was trying to explain was that there really wasn't a light-heavyweight division until the Teens. By that time, Choynski was retired, Fitsimmons and O'Brien were at the end of their careers and Langford was well above 175. The title started in 1903, but was vacant from 1905-1911. I don't think that Choynski, Fitsimmons, O'Brien, Langford etc would consider themselves light-heavyweights. To rate them would be like rating the cruiserweights and including Dempsey, Tunney, Marciano,Patterson etc.

However I see your point and here is how I would rate the lightheavyweights including these guys.

1. Spinks
2. Charles
3. Moore
4. Langford
5. Foster
6 .Tunney
7. Jones
8. Harold Johnson
9. Qawi
10. Fitzsimmons

Honorable Mention - Conn, Loughran, Choynski, O'Brien, Saad Muhammad, Mustapha Muhammad, Rosenbloom, Lewis.
Once again, there are several guys that you could make a case for.

Greb at LHW beat: Jack Dillon twice, Maxie Rosenbloom once, Jimmy Slattery once, Battling Levinsky everytime they fought which was something like six times, Tommy Loughran evertime except a draw and loss both of which were controversial, Gene Tunney twice not including the second fight which was called by many the worst decision in New York history, Billy Miske, Tommy Gibbons, Mike McTigue twice, etc. Guys who had large offers to fight him and looked the other way were: Paul Berlenbach, Jack Delaney, George Carpentier, and Battling Siki among others. So do the math. Id say thats a great resume at LHW and the only reason some refuse to rate him at there is because he held a title at MW, ignoring the fact that he would have held one at LHW as well had he been given the opportunity to fight for it. I dont understand the refusal by some to only rate fighters in one division when the crossed divisional lines during their career frequently and clearly showed they were great in one or more. Its even more ridiculous when so many choose to rate Loughran above him despite Greb being clearly the better fighter and proving it in the ring.

firstly did greb beat a prime loughran?answer no he didn't.he beat a work in progress.i think he got the better of a 21/22 year old fighter still developing.the fine fighter he became did not occur until approx 3.5-4years later.loughran peaked probably between 1927 and 1930.
this is how it is possible to rank tommy higher.
you say he beat slapsie as well.again he didn't beat the prime version either.again he beat a 21/22 year old who didn't peak for another 5 years.
there is no doubt that greb beat a lot of great fighters but look a bit closer at some of them before you dismiss them out of hand.

Granted, you'rer right about lougran and slapsie Maxie not yet peaking when Greb beat them, but how does that automatically justify lougran being ranked higher than Greb?
Greb at lightheavy still beat both hall of fame Gibbons brothers still in their prime, battling Levinsky still close to it and most impressivly Gene Tunney.
Lougrans most impressive light heavyweight victories were a decision against pre-cinderella Jim Braddock and past his prime Carpentier a decision against Mickey Walker.
Take Lougran and Maxie out of Greb's record and his victories are still more impressive that Lougran's.

he beat other good fighters as well.fighters like slattery,mctigue and lomski.at this point of his career he was at his peak.i think he won something like 25 straight.he then went on to have decent results against heavyweights.
i think this version of loughran beats greb.
i'm not denying greb beat lots of great fighters.the gibbons brothers both beat him as well.as did tunney.however i don't have either gibbons in my 10 either.tunney i do and for greb to have bested him is a remarkable achievement.not unlike flowers besting greb twice at middle.however tiger isn't and shouldn't be rated higher than harry at middle.

Slattery,Mctigue and Lomski? Victories over these good but nowhere near great fighters cant be used to demonstrate loughrans supiriority to Greb.
greb would have beat them worst than Loughgran did.