BoxRec

Here is my list of the hardest punching light heavyweights. This doesn't mean that they were the most accurrate or the best finishers.

1. Bob Foster
2. Bob Fitzsimmons
3. Sam Langford
4. Archie Moore
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Marvin Johnson
7. Michael Spinks
8. Joe Choynski
9. Georges Carpentier
10. Michael Moorer

Honorable Mention - Gene Tunney, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Matthew Saad Muhammad, Dwight Qawi, Jose Torres.

I know there has to be someone that I'm overlooking.
What do you guys think?

If you're gonna include Langford I think he's clearly number 1. Foster's power wasn't so devastating when he moved up to heavyweight, whereas Sam was starching out guys weighing 240.

If you're gonna include Langford I think he's clearly number 1. Foster's power wasn't so devastating when he moved up to heavyweight, whereas Sam was starching out guys weighing 240.

The heavyweights Foster faced were mostly more skilled than the ones Langford did. Frazier stopped Foster in two, Langford probably would have went out just as fast if not faster.

Frazier would not have taken Langford out, in fact it would have probably been the other way around...Langford KO 2 over Frazier! Also, Foster fought what 5 to 8 heavyweights total, Langford fought 200 heavyweights...

Frazier would not have taken Langford out, in fact it would have probably been the other way around...Langford KO 2 over Frazier!

This is funny. Langford wouldnt be able to hurt, Frazier, let alone beat him.

You really have no clue at all about the old fighters!

You really have no clue at all about the old fighters!

Langford ko 2 Frazier is easily one of the most clueless things I ever read on this site. Contary to popular belief those old timers were not borderline superhuman.

Neither was Frazier!

He wouldnt have to be to beat Langford. He wouldnt even have to be at his best either.

Archie Moore IMO hit harder than Foster if you look at the big HW contenders he KO'd to get his title shot against Rocky and Patterson.

Cmon this is one area you have to give Archie his props, His KO record is pretty damn serious. Some were one shot, out of the blue pieces of work some were, wear you down and catch you nappin, but time after time he put people to sleep like NOBODY else. If he was fighting today he'd be called Archie "Ambien" Moore.

why isnt bob satterfields name on this list??




are u kidding me theone??



foster had a glass jaw! its a hidden but well known fact in fosters career and every decent heavyweight he faced, he was beaten or knocked out by including light hitting ernie terell and doug jones.


foster would be at his best vs the less teir punches in light-H division



but foster never fought a real hard hitting light-H, he did at heavy and got dismantled.


a 40 year old past his prime but still dangerous dick tiger nearly knocked foster out early hurting him badly with a couple shots.






hard punching sam langford in his prime who was 10x the fighter great dick tiger was, WOULD HAVE EATEN FOSTER ALIVE.


tiger was 5'7 yet landed hard shots on 6'3 foster.




langford a 5'7 but 75" incredible long reach would have easily taggged fosters chin and no way would foster have taken langfords punches.

- foster never faced a puncher the caliber of langford at light-H at 175

- foster never faced as good a light-H like langford

- closest thing foster faced to langford was a joe frazier and we no what happened.

langford defeated BIG SKILLED heavyweights of his era, while foster feasted on weak Light-H competiton and was soundly beaten at heavyweight.



foster would not have stood up to a punch like langford, who not only could punch but had incredible all around fighting skill that would make this matchup even harder to pick foster.

- langford was stronger, with bigger muscle proportions

- langford had better all around boxing skills and executed his style more fluently and precise than foster.

- langford believe it or not was the proven hard hitter with one punch, though foster hit very hard

- langford was much better all around puncher, threw more accurate and mixed up combinations, faster handspeed, better two fisted power, better body attack. Langford also had the much better arsenal of good punches.

- langford had the better denfense, and is a highly underated defensive master. langford was a master at blocking an opponents leads with his glove, a master glove blocker and counter puncher as well as a fighter who would duck and counter with beautiful unexpected accurate punches.

- Langford was also much more unpredictable in the way he threw punches, and the way he was hard to hit. Langford was a master at feinting, and often tricked or through his opponents off balance because of his feinting, which would make the opponent drop his guard and leave him self open for a huge lightsout punch.

- Sam had the perfect balance, timing and leverage of a great puncher. He also had an outstanding chin and was able to absorb the hardest blows of much larger men unlike foster.

- foster IMO had the best jab in light-H history but langford's jab was not far behind.




langford was not a all out wild brawler. He was smart, crafty, and had both incredible inside and outside fighting skills, and was one of the langford had incredible ring savvy, near the best of all time.








who did foster beat?




Henry Hank- a former light-H top 10 contender who was by now on the decline and past his prime losing a lot leading up to the fight and losing a lot after the foster fight to nobodies. he was even more shot for the rematch with foster leveled him at 3


eddie cotton- a highly underated light-H who was once a top contender and near champion, but he was 40 by now and past his prime losing a lot and retired after this fight. cotton was somewhat a latebloomer, but not so much that he was in his prime vs foster. still, a good dominant win for foster, though certainly not a big one.



dick tiger- tiger although 38 was a late bloomer, and defintley a live fighter when he fought foster, but was clearly past his prime and 1 weight class above his best weight . tigers best days were very early 60s at middleweight. This is fosters best win, but how much does this count for? not only was tiger past his prime but he is not even a top 25 light-H of all time. also tiger hurt foster badly a couple times nearling flooring him in the early rounds. Tiger was a game fighter and had a lot left and the fact foster knocked him out cold with one punch when tiger had never been knocked out before is a great accomplishment for foster


but look at the defenses




Roger Rouse- no world beater who lost a lot

frankie depaula- 18-6 joureyman who actually floored foster with(off the top of my head) a hard right that sent an offbalanced foster down. foster then got up finishing him in the round


mark tessman- what did he ever do?


harol carroll- what did he do to deserve a shot vs foster?


Ray Anderson- Incosistent but skilled boxer who talked a lot of smack entering the fight with someone who had just lost his last 3 fights to journeyman.


tommy hicks- 12-5 u got to be kidding me defending it vs a guy like hicks


Brian Kelly- probably the first fighter out of the rest that actually deserved a shot


mike quarry- undefeated legit top contender but nothing special and had a very padded record. foster did ruin quarry.


vincent rondon- Good win for foster over WBA champ, but once again rondon was nothing special


chris finnegan- he was a tough british fighter who put on an all out war vs foster. he gave an aging foster a tough time before foster finished him in 14


pierre fouirre- one of the better fighters foster defended against, foster beat him twice


jorge ahumda- DRAW. foster defintley past his prime by now, and ahumada gets robbed in a fight he defintley won.







just look at fosters resume, its absolutley horrible, and filled with journeyman. he did not beat one very good light-H outside of tiger and cotton who were past there primes. foster by far beat the weakest competition compared to other light-H champions.

we never got to see foster fight those late 70s top light-H like galindez, conteh, saad muhammad since foster reitred so we will never know how proven he is.

I rate bob foster in top 10, but his competiton was absolutley attrocious!





even at heavyweight look at his results:


- green foster gets knocked out easily by 182lb doug jones

- green foster gets knocked down and outpointed by LEGITE overweight light-H contender mauro mina

- green foster knocked out cold by 200lb light hitting terell


- green foster decisioned by fat past his prime zora folley


- foster knocked out in devastating fashion by joe frazier


- past his prime ali knocks foster down 7 timees easily knocking foster out. only bright news is foster became the first to cut ali






NOW



look at langfords resume,



langfords resume makes foster look like a C rated clubfighter

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:why isnt bob satterfields name on this list??




are u kidding me theone??



foster had a glass jaw! its a hidden but well known fact in fosters career and every decent heavyweight he faced, he was beaten or knocked out by including light hitting ernie terell and doug jones.


foster would be at his best vs the less teir punches in light-H division



but foster never fought a real hard hitting light-H, he did at heavy and got dismantled.


a 40 year old past his prime but still dangerous dick tiger nearly knocked foster out early hurting him badly with a couple shots.






hard punching sam langford in his prime who was 10x the fighter great dick tiger was, WOULD HAVE EATEN FOSTER ALIVE.


tiger was 5'7 yet landed hard shots on 6'3 foster.




langford a 5'7 but 75" incredible long reach would have easily taggged fosters chin and no way would foster have taken langfords punches.

- foster never faced a puncher the caliber of langford at light-H at 175

- foster never faced as good a light-H like langford

- closest thing foster faced to langford was a joe frazier and we no what happened.

langford defeated BIG SKILLED heavyweights of his era, while foster feasted on weak Light-H competiton and was soundly beaten at heavyweight.



foster would not have stood up to a punch like langford, who not only could punch but had incredible all around fighting skill that would make this matchup even harder to pick foster.

- langford was stronger, with bigger muscle proportions

- langford had better all around boxing skills and executed his style more fluently and precise than foster.

- langford believe it or not was the proven hard hitter with one punch, though foster hit very hard

- langford was much better all around puncher, threw more accurate and mixed up combinations, faster handspeed, better two fisted power, better body attack. Langford also had the much better arsenal of good punches.

- langford had the better denfense, and is a highly underated defensive master. langford was a master at blocking an opponents leads with his glove, a master glove blocker and counter puncher as well as a fighter who would duck and counter with beautiful unexpected accurate punches.

- Langford was also much more unpredictable in the way he threw punches, and the way he was hard to hit. Langford was a master at feinting, and often tricked or through his opponents off balance because of his feinting, which would make the opponent drop his guard and leave him self open for a huge lightsout punch.

- Sam had the perfect balance, timing and leverage of a great puncher. He also had an outstanding chin and was able to absorb the hardest blows of much larger men unlike foster.

- foster IMO had the best jab in light-H history but langford's jab was not far behind.




langford was not a all out wild brawler. He was smart, crafty, and had both incredible inside and outside fighting skills, and was one of the langford had incredible ring savvy, near the best of all time.








who did foster beat?




Henry Hank- a former light-H top 10 contender who was by now on the decline and past his prime losing a lot leading up to the fight and losing a lot after the foster fight to nobodies. he was even more shot for the rematch with foster leveled him at 3


eddie cotton- a highly underated light-H who was once a top contender and near champion, but he was 40 by now and past his prime losing a lot and retired after this fight. cotton was somewhat a latebloomer, but not so much that he was in his prime vs foster. still, a good dominant win for foster, though certainly not a big one.



dick tiger- tiger although 38 was a late bloomer, and defintley a live fighter when he fought foster, but was clearly past his prime and 1 weight class above his best weight . tigers best days were very early 60s at middleweight. This is fosters best win, but how much does this count for? not only was tiger past his prime but he is not even a top 25 light-H of all time. also tiger hurt foster badly a couple times nearling flooring him in the early rounds. Tiger was a game fighter and had a lot left and the fact foster knocked him out cold with one punch when tiger had never been knocked out before is a great accomplishment for foster


but look at the defenses




Roger Rouse- no world beater who lost a lot

frankie depaula- 18-6 joureyman who actually floored foster with(off the top of my head) a hard right that sent an offbalanced foster down. foster then got up finishing him in the round


mark tessman- what did he ever do?


harol carroll- what did he do to deserve a shot vs foster?


Ray Anderson- Incosistent but skilled boxer who talked a lot of smack entering the fight with someone who had just lost his last 3 fights to journeyman.


tommy hicks- 12-5 u got to be kidding me defending it vs a guy like hicks


Brian Kelly- probably the first fighter out of the rest that actually deserved a shot


mike quarry- undefeated legit top contender but nothing special and had a very padded record. foster did ruin quarry.


vincent rondon- Good win for foster over WBA champ, but once again rondon was nothing special


chris finnegan- he was a tough british fighter who put on an all out war vs foster. he gave an aging foster a tough time before foster finished him in 14


pierre fouirre- one of the better fighters foster defended against, foster beat him twice


jorge ahumda- DRAW. foster defintley past his prime by now, and ahumada gets robbed in a fight he defintley won.







just look at fosters resume, its absolutley horrible, and filled with journeyman. he did not beat one very good light-H outside of tiger and cotton who were past there primes. foster by far beat the weakest competition compared to other light-H champions.

we never got to see foster fight those late 70s top light-H like galindez, conteh, saad muhammad since foster reitred so we will never know how proven he is.

I rate bob foster in top 10, but his competiton was absolutley attrocious!





even at heavyweight look at his results:


- green foster gets knocked out easily by 182lb doug jones

- green foster gets knocked down and outpointed by LEGITE overweight light-H contender mauro mina

- green foster knocked out cold by 200lb light hitting terell


- green foster decisioned by fat past his prime zora folley


- foster knocked out in devastating fashion by joe frazier


- past his prime ali knocks foster down 7 timees easily knocking foster out. only bright news is foster became the first to cut ali






NOW



look at langfords resume,



langfords resume makes foster look like a C rated clubfighter

Nuthug alert! 10X the fighter Dick Tiger was? You are off into fantasy land again Brocky. I thought you were boasting earlier that you always talk sense? Then you post this????

theone wrote:He wouldnt have to be to beat Langford. He wouldnt even have to be at his best either.

langford would give frazier a real tough time, just like he would marciano,dempsey but more so frazier who was more predictable and soely relied on his left hook to finish or hurt opponents and langford would have had an easier time landing on the predictable head movent of joe and had a betterchance in a slugout with langfords two fisted KO power.


theone, why do u rate frazier so much higer than demsey, marciano??


dempsey had everything frazier had , plus a lot more.


dempsey and frazier


- dempsey and fraziers left hook were equal, maybe slight edge to joe

- dempsey was the much better two fisted KO power

- dempsey was the best combination puncher, was more accurate, had faster handspeed, and mixed up his punching arsenal more

- dempsey had better defense- dempsey was more unpredictable with his head movement and mobility in the crouch and because of it was harder to time, and was harder to hit

- dempsey was the better boxer with better jab

- dempsey and frazier had equal chins, and equal stamina

- dempsey had even more aggresion and was more mobile than frazier



i am just stating facts, it does not mean i dont think frasier was great because I DEFINTLEY think he was, but doesnt matchup well vs a guy like dempsey IMO.

Nuthug alert! 10X the fighter Dick Tiger was? You are off into fantasy land again Brocky. I thought you were boasting earlier that you always talk sense? Then you post this????

yes, sam langford was a 10x better than the 38 year old PAST HIS PRIME dick tiger.





- tigers best days were early 60s and as a MIDDLE , not light-H.

if ur really trying to compare dick tiger and langford why dont we compare who they beat?



tiger beat:


Gene fullmer

nino benvenuti

joey giardello

Jose torres




Langford beat or drew


joe gans

jack blackburn

staney ketchell- from the accounts i read langford got the better of it

Joe walcott- DRAW

Philadelphia Jack O brien

Joe Jeanette

Sam Mcvey

Harry Wills

Kid Norfolk

Tiger Flowers



now those are only the great fighters i listed, i could have added a lot more to langford resume.

langford defeated BIG SKILLED heavyweights of his era, while foster feasted on weak Light-H competiton and was soundly beaten at heavyweight.

The key words are OF HIS ERA. Alot of fighters of his era were as polished as Jones, Folley, or Terrell. Smaller fighters routinely took on much heavier fighters in those days with put on that much extra weight themselves. There is a reason you saw less and lees of that as the years went on.

closest thing foster faced to langford was a joe frazier and we no what happened.

Dick Tiger was the closest thing to Langford that Foster ever fought, and look what happened.

langford had better all around boxing skills and executed his style more fluently and precise than foster.
- langford believe it or not was the proven hard hitter with one punch, though foster hit very hard
- langford was much better all around puncher, threw more accurate and mixed up combinations, faster handspeed, better two fisted power, better body attack. Langford also had the much better arsenal of good punches.
- langford had the better denfense, and is a highly underated defensive master. langford was a master at blocking an opponents leads with his glove, a master glove blocker and counter puncher as well as a fighter who would duck and counter with beautiful unexpected accurate punches.
- Langford was also much more unpredictable in the way he threw punches, and the way he was hard to hit. Langford was a master at feinting, and often tricked or through his opponents off balance because of his feinting, which would make the opponent drop his guard and leave him self open for a huge lightsout punch.
- Sam had the perfect balance, timing and leverage of a great puncher. He also had an outstanding chin and was able to absorb the hardest blows of much larger men unlike foster.
- foster IMO had the best jab in light-H history but langford's jab was not far behind.

How did you come to these conclusions? Which fights between the two have you watched and studied to come to your assessments?

just look at fosters resume, its absolutley horrible, and filled with journeyman. he did not beat one very good light-H outside of tiger and cotton who were past there primes. foster by far beat the weakest competition compared to other light-H champions.

So Foster was a fraud huh? I've watched alot of Fosters best fights and I'll believe my eyes more than your assessment. Foster was a devastating lightheavy who fought in an era of of top notch all around heavyweights.

theone, why do u rate frazier so much higer than demsey, marciano??

dempsey had everything frazier had , plus a lot more.

Dempsey was hurt,dropped and once ko'd by alot lesser fighters than Frazier.
Old fireman Flynn ko'd him, skinny Carpentier staggered him, Brennan rocked him during their fight and Firpo dropped him twice. Frazier would have put him down and kept him down.

How did you come to these conclusions? Which fights between the two have you watched and studied to come to your assessments?

Excuse me, I meant of the two individually, not between the two.

Ambling Alp wrote:Here is my list of the hardest punching light heavyweights. This doesn't mean that they were the most accurrate or the best finishers.

1. Bob Foster
2. Bob Fitzsimmons
3. Sam Langford
4. Archie Moore
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Marvin Johnson
7. Michael Spinks
8. Joe Choynski
9. Georges Carpentier
10. Michael Moorer

Honorable Mention - Gene Tunney, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Matthew Saad Muhammad, Dwight Qawi, Jose Torres.

I know there has to be someone that I'm overlooking.
What do you guys think?

1. Bob Fitzimmons
2. Sam Langford
3. Bob Satterfield- he should easily be on everones list
4. Ezzard Charles- his power is incredibly underated at 175, watch or study some of his fights pre-baroudi where he had his killer instinct and aggresion that led to his nickname cincinatti cobra. ask archie if charles had one punch KO power
5. Archie Moore
6. Bob Foster

ill rank those 6 right there, not sure about rest


here are some others havnt been mentioned


Tiger jack Fox
Ray Actis

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

theone wrote:He wouldnt have to be to beat Langford. He wouldnt even have to be at his best either.

langford would give frazier a real tough time, just like he would marciano,dempsey but more so frazier who was more predictable and soely relied on his left hook to finish or hurt opponents and langford would have had an easier time landing on the predictable head movent of joe and had a betterchance in a slugout with langfords two fisted KO power.


theone, why do u rate frazier so much higer than demsey, marciano??


dempsey had everything frazier had , plus a lot more.


dempsey and frazier


- dempsey and fraziers left hook were equal, maybe slight edge to joe

- dempsey was the much better two fisted KO power

- dempsey was the best combination puncher, was more accurate, had faster handspeed, and mixed up his punching arsenal more

- dempsey had better defense- dempsey was more unpredictable with his head movement and mobility in the crouch and because of it was harder to time, and was harder to hit

- dempsey was the better boxer with better jab

- dempsey and frazier had equal chins, and equal stamina

- dempsey had even more aggresion and was more mobile than frazier



i am just stating facts, it does not mean i dont think frasier was great because I DEFINTLEY think he was, but doesnt matchup well vs a guy like dempsey IMO.

You don't seem to understand the difference between opinion and fact Brocky. Almost all those things you mention above are opinions. What makes you think they are facts?????

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:if ur really trying to compare dick tiger and langford why dont we compare who they beat?



tiger beat:


Gene fullmer

nino benvenuti

joey giardello

Jose torres




Langford beat or drew


joe gans

jack blackburn

staney ketchell- from the accounts i read langford got the better of it

Joe walcott- DRAW

Philadelphia Jack O brien

Joe Jeanette

Sam Mcvey

Harry Wills

Kid Norfolk

Tiger Flowers



now those are only the great fighters i listed, i could have added a lot more to langford resume.

Those blokes Tiger beat were pretty handy. Still, if you think Langford was 10X better than Tiger who are we to argue...

Which Langford fights do you have on film?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Here is my list of the hardest punching light heavyweights. This doesn't mean that they were the most accurrate or the best finishers.

1. Bob Foster
2. Bob Fitzsimmons
3. Sam Langford
4. Archie Moore
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Marvin Johnson
7. Michael Spinks
8. Joe Choynski
9. Georges Carpentier
10. Michael Moorer

Honorable Mention - Gene Tunney, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Matthew Saad Muhammad, Dwight Qawi, Jose Torres.

I know there has to be someone that I'm overlooking.
What do you guys think?

1. Bob Fitzimmons
2. Sam Langford
3. Bob Satterfield- he should easily be on everones list
4. Ezzard Charles- his power is incredibly underated at 175, watch or study some of his fights pre-baroudi where he had his killer instinct and aggresion that led to his nickname cincinatti cobra. ask archie if charles had one punch KO power
5. Archie Moore
6. Bob Foster

ill rank those 6 right there, not sure about rest


here are some others havnt been mentioned


Tiger jack Fox
Ray Actis

Which early Ezzard Charles fights do you have?

my fault, i meant to say OPINION not "facts" like i said. its an honest mistake.


i have



charles vs bivins 1946

charles vs walcott II, III, IV 1951-52

Charles vs Louis 1950

Charles vs marciano I and II 1954

charles vs Valentino 1949

charles vs rex layne 1951

charles vs lee oma 1951

charles vs bob satterfield 1953

Charles vs Marshall II 1946

charles vs Rex Layne III 1953

Charles vs Bernie Reynolds 1952

Charles vs Walcott I 1949

theone wrote:

theone, why do u rate frazier so much higer than demsey, marciano??

dempsey had everything frazier had , plus a lot more.

Dempsey was hurt,dropped and once ko'd by alot lesser fighters than Frazier.
Old fireman Flynn ko'd him, skinny Carpentier staggered him, Brennan rocked him during their fight and Firpo dropped him twice. Frazier would have put him down and kept him down.

the flynn fight was a dive, read up on ur history bud.

skinny Carpentier staggered him

carpentier was one of the hardest punching light-H of all time and had knocked out other heavies. and dempsey was simply stunned for 1 split second, so dont give me that.

- manuel ramos stunned frazier pretty good in the 1st round if i recall


- dempsey carried carpentier because kearns told him too, demspey could have finished him earlier.





- dempsey had an off night and charged in wildly without skill which wasnt his usual self. and with that said, though firpo wasnt much of a fighter he was a VERY HARD HITTER and the fact that dempsey got up from taking his right hand flush shows a testament of his chin. dempsey also lifted 6'3 220lb luis firpo up in the air with one left hook.




bill brennan was a very good boxer puncher, but of course u probably hadvnt read anything about him so you think he sucks, but a good modern day comparison of brennan is slightly less version of jerry quarry.




once again watch demsey on tape, its clear he was the better skilled fighter than frazier.