Page 1 of 6
my top 10 light-H of all time
Posted: 17 Apr 2006, 12:23
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
Re: my top 10 light-H of all time
Posted: 17 Apr 2006, 13:07
by pundit
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:...
Foster, Conn above Tunney?
You really don't like that guy.
Re: my top 10 light-H of all time
Posted: 17 Apr 2006, 13:14
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
pundit wrote:BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:...
Foster, Conn above Tunney?
You really don't like that guy.
u overate gene much like u underate marciano, dempsey, charles, and walcott
Posted: 17 Apr 2006, 14:16
by BoxBuzz
I like both lists, I think I know where your coming from in each case though I do not ultimately agree as you know. I think the best pure LH was Archie.
Not sure Johnson is given enough credit in either list either. But mine are subtle differences otherwise I think both lists have been given fair thought.
Could you guide me to some vids on Langford? any exist? or easily accessable?
Posted: 17 Apr 2006, 14:19
by theone
I'm nit-picky with the rest of your list, but I totally agree with your top ten Decagon. The fighters and the order they are in match my top ten.
Posted: 17 Apr 2006, 14:39
by theone
Really? Imagine the odds of that.
Not unusual really. In fact you and Ambling Amp are the two posters I usually agree with more than any others.
Posted: 17 Apr 2006, 14:40
by theone
Oh wait a minute..you were being sarcastic werent you?
Posted: 17 Apr 2006, 14:44
by pundit
theone wrote:I'm nit-picky with the rest of your list, but I totally agree with your top ten Decagon. The fighters and the order they are in match my top ten.
I also like that list. I'd have Langford, Greb (if he's considered to be a l-h) a bit higher, Spinks a bit lower, but everyone who matters is up there.
P
Posted: 17 Apr 2006, 20:09
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
26. Harold Johnson
o goodness
26? u must be dicking me
Posted: 17 Apr 2006, 20:18
by generic screen name
Nice list and pics, but do you think that Spinks loses some of his legacy cuz of his loss to Tyson?
Posted: 18 Apr 2006, 00:05
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
The Tyson loss was when he was waaaaay past it,
way past it? just 2 years ago he beat larry holmes. he was only 30 years old and had never lost before.
Posted: 18 Apr 2006, 00:26
by HomicideHenry
My List of the Top Ten (judging their over-all careers):
1.) Sam Langford- Beat every worth while fighter 145-Heavyweight, could have been champion of any weight in between if he wasn't denied title shots and/or lived in any other era.
2.) Ezzard Charles-Greatest Light Heavy denied title shot, took Heavyweight crown.
3.) Archie Moore- Beat plenty great middleweights, was denied shot at title, went to 175 was champion well into his 40's, faced off for Heavyweight crown twice.
4.) Billy Conn- One of the best Middlweights of his time, went to Light Heavyweight and became champion, went to Heavyweight and beat several leading contenders and faced for Heavyweight title twice.
5.) Michael Spinks- Olympic great turn Light Heavyweight destroyer, unified titles, moved to Heavyweight and became champion.
6.) Bob Foster- Defended his title a record number of times, was one of the hardest hitting Light Heavyweights, moved up to Heavyweight but failed to become a star player at the weight.
7.) Gene Tunney- Fought the best Middlweights and Light Heavyweights of his time, never won the Light Heavyweight title but won the American version over Harry Greb, became a Heavyweight champion with his 10-round decision over Jack Dempsey who hadn't fought in 3yrs. Drawing the color line hurts his ranking, in my opinion.
8.) Tommy Loughran- Beat the best Light Heavyweight and Heavyweight fighters of his time, was champion at Light Heavyweight and tried to win the Heavyweight crown but failed, though many of his much larger opponents said Laughran was a technical wizard.
9.) Philadelphia Jack O'Brien- Won the Light-Heavyweight from Triple-Crown champion Bob Fitzsimmons, and tried to win both the Middlweight and Heavyweight crowns several times, and was screwed in his shot against Jack Johnson. He defeated all the big names of his time, or at least met them in the ring...the majority of his losses were all to Hall of Famers and at larger weights.
10.) Joey Maxim- Fought offan on throughout his career for the Heavyweight crown, even though he was an established Light Heavyweight champion and beat some of the greatest fighters of the 20th century, but that eluded him, as the only man to beat him at both Light Heavyweight and at Heavyweight (Ezzard Charles) took the show in his lone title shot at Heavyweight.
Posted: 18 Apr 2006, 00:30
by HomicideHenry
Quote:
The Tyson loss was when he was waaaaay past it,
way past it? just 2 years ago he beat larry holmes. he was only 30 years old and had never lost before.
There is a major difference between being way passed his prime and being scared. He all but pissed his pants when he faced Tyson and didnt even try one iota. He even contemplated making a comeback at Cruiserweight, but didn't do so.
re
Posted: 18 Apr 2006, 03:34
by barry
I like your top ten, but Antonio Tarver 34???? Where is George Gardner, Jack Delaney, or Paul Berlenbach?
Posted: 18 Apr 2006, 04:53
by dr_devious
Decagon wrote:My top 40:
1. Ezzard Charles
2. Michael Spinks
3. Archie Moore
4. Gene Tunney
5. Bob Foster
6. Harry Greb
7. Sam Langford
8. Billy Conn
9. Tommy Loughran
10. Roy Jones
11. Tommy Gibbons
12. Jimmy Bivins
13. Tommy Burnzs
14. Joey Maxim
15. Maxie Rosenbloom
16. Eddie Muhammad
17. Battling Levinsky
18. John Henry Lewis
19. Lloyd Marshall
20. Jack Dillon
21. Gus Lesvenich
22. Tiger Jack Fox
23. Matthew Saad Muhammad
24. Bob Fitzsimmons
25. Dwight Muhammad Qawi
26. Harold Johnson
27. Georges Carpentier
28. Virgil Hill
29. Jack Root
30. Michael Moorer
31. Victor Galindez
32. Jose Torres
33. John Coteh
34. Antonio Tarver
35. Dariusz Michalschewski
36. Tommy Hearns
37. Philadelphia Jack O’Brien
38. Sugar Ray Leonard
39. Marvin Johnson
40. Jim Braddock
How the hell does Sugar Ray Leonard get into the top 40 when he never fought at light heavyweight? His WBC crown came in a 168lb fight vs Donny Lalonde where he took both the SM and LH "titles".
Posted: 18 Apr 2006, 06:46
by silkov
What about Berlanbarch, Delaney and Jimmy Slattery???.... Dillon should be rated much higher too...
Posted: 18 Apr 2006, 08:26
by theone
Nice list and pics, but do you think that Spinks loses some of his legacy cuz of his loss to Tyson?
Absolutely not. No lightheavy in history would have fared any better against Tyson that night.
Posted: 18 Apr 2006, 10:59
by dr_devious
Decagon wrote:I don't rank the junior/super divisions, so some of the better super middleweights make it into my light heayweight rankings. Let's be serious here. The super middleweight version of Leonard against Antonio Tarver? I'd take Leonard.
I disagree, I think Tarver would beat Leonard by stoppage. Other than beating journeyman Donny Lalonde, who knocked Leonard down, and the shell of Roberto Duran, I dont see Leonard having a decisive victory outside the light middleweight division. Leonard's only worthwhile, decisive victory therefore outside the welterweight division is against Ayub Kalule in 1981, all the other fights were against journeyman (e.g. Lalonde, Kevin Howard), ghosts (the Duran of 1989), gifted decisions
(Hagler, Hearns II), or calamitous defeats (e.g. Terry Norris, Hector Camacho). How does this qualify Leonard to be in the top 40 light heavies or make him a favourite against Tarver?
A good case could be made out for the other Sugar Ray to be in the top 40 light heavies, as I could imagine him moving and beating a lot of the guys on this list, but not Leonard who never even fought in the division
Posted: 18 Apr 2006, 12:53
by stick_n_move
no maxie rosenbloom?
well its your list but i find it to be more of a list of your favorites rather than basing on career accomplishments.
i also find it silly to say that harold johnsons "peak" was 1954. he only fought 6 times with wins over jimmy slade paul andrews and charley williams. he was kod in the 2nd round by a nearly shot oakland billy smith. and was out on his feet after 14 rounds of hell with the ol mongoose. these are not "peak" performances.
it seems to me after looking into this a bit more johnsons "peak" is hard to nail down but its clear that he met with more top level success between 1957 and 1963.
Posted: 18 Apr 2006, 16:07
by dr_devious
Decagon wrote:Leonard beat Hagler.
Thats a matter of opinion and the subject of countless other threads. Even if he did "win", Hagler wasnt a light heavyweight, nor at his peak
Posted: 19 Apr 2006, 01:31
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
i also find it silly to say that harold johnsons "peak" was 1954. he only fought 6 times with wins over jimmy slade paul andrews and charley williams. he was kod in the 2nd round by a nearly shot oakland billy smith. and was out on his feet after 14 rounds of hell with the ol mongoose. these are not "peak" performances.
it seems to me after looking into this a bit more johnsons "peak" is hard to nail down but its clear that he met with more top level success between 1957 and 1963.
watch the film,
harold johnson looked better in the early-mid 1950s than he did later on. harold johnsons best years were when he was battling with archie moore, only problem is he had to deal with archie moore.
check his record,johnson's best wins were in the early-mid 1950s
harold johnson in the 1954 archie moore title fight, THAT WAS HIS PEAK. he was 25 years old and he looked incredible on film in this fight. much faster and more fluent than his later years.
johnson was far past his prime by the early 1960s, the fact johnson did so well even then goes to show u how good harold johnson is.
without archie moore, johnson dominates the 1950s
and was out on his feet after 14 rounds of hell with the ol mongoose. these are not "peak" performances.
this WAS a peak preformance. johnson knocked down moore in the 10th and the fight was even on the scorecards slightly favoring johnson till archie knocked him out. the fact johnson was knocked out was a testament to moores greatness. johnson showed how good he was in this fight
Posted: 19 Apr 2006, 04:21
by dr_devious
Decagon wrote:Then why did you bring it up?
I was explaining why Leonard isnt a top 40 light heavy. Other than that I pretty much agree with your list, although I'd put Langford at number 1
Posted: 19 Apr 2006, 08:13
by stick_n_move
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
watch the film,
harold johnson looked better in the early-mid 1950s than he did later on. harold johnsons best years were when he was battling with archie moore, only problem is he had to deal with archie moore.
it doesnt matter if you
say he looks good on fiml. what matters is his results. there is no way his peak was in a yeaar when he was practically inactive. study his record closer before you post this nonsense.
check his record,johnson's best wins were in the early-mid 1950s
his best wins in this period were
ezzard charles - who was fornicating shot
archie moore - who destroyed him in subsequent bouts
bob satterfield - a chinny and limited slugger
jimmy slade - a hot and cold fighter with average boxing skills
nino valdes - who was a temporary top ten fighter
after 1954 his best wins were
bert whitehurst - twice
bob satterfield - again
wayne bethea
eddie machen
eddie cotton
doug jones
and if you want to get ignorant ill point out to you that after his loss to billy smith in 1954 he suffred not one loss until 1963 when he held hall of famer willie pastrano to a 15 round split decision.
this PROVES that his peak was between 1956 to late 1962. fact.
harold johnson in the 1954 archie moore title fight, THAT WAS HIS PEAK. he was 25 years old and he looked incredible on film in this fight. much faster and more fluent than his later years.
well this is your childish opinion and i cant be bothered to debate it with you since you dont know what your taliking about.
johnson was far past his prime by the early 1960s, the fact johnson did so well even then goes to show u how good harold johnson is.
well until you can prove it with factual evidence i think your just making things up. ive already proven to you that johnson defeated more top ranked light heavies after 1954.
without archie moore, johnson dominates the 1950s
right. if you say so. wheres the proof.
this WAS a peak preformance. johnson knocked down moore in the 10th and the fight was even on the scorecards slightly favoring johnson till archie knocked him out. the fact johnson was knocked out was a testament to moores greatness. johnson showed how good he was in this fight
bull shit. the scorecards were even before the ko. you know you seem to spout ko losses as "peak" performances all the time. but its obvious that you only do that in order to further a paper thin agenda.
well youve offereed no facts for me to debate except your usual "he looked good when he lost to my favorite fighter so he was in his prime" like always.
Posted: 19 Apr 2006, 09:13
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
ur ridiculous, ill respond to this whole thing later.
hey boxrec this idiot thinks harold johnsons prime was in his 30s, rather than his mid twenties.
johnsons best wins came pre 1955 that is a fact. clarence henry, valdes, jimmy bivins, archie moore, ezzard charles are better wins than jones, machen, bethea.
yet this fool thinks johnsons prime was post 1955
Posted: 19 Apr 2006, 10:47
by stick_n_move
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:ur ridiculous, ill respond to this whole thing later.
hey boxrec this idiot thinks harold johnsons prime was in his 30s, rather than his mid twenties.
oh thats real mature. "hey guys this guy is an idiot because i cant debate him because i dont know what the fornicate im talking about."
johnsons best wins came pre 1955 that is a fact. clarence henry, valdes, jimmy bivins, archie moore, ezzard charles are better wins than jones, machen, bethea.
a win over a shot ezzard charles and a shot clarence henry are great wins?? beating archie moore once out of 5 fights means shit because he couldnt turn the trick again in 4 attempts. his win over valdes means very little because vaaldes wasnt even a top contender. jimmy bivins is the only credible victory he has during this period.
you need to understand that a good win here or there means all of shit. he was consistently fighting and
defeating top fighters after 1955.
how old are you junior? 5?
you can do better than this cant you?
