BoxRec

Here's my list:

1. Ezzard Charles - Even though he never held the title, he beat Moore, Maxim, and Bivens x3 each. He whupped Burley x2.
2. Archie Moore - Held the title for a decade, still Charles had his number.
3. Billy Conn - Fantastic boxer/puncher.
4. Michael Spinks - Powerful punch, beat Muhmmad and Braxton.
5. Bob Foster - Undisputed for a long time, fantastic puncher.
6. Gene Tunney - Beat Greb.
7. Tommy Loughran - The Phantom beat Baer and Braddock at this weight.
8. John Henry Lewis - Part of the exclusive 50+ KO's club.
9. Roy Jones Jr - Dominant for nearly a decade against solid but not great competition.
10. Joey Maxim - If he had a bigger punch he would be higher on the list.

I don't even know how long Sam Langford stayed around at Light Heavyweight. Most of what I know of Langford's accomplishments come from his defense of the "World Colored Heavyweight Championship" in which he fought many many many bums.

As for Greb, it was close, I'll give you that, he's around my top 10 but I had to make a stand on him and Maxim. Maxim had the better Light Heavyweight career IMHO.

What does your top 10 look like?

1. Archie Moore- even though Charles got the better of him in their '40s fights(when Moore was actually still pretty clearly before his peak, while Charles was at his), the 3-0 stat is misleading, as their second fight was a close/disputed decision and Moore by most all accounts nearly had Charles out in their third fight before losing by hail-Mary punch, and I think Moore's unbelieveable longevity and the width and breadth of his accomplishments outweigh Charles' impressive-but-brief run through the light heavyweight ranks. Moore has an incredibly high-quality and deep resume, longevity unrivaled in the history of the sport, and was undefeated at light heavyweight for the last 12 years of his career.

2. Ezzard Charles- absolutely phenomenal at his peak, brilliant resume with wins over Moore, Maxim, Lesnevich, Bivins, etc. multiple times each, flagrantly robbed of a title shot.

3. Michael Spinks- undefeated as a light heavyweight, cleaned out a solid division in very dominant fashion.

4. Bob Foster- one of the biggest punchers of all time at light heavyweight, very long and impressive title reign, didn't lose at light heavyweight until the tail end of his career.

After this, I have trouble saying, because the light heavyweight division has an odd history, often being used as a transition weight rather than a fighter's main division. That is, guys like Langford, Greb, Tunney and Patterson all fought and had success at light heavyweight, but never won the light heavyweight title or really made the light heavyweight division their home, so do they rank at light heavyweight or not?

Marciano Frazier wrote:1. Archie Moore- even though Charles got the better of him in their '40s fights(when Moore was actually still pretty clearly before his peak, while Charles was at his), the 3-0 stat is misleading, as their second fight was a close/disputed decision and Moore by most all accounts nearly had Charles out in their third fight before losing by hail-Mary punch, and I think Moore's unbelieveable longevity and the width and breadth of his accomplishments outweigh Charles' impressive-but-brief run through the light heavyweight ranks. Moore has an incredibly high-quality and deep resume, longevity unrivaled in the history of the sport, and was undefeated at light heavyweight for the last 12 years of his career.

2. Ezzard Charles- absolutely phenomenal at his peak, brilliant resume with wins over Moore, Maxim, Lesnevich, Bivins, etc. multiple times each, flagrantly robbed of a title shot.

3. Michael Spinks- undefeated as a light heavyweight, cleaned out a solid division in very dominant fashion.

4. Bob Foster- one of the biggest punchers of all time at light heavyweight, very long and impressive title reign, didn't lose at light heavyweight until the tail end of his career.

After this, I have trouble saying, because the light heavyweight division has an odd history, often being used as a transition weight rather than a fighter's main division. That is, guys like Langford, Greb, Tunney and Patterson all fought and had success at light heavyweight, but never won the light heavyweight title or really made the light heavyweight division their home, so do they rank at light heavyweight or not?

I am hesitant to rank Langford simply because he did most of his work at different divisions. Same with Greb who was fantastic at the weight, and Tunney, but Tunney actually beat Greb when they were light heavyweights so I included Tunney but not Greb.

I simply prefer that Tunney, Patterson and Ezz not be placed in this discussion. Those who have won the HW crown just don't seem to belong. But not having Greb in the top ten seems very odd.

Decagon wrote:The two were about even in their four bouts at 175; many would argue that Greb got the better of Tunney.

Now who is being ridiculous. Tunney had Greb's number.

Tunney is 3-1 or 4-1 against Greb.

Greb was a better middleweight than he was a light heavyweight. Tunney deserves to be in the top 10, and Greb doesn't. It's not that hard to understand.

Decagon wrote:

Alabama_Man wrote:

Decagon wrote:The two were about even in their four bouts at 175; many would argue that Greb got the better of Tunney.

Now who is being ridiculous. Tunney had Greb's number.

Tunney is 3-1 or 4-1 against Greb.

The only person who seriously thinks that Tunney went 4-1 with Greb is Tunney. Let's look at the newspaper reports of their four fights at 175:

• 5/23/22: One-sided decision win for Greb. Tunney badly hurt.
• 2/23/23: Controversial decision win for Tunney. Greb was repeatedly - and many say unfairly - penalized by the referee. Most of the rounds Tunney won, he won on fouls. Many argue that Greb clearly won this fight. Most agree that he did the most damage.
• 12/20/23: Clear decision for Tunney.
• 9/24/24: Conflicting reports; officially a no-decision. For years, many people pointed to this being a clear win for Greb.

Alabama_Man wrote:Greb was a better middleweight than he was a light heavyweight. Tunney deserves to be in the top 10, and Greb doesn't. It's not that hard to understand.

Greb had more top fights at light heavyweight than at middleweight. His best wins all took place above 160. You simply don't know the era well.

Those look like they were taken straight out of the Boxrec record finder. You remind me of this guy named Rubio HIV. He didn't know much about boxing either.

Why shouldn't Charles be on here boxbuzz? Do you really have to win a title to be the best at a weight class? They wouldn't give him a title shot for the same reason it took so long for Moore to get one... cause he was a good, black fighter. As alabama said, he beat future Light Heavyweight champion Archie Moore, who is also arguably the best ever at Light Heavyweight. He beat Maxim several times while Maxim was Light Heavyweight champion. He beat Marshall. He beat Burley twice at Middleweight. He beat Bivins a Light Heavyweight champion. In a Heavyweight title bout he beat Lesnevich who was also a Light Heavyweight champion. He lost controversially to future Light Heavyweight champion Harold Johnson in Johnson's hometown. I don't know if he's the best Light Heavyweight of all time or not, but I think he can be in here.

I think Charles doesn't get enough credit at times because people tend to forget he started out at Middleweight and Light Heavyweight, hence if he had an uneven career at Heavyweight I think that has to be taken into acount. Look how much credit Michael Spinks got for just winning the Heavyweight title because he was a Light Heavyweight. Charles was a lot more successful at Heavyweight than Spinks.

I do wonder how a more mature Moore would have done with Charles. Lets say from 51-54. I wish there was film of their actual fights.

Decagon wrote:Most of the fight finder stuff came from this website:

http://www.harrygreb.com/homepagewithframeset.html

You can read the original articles there, along with round-by-round descriptions of a couple of the fights.

Now explain why you rank Joey Maxim over Harry Greb.

Quit stalking me.

Joey Maxim had a better career at light heavyweight against better competition. Do you think the judges robbed Greb 4 times? Quit bitching. It's not like you were there at the fights.

I Feel Fine wrote:Why shouldn't Charles be on here boxbuzz? Do you really have to win a title to be the best at a weight class? They wouldn't give him a title shot for the same reason it took so long for Moore to get one... cause he was a good, black fighter. As alabama said, he beat future Light Heavyweight champion Archie Moore, who is also arguably the best ever at Light Heavyweight. He beat Maxim several times while Maxim was Light Heavyweight champion. He beat Marshall. He beat Burley twice at Middleweight. He beat Bivins a Light Heavyweight champion. In a Heavyweight title bout he beat Lesnevich who was also a Light Heavyweight champion. He lost controversially to future Light Heavyweight champion Harold Johnson in Johnson's hometown. I don't know if he's the best Light Heavyweight of all time or not, but I think he can be in here.

I think Charles doesn't get enough credit at times because people tend to forget he started out at Middleweight and Light Heavyweight, hence if he had an uneven career at Heavyweight I think that has to be taken into acount. Look how much credit Michael Spinks got for just winning the Heavyweight title because he was a Light Heavyweight. Charles was a lot more successful at Heavyweight than Spinks.

I do wonder how a more mature Moore would have done with Charles. Lets say from 51-54. I wish there was film of their actual fights.

Dude you know your stuff. I give you props.

Alabama_Man wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:Why shouldn't Charles be on here boxbuzz? Do you really have to win a title to be the best at a weight class? They wouldn't give him a title shot for the same reason it took so long for Moore to get one... cause he was a good, black fighter. As alabama said, he beat future Light Heavyweight champion Archie Moore, who is also arguably the best ever at Light Heavyweight. He beat Maxim several times while Maxim was Light Heavyweight champion. He beat Marshall. He beat Burley twice at Middleweight. He beat Bivins a Light Heavyweight champion. In a Heavyweight title bout he beat Lesnevich who was also a Light Heavyweight champion. He lost controversially to future Light Heavyweight champion Harold Johnson in Johnson's hometown. I don't know if he's the best Light Heavyweight of all time or not, but I think he can be in here.

I think Charles doesn't get enough credit at times because people tend to forget he started out at Middleweight and Light Heavyweight, hence if he had an uneven career at Heavyweight I think that has to be taken into acount. Look how much credit Michael Spinks got for just winning the Heavyweight title because he was a Light Heavyweight. Charles was a lot more successful at Heavyweight than Spinks.

I do wonder how a more mature Moore would have done with Charles. Lets say from 51-54. I wish there was film of their actual fights.

Dude you know your stuff. I give you props.

His career was stellar...and he won the HW crown...like I say I'd take Tunny and Patterson out of discussion as well. Simply because they became the best at an even higher weight class. But for the purpose of debate, anything goes.

But does it matter that they were also ranked highly at a higher weight class? Look at Robinson, he's ranked as the best Welterweight ever, but he's also ranked as one of the top 5 best Middleweights. Same with Chavez at 130-135-140. Same with Holyfield at 190 and at Heavyweight. A lot of people would rank Archie Moore as a top 20 all time Heavyweight, as well as a top 2-3 Light Heavyweight.

I don't think Patterson did enough at Light Heavyweight, though he could have been a great Light Heavyweight, but I think Charles, and Tunney, should be in the discussion. JMO.

Where does Rosenbloom fit in in peoples lists?

Decagon wrote:

~ MIKEE ~ wrote:Where does Rosenbloom fit in in peoples lists?

He's in my top 20. Max Kellerman once ranked him #7.

just curious, as he never seemed to hold the title for long, but fought for it several times, and had a lot of solid-for-the-era names to his credit

Alabama_Man wrote:Here's my list:

1. Ezzard Charles - Even though he never held the title, he beat Moore, Maxim, and Bivens x3 each. He whupped Burley x2.
2. Archie Moore - Held the title for a decade, still Charles had his number.
3. Billy Conn - Fantastic boxer/puncher.
4. Michael Spinks - Powerful punch, beat Muhmmad and Braxton.
5. Bob Foster - Undisputed for a long time, fantastic puncher.
6. Gene Tunney - Beat Greb.
7. Tommy Loughran - The Phantom beat Baer and Braddock at this weight.
8. John Henry Lewis - Part of the exclusive 50+ KO's club.
9. Roy Jones Jr - Dominant for nearly a decade against solid but not great competition.
10. Joey Maxim - If he had a bigger punch he would be higher on the list.

maxim should not be in the top 10. wheres harold johnson?

there is no way to rank joey maxim above harold johnson.


harold johnson beat far better competition, was much more consistent, and on film was the far more talented boxer than maxim


i rank harold in my top 5 175lbers of all time

Decagon wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:Why shouldn't Charles be on here boxbuzz? Do you really have to win a title to be the best at a weight class? They wouldn't give him a title shot for the same reason it took so long for Moore to get one... cause he was a good, black fighter.

Actually, he couldn't get a shot at 175 because the title was frozen from 1941 to 1946. In 1947, Mills defended against Billy Fox, who - unfortunately - was ranked ahead of Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore because of his 36 straight knockout wins. In 1948, Charles moved up to heavyweight, and in 1949, he fought for the NBA World Heavyweight Championship.

That's interesting. I'd read that it was due to racism. I guess that's not true then, as Fox was black. I think you mean Fox fought Lesnevich though, since I don't see any fights with Mills on Fox's record.

I'd always heard that Moore didn't get a shot for so long partly due to racism, along with him being a dangerous fighter, is that not true?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Alabama_Man wrote:Here's my list:

1. Ezzard Charles - Even though he never held the title, he beat Moore, Maxim, and Bivens x3 each. He whupped Burley x2.
2. Archie Moore - Held the title for a decade, still Charles had his number.
3. Billy Conn - Fantastic boxer/puncher.
4. Michael Spinks - Powerful punch, beat Muhmmad and Braxton.
5. Bob Foster - Undisputed for a long time, fantastic puncher.
6. Gene Tunney - Beat Greb.
7. Tommy Loughran - The Phantom beat Baer and Braddock at this weight.
8. John Henry Lewis - Part of the exclusive 50+ KO's club.
9. Roy Jones Jr - Dominant for nearly a decade against solid but not great competition.
10. Joey Maxim - If he had a bigger punch he would be higher on the list.

maxim should not be in the top 10. wheres harold johnson?

I actually considered Harold Johnson instead of Maxim. But it's my opinion that Johnson is kind of overrated because of his rivalry and association with Archie Moore. Moore really kicked his ass good even though some of their fights were really exciting. But if you feel Harold Johnson should be above Maxim, I have no problem with it.

And if we want to get REALLY technical, there's actually more of an argument for Willie Pastrano over Johnson or Maxim. Willie beat them both and went neck and neck with Moore (draw).

Well he got a draw with a very old Moore, and most people felt Johnson beat him. Then Torres KO'd him.

True, but controversy or not he has a win over two guys being discussed in here as potential top 10 fighters in the weight class. An old Moore was still dangerous as well.

I stand by my Maxim at 10 pick. Sure a few other people could fit in there, but Maxim at least had victories over Bivins, Patterson, Ray Robinson, and went neck and neck with Ezzard Charles who is #1 on my list. But #10-#15 on my list can be shuffled around very easily.

Decagon wrote:

Alabama_Man wrote:Joey Maxim had a better career at light heavyweight against better competition. Do you think the judges robbed Greb 4 times? Quit bitching. It's not like you were there at the fights.

There were only judges in three or their five matches; Tunney won two, Greb won one, and there were two no-decisions.

You're just wrong and stupid.

Tunney had 3 wins, 1 loss, and 1 draw againt Greb. Tunney was just better. He almost killed Greb.

Stop stalking me.

Alabama_Man wrote:True, but controversy or not he has a win over two guys being discussed in here as potential top 10 fighters in the weight class. An old Moore was still dangerous as well.

I stand by my Maxim at 10 pick. Sure a few other people could fit in there, but Maxim at least had victories over Bivins, Patterson, Ray Robinson, and went neck and neck with Ezzard Charles who is #1 on my list. But #10-#15 on my list can be shuffled around very easily.

Obviously Moore was successful even when he was considered old, but we're talking about an extremely old Moore who was just a few fights away from retirement. Moore in earlier years would beat Pastrano.

Alabama_Man wrote:And if we want to get REALLY technical, there's actually more of an argument for Willie Pastrano over Johnson or Maxim. Willie beat them both and went neck and neck with Moore (draw).

Not at all. Johnson, Maxim and Moore were all over the hill and at the absolute tail ends of their careers when Pastrano fought them, and he still only managed a draw with Moore and a "win" most observers thought he lost against Johnson.

Decagon wrote:Alabama Man doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just here to see me.

I honestly don't know who you are, you've been stalking me since I got here.

Tunney > Greb