BoxRec

LIGHTHEAVYWEIGHTS

Gene Tunney
Roy Jones Jr.
Ezzard Charles
Michael Moorer
Bob Foster
Joe Calzaghe
Michael Spinks
Archie Moore

You'll need some more names. Loughran, Conn, Johnson, Fitzsimmons. Calzaghe, Moorer & Jones probably should go.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:You'll need some more names. Loughran, Conn, Johnson, Fitzsimmons. Calzaghe, Moorer & Jones probably should go.

Easily expanded to a 16 man tournament...I would suggest that my eight survive the first round though.

Calzaghe & Moorer --- especially Calzaghe --- didn't/haven't prove(n) themselves suitably at LHW for your tournament, IMO (& I'm a big fan of the LHW Moorer). Jones, hard to say, he was there a long time & dominated, but his opposition was sickly through large parts of his reign.

That said, it is your tournament, so who wins each match, & who takes the chocolates at the end?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Calzaghe & Moorer --- especially Calzaghe --- didn't/haven't prove(n) themselves suitably at LHW for your tournament, IMO (& I'm a big fan of the LHW Moorer). Jones, hard to say, he was there a long time & dominated, but his opposition was sickly through large parts of his reign.

That said, it is your tournament, so who wins each match, & who takes the chocolates at the end?

I don't think that I can play it out yet.....waiting to see others input.

Qawi should be one of the 16, and he did prove himself against good competition at lightheavyweight. You also have guys like O'Brien, Rosenbloom,Lewis,Mustapha Muhammad,Galindez to consider. Greb, Burns, and Langford aren't thought of as lightheayweights but all would very tough to beat at 175 or less.

If you are just going with 8, Spinks,Charles,Foster,Moore,and Tunney for sure; then probably Johnson, Loughran and either Conn or Jones.

Greb should really be in the tournament. Langford is a tricky one but he could fight at this weight.

I like Qawi because he brings an interesting style...

Loughran should be there... How about Fitzsimmons?

Just because Calzaghe has won merely 2 fights at this weight should NOT qaulify him into an ALL-TIME tournament...

Yes, the victories were against great names... But both great names have lost their power at the time of the fights...

Calzaghe shouldn't be here...

Howabout Harold Johnson?
Tommy Loughran?
Joey Maxim?
John Henry Lewis?
Jimmy Bivins?

Calzaghe beat two of the all time greats in light heavyweight bouts, Hopkins and Jones. I would say that he qualifies.

Greb wasn't a light heavyweight

Fizsimmons for sure because of his accomplishments.
Harold Johnson, Tommy Loughran, Billy Conn, Victor Galindez, Jose Torres perhaps Henry Maske and even Virgil Hill then. But could these added names beat any on my top eight list? If not why expand to a 16 man tournament?

Remember that there has to be a line somewhere.

Gene Tunney
Roy Jones Jr.
Ezzard Charles
Michael Moorer
Bob Foster
Joe Calzaghe
Michael Spinks
Archie Moore

There has to be a line somewhere, but Calzaghe is a ridiculous call, IMO. Initially, Bivins, Johnson, Loughran, Conn, Fitzsimmons, & other legitimate luminaries of the division couldn't make your cut, but Calzaghe does?

I just don't understand your logic. If the idea is to use the best LHW's ever, there's plenty of study to be done if you list omits those & other fighters, but accomodates Calzaghe (he hasn't done a thing at this weight, in realistic terms), Moorer (too green when he left the division), & Jones (arguably, but no way if you're going to leave off the names you did).

Goodnight, Irene wrote:There has to be a line somewhere, but Calzaghe is a ridiculous call, IMO. Initially, Bivins, Johnson, Loughran, Conn, Fitzsimmons, & other legitimate luminaries of the division couldn't make your cut, but Calzaghe does?

I just don't understand your logic. If the idea is to use the best LHW's ever, there's plenty of study to be done if you list omits those & other fighters, but accomodates Calzaghe (he hasn't done a thing at this weight, in realistic terms), Moorer (too green when he left the division), & Jones (arguably, but no way if you're going to leave off the names you did).

I don't want to argue Calzaghe but he is undefeated and beat three GREAT fighters (with a combined record of 142-11) in his last four outings. Also consider that the Super-middleweight division was once considered Lightheavyweight.

Well, again, it's your tournament. Who wins what?

Calzaghe has only had 2 fights at 175.

I'm not sure Hopkins qualifies as an ATG at 175 either.

Greb fought and beat better competition in this division.

Looking forward to seeing the matchups.

Calzaghe out.

Qawi in.

1. Jones Jr.
2. Charles
3. Tunney
4. Spinks
5. Moore
6. Foster
7. Moorer
8. Calzaghe

Jones would get murdered by Foster, Charles, Moore etc. Calzaghe would get hammered by a prime Jones never mind the other guys, he shouldnt get anywhere near the top 8

dr_devious wrote:Jones would get murdered by Foster, Charles, Moore etc. Calzaghe would get hammered by a prime Jones never mind the other guys, he shouldnt get anywhere near the top 8

Pretty much how I see it.

dajuggernaut wrote:1. Jones Jr.
2. Charles
3. Tunney
4. Spinks
5. Moore
6. Foster
7. Moorer
8. Calzaghe

Good seeding choices (except RJJ and Calzaghe just fought and is too fresh so an adjustment should be made).
1 Jones vs 7. Moorer
2. Charles vs 8. Calzaghe
3. Tunney vs 6. Foster
4. Spinks vs 5. Moore

IMO, & without a detailed analysis...

Moorer over Jones (Tough to call, could always change my mind)
Charles over Calzaghe
Tunney over Foster
Moore over Spinks

Goodnight, Irene wrote:IMO, & without a detailed analysis...

Moorer over Jones (Tough to call, could always change my mind)
Charles over Calzaghe
Tunney over Foster
Moore over Spinks

It is doing well except that I have always had a hard time with Archie Moore. For example during what should have been his prime years as a light heavy over a three year period (1945-48) he fought 22 times winning 15, losing 5 and drawing 2. Does that sound like an elite boxer in his prime? I understand an off night but there were seven off nights in a three year period. I will have to go with Spinks.
Moorer was a killer at light heavyweight and could possibly have knocked out Jones especially from a southpaw stance.
I agree with Tunney and Charles' wins.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:IMO, & without a detailed analysis...

Moorer over Jones (Tough to call, could always change my mind)
Charles over Calzaghe
Tunney over Foster
Moore over Spinks

I agree with all these picks. Jones could beat Moorer but Moorer had the power to finish it and I believe he would.

actjac, you can't judge boxers on the stats. Moore would have cleaned up all of the unblemished recors of today.

Ezzard wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:IMO, & without a detailed analysis...

Moorer over Jones (Tough to call, could always change my mind)
Charles over Calzaghe
Tunney over Foster
Moore over Spinks

I agree with all these picks. Jones could beat Moorer but Moorer had the power to finish it and I believe he would.

actjac, you can't judge boxers on the stats. Moore would have cleaned up all of the unblemished records of today.

I agree that Moore was a great and exciting boxer but I judge him on several factors.
1. His many losses
2. His knockdowns. He was dropped numerous times by puches that a greater fighter may have slipped or defended and without his amazing recupartive strengths he would have been stopped. In fact using todays referees many of his eventual wins would have been stopped with him on the short end.
3. He would go on fairly long winning streaks but a great percentage of those wins came against fighters with margainal records.
4. He was beaten by Ezzard Charles three times and never figured out how to beat him. In most trilogies one fighter will either have beaten or at least held the other to a draw. Charles too was great as a light heavy but was not unbeatable.

actjac wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:IMO, & without a detailed analysis...

Moorer over Jones (Tough to call, could always change my mind)
Charles over Calzaghe
Tunney over Foster
Moore over Spinks

I agree with all these picks. Jones could beat Moorer but Moorer had the power to finish it and I believe he would.

actjac, you can't judge boxers on the stats. Moore would have cleaned up all of the unblemished records of today.

I agree that Moore was a great and exciting boxer but I judge him on several factors.
1. His many losses
2. His knockdowns. He was dropped numerous times by puches that a greater fighter may have slipped or defended and without his amazing recupartive strengths he would have been stopped. In fact using todays referees many of his eventual wins would have been stopped with him on the short end.
3. He would go on fairly long winning streaks but a great percentage of those wins came against fighters with margainal records.
4. He was beaten by Ezzard Charles three times and never figured out how to beat him. In most trilogies one fighter will either have beaten or at least held the other to a draw. Charles too was great as a light heavy but was not unbeatable.

Nobody is unbeatable.

Moore and Charles beat more top Light Heavyweights than anyone else. IMO that is the the most pertinent statistic.

Boxbuzz will tell you that Moore improved in each performance and looked to be on theverge of winning number 3

You simply cannot judge fighters from previous eras on the format which is popular today (prudent match-making, a near-obsessive fixation on keeping the, '0,' taking long stretches between bouts, etc.)

That doesn't lead to an accurate picture of the pugilstic past.

actjac wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:IMO, & without a detailed analysis...

Moorer over Jones (Tough to call, could always change my mind)
Charles over Calzaghe
Tunney over Foster
Moore over Spinks

It is doing well except that I have always had a hard time with Archie Moore. For example during what should have been his prime years as a light heavy over a three year period (1945-48) he fought 22 times winning 15, losing 5 and drawing 2. Does that sound like an elite boxer in his prime? I understand an off night but there were seven off nights in a three year period. I will have to go with Spinks.
Moorer was a killer at light heavyweight and could possibly have knocked out Jones especially from a southpaw stance.
I agree with Tunney and Charles' wins.

Boxing isn't a stat sport. Look who Moore was losing to and also how often he was fighting . . 3 of those 5 losses were to possibly the best light HW of all time in Ezzard Charles, you also see Holman Williams, Jimmy Bivins. Even the Morrow loss . . .he had fought less than a month before vs the very tough Oakland Billy Smith and 20 days AFTER would fight and defeat a streaking Bivins. Remarkable stuff.

Put Moore in with the scrubs Calzaghe, Roy, and Moorer made title defenses with and his record is unblemished as well.

Moore vs the likes of Richard Hall, Glen Kelly, and Will McIntyre . . .they would be bloodbaths.