Who are the two or three definitve choices for #1 at LHW?

[McGrain]

I'm talking about the Ali/Louis types who show clear water between themselves and the pack

Try to keep your choices to one or two if you can.

[JohnThomas1]

I'll also mention two more modern day greats for the mix. Both Spinks and Foster beat the best their division had to offer and defended their titles many many times for many years, including unification wins by both. These two reigns were exceedingly dominant and worthy of much merit. To the best of my knowledge neither were ever beaten at 175 either.

[Marnoff]

Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles.

[janitor]

I think that Langford, Charles Moore and Tunney are all hard to exclude from the top 4 slots.

I think that the No1 slot is always going to come down to Langford or Charles.

Two names who should comfortably make the top 10 but often dont are Jack Dillon and Harry Greb.

[Pat_Lowe]

I have 3 choices who separate themselves from the pack, Charles, Moore and Spinks. These 3 fighters fought in great era's and proved themselves to be superior.

[robert ungurean]

Charles Tunney & Moore

[Sam Dixon]

Langford is one I find hard to rank in a particular weight class because he fought all over. Would you say this was his best weight?

I'd say that it'd be this very weight class, Pete, which would basically cover his career from from early 1909 when he was "a few pounds over the middleweight limit" to the end of 1912 when he was still being referenced as a light heavyweight champion/claimant by some.

His fight with Joe Jeannette in Sept of 1911 was referenced as being a light heavyweight championship fight too by some (Lincoln Daily News, Sept 5th, 1911, who also stated the next day that there was "little disagreement among the experts" as to Langford's claim to the light heavyweight title...AP report on Aug 28th also called it a light heavyweight championship fight), and the NY Times stated that Langford's weight was announced at 168 for that, as per Langford's word (Sept 6th, 1911).

You can check out the work he did in that time frame by checking his record at BoxRec, but take note that the two fights with McVey in 1911 were both reported to be boo'd by the crowd because they thought that he had won the first one outright (caused quite a scandal in France apparently according to the LA Times on Apr 12th, 1911...quite a few different sources state that Langford should have won), and deserved no worse than a draw in the Dec 1911 bout;

"No bout contested at Rushcutters Bay stadium in a long time has sent away so many dissatisfied spectactors as did the Langford-McVey affair. There were about 18,000 persons who paid, and a majority of these were unable to see the verdict that was given, believing that Langford was entitled to a draw." - Washington Post, Dec 27th, 1911 in an article entiled 'Hoot Fight Decision'. The same day Chicago Tribune also make note of the fans displeasure with the decision rendered.

From 1913 on is when you'll start finding the reports of him being undertrained or quite simply, as some put it, "fat".

[PowerPuncher]

Why is anyone mentioning Moore when CHarles beat him every time proving to be the better man?

I'll go with Billy Conn and Sam Langford

[Jack Dempsey]

How about Tommy Loughran?

[Lex]

My sentimental favorite is Victor Galindez. I saw several of his title fights and he was a damned good, underrated guy. Despite his muscular, fireplug appearance he was a clever boxer and slick counterpuncher who could also deliver a serious whallop.

And he was a busy champion who fought the best available at the time, some of them two or more times: Peralta, Hutchins, Fourie, Ahumada, Yaqui Lopez, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Mike Rossman, Marvin Johnson.

Otherwise, Michael Spinks.

[Senya13]

Ezzard Charles, Harry Greb

[Duodenum]

I have 3 choices who separate themselves from the pack, Charles, Moore and Spinks. These 3 fighters fought in great era's and proved themselves to be superior.I agree with this, although it's brutal to choose to exclude Conn, Loughran, Langford and Tunney.

Mike Spinks did what no reigning LH champion had ever done. Archie Moore had incredible longevity, and would most probably have broken Joe Louis's records for number of title defenses and length of reign, if he'd gotten a LH title shot in a timely manner. Charles may well have been the greatest LH of all, even if never champion in that division.

This thread asks a bruising question though, one I was adverse to posting about for that reason, but I suppose that's precisely what makes for a great topic to discuss.

[ironchamp]

Moore, Foster and Spinks.

My question is what did Charles, Tunney do at LHW to justify an consensus #2 or #3?

[Luigi1985]

Ezzard Charles
Gene Tunney
Tommy Loughran


h2h Conn would be there too...

[dmt]

Charles and Langford

Moore, Tunney and Conn would be the next three

[TBooze]

How about Tommy Loughran?

Reading up the late 20s, I am starting to have a lot of time for Loughran, he really was rated and considered the best 175lber up until that time.

[la-califa]

Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles & Bob Foster AND Micheal Spinks (Foster, Spinks tie).

[Duodenum]

Moore, Foster and Spinks.

My question is what did Charles, Tunney do at LHW to justify an consensus #2 or #3?It's a very fair question. Like most, I look at how Charles did during the post WW II era against other LHW's. He had two controversial split decision losses, to Elmer Ray (a HW who Charles later kayoed while still weighing the LH limit), and Harold Johnson (a split decision in Johnson's Philadelphia). A real case could be made for Charles being essentially invincible within the light heavyweight division during the postwar era. He went 5-0 against a younger and peak Joey Maxim, 3-0 against a prime Archie Moore, 2-0 against a peak Charley Burley (both on Burley's home turf), 4-1 against a peak Jimmy Bivins, and 2-1 against Lloyd Marshall. He lost his first contests against Bivins and Marshall, then swept the remainder of each series.

Tunney didn't quite have the impressive resume Charles had in that division, although it was nonetheless formidable. Battling Levinski and Carpentier were the only HOF LHW's I can think of off the top of my head whom Tunney defeated while in that division. I think much of his high rating is presumptive. But it sometimes seemed as though Charles was taking on anybody and everybody, and could have made the LH weight limit at any time during his prime, if he so desired. (Why Ezz didn't do that after the Marciano rematch is something of a mystery to me, as he might have vaulted himself right back into the HW Title picture by dethroning an older opponent he was undefeated against.)

[ironchamp]

It's a very fair question. Like most, I look at how Charles did during the post WW II era against other LHW's. He had two controversial split decision losses, to Elmer Ray (a HW who Charles later kayoed while still weighing the LH limit), and Harold Johnson (a split decision in Johnson's Philadelphia). A real case could be made for Charles being essentially invincible within the light heavyweight division during the postwar era. He went 5-0 against a younger and peak Joey Maxim, 3-0 against a prime Archie Moore, 2-0 against a peak Charley Burley (both on Burley's home turf), 4-1 against a peak Jimmy Bivins, and 2-1 against Lloyd Marshall. He lost his first contests against Bivins and Marshall, then swept the remainder of each series.

Tunney didn't quite have the impressive resume Charles had in that division, although it was nonetheless formidable. Battling Levinski and Carpentier were the only HOF LHW's I can think of off the top of my head whom Tunney defeated while in that division. I think much of his high rating is presumptive. But it sometimes seemed as though Charles was taking on anybody and everybody, and could have made the LH weight limit at any time during his prime, if he so desired. (Why Ezz didn't do that after the Marciano rematch is something of a mystery to me, as he might have vaulted himself right back into the HW Title picture by dethroning an older opponent he was undefeated against.)

His record is impressive however the is an unusual part of him being the greatest LHW without ever being a LHW Champion.

When you think of Ezzard Charles, what pops into your head?
Ezzard Charles the LHW or Ezzard Charles the HW?

How much stock do you put into a fighter who is officially recognized as the champion?

Foster was champ and he ruled the division.
Spinks was champ and he cleaned out a more talent laden division.
Moore was denied his title shot but once he got his chance he ruled the division for years.

Ezzard Charles to me is the guy who'd play tough pick up games with Jordan, Magic, Kobe, etc and take them to school but never really faced them in the NBA. He never fought them for the title or defended his title against them. I have him at #5

1. Moore
2. Spinks
3. Foster
4. Tunney
5. Charles

[Drew101]

His record is impressive however the is an unusual part of him being the greatest LHW without ever being a LHW Champion.

When you think of Ezzard Charles, what pops into your head?
Ezzard Charles the LHW or Ezzard Charles the HW?

How much stock do you put into a fighter who is officially recognized as the champion?

Foster was champ and he ruled the division.
Spinks was champ and he cleaned out a more talent laden division.
Moore was denied his title shot but once he got his chance he ruled the division for years.

Ezzard Charles to me is the guy who'd play tough pick up games with Jordan, Magic, Kobe, etc and take them to school but never really faced them in the NBA. He never fought them for the title or defended his title against them. I have him at #5

1. Moore
2. Spinks
3. Foster
4. Tunney
5. Charles

But, here's the thing...Charles was still, for all intests and purposes a LH even when he started to make noise in the heavyweight division. He weighed the LH limit when he kayoed Ray. He weighed all of 178 when he stopped Joe Baski, and when he kayoed Gus Lesnevich.

Look at it this way...the Light heavyweight Champions of the fourties and fifties were Gus Lesnevich, Freddie Mills, Joey Maxim, and Archie Moore. Charles holds victories over three of the four. It's almost certain that Charles would have been the LH champion had he gotten a crack at it in the late fourties, and given how much success he had in terms of holding and retaining the heavyweight title, it's certain that his LH reign might have been at least as long.

[Doc McCoy]

My sentimental favorite is Victor Galindez. I saw several of his title fights and he was a damned good, underrated guy. Despite his muscular, fireplug appearance he was a clever boxer and slick counterpuncher who could also deliver a serious whallop.

And he was a busy champion who fought the best available at the time, some of them two or more times: Peralta, Hutchins, Fourie, Ahumada, Yaqui Lopez, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Mike Rossman, Marvin Johnson.



:good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good

I'm a big Galindez fan now whereas before I use to think he was a bit on the boring side. Having studied the tapes I find him an extremely smart and cagey fighter who had tremendous power when he chose to unleash it.
He generally fought to the level of his opposition, like many of the great ones did, and I find his bouts immensely interesting from a tactical, and technical, standpoint.

[janitor]

Ezzard Charles, Harry Greb

You never loose the capacity to surprize me old chap.

[Duodenum]

His record is impressive however the is an unusual part of him being the greatest LHW without ever being a LHW Champion.

When you think of Ezzard Charles, what pops into your head?
Ezzard Charles the LHW or Ezzard Charles the HW?

How much stock do you put into a fighter who is officially recognized as the champion?

Foster was champ and he ruled the division.
Spinks was champ and he cleaned out a more talent laden division.
Moore was denied his title shot but once he got his chance he ruled the division for years.

Ezzard Charles to me is the guy who'd play tough pick up games with Jordan, Magic, Kobe, etc and take them to school but never really faced them in the NBA. He never fought them for the title or defended his title against them. I have him at #5

1. Moore
2. Spinks
3. Foster
4. Tunney
5. CharlesYou offer a perfectly reasonable position on Charles. I think of Charles himself as a light hevyweight competing against heavyweights. I feel that his body of work against other prominent light heavyweights was more substantial than Tunney's.

Bob Foster was tremendous at his best, and a rational case could be made for placing him atop the heap. But he did fall short against Terrell, Mina, Folley and Jones at an age which would normally be assumed the athletic peak of most boxers. Through no fault of his own, his legacy did suffer for lack of competition (which may have contributed to his longevity, but also his eventual decline). I greatly appreciate him for his final career win, when he took out steroid saturated Bob Hazelton in ten rounds while pushing 40.

To name the three I did required some wrenching omissions. Billy Conn also seemed invincible as a light heavyweight. I rate Charles on the strength of the top LHW opponents he defeated, Moore for his longevity, and Mike Spinks for cleaning out and unifying the championship of an extremely competitive division. Admittedly, it is unusual to rate a non-champion so highly, but not unprecedented. (Hagler was widely considered by much of the boxing press as the top MW before dethroning Minter.)

[Duodenum]

:good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good

I'm a big Galindez fan now whereas before I use to think he was a bit on the boring side. Having studied the tapes I find him an extremely smart and cagey fighter who had tremendous power when he chose to unleash it.
He generally fought to the level of his opposition, like many of the great ones did, and I find his bouts immensely interesting from a tactical, and technical, standpoint.Vicious Victor certainly utilized an approach all his own, exploding the stereotype of a counterpuncher being a slick boxing stylist. Ali himself was fascinated with Galindez's first bout with Rossman, on the undercard of Ali/Spinks II, even discussing it live with Cosell during the early stages of Rossman's upset. In sharp contrast to Ali, Galindez did not inspire any prominent imitators that I can think of off-hand. He truly seems to have been more inimitable than any other champion of his era in his peculiar approach to combat. An intriguing study. (How many other counterpunching brawlers have there been at the championship level?)

How on earth could anybody be so insanely tough as to counter to the body off the ropes, and make it work? (Just about everybody else I ever saw try this stunt nearly got decapitated.)

[Dempsey1238]

Tommy Loughran and Jack Delaney.

[Duodenum]

Tommy Loughran and Jack Delaney.Bringing up Bright Eyes just makes an uncomfortable selection process even more painful. Oh you sadistic bastard.

[ironchamp]

You offer a perfectly reasonable position on Charles. I think of Charles himself as a light hevyweight competing against heavyweights. I feel that his body of work against other prominent light heavyweights was more substantial than Tunney's.

Bob Foster was tremendous at his best, and a rational case could be made for placing him atop the heap. But he did fall short against Terrell, Mina, Folley and Jones at an age which would normally be assumed the athletic peak of most boxers. Through no fault of his own, his legacy did suffer for lack of competition (which may have contributed to his longevity, but also his eventual decline). I greatly appreciate him for his final career win, when he took out steroid saturated Bob Hazelton in ten rounds while pushing 40.

To name the three I did required some wrenching omissions. Billy Conn also seemed invincible as a light heavyweight. I rate Charles on the strength of the top LHW opponents he defeated, Moore for his longevity, and Mike Spinks for cleaning out and unifying the championship of an extremely competitive division. Admittedly, it is unusual to rate a non-champion so highly, but not unprecedented. (Hagler was widely considered by much of the boxing press as the top MW before dethroning Minter.)

Well Rankings are not set in stone.

I can't see myself rating him at #1 (reserved for Archie Moore) but I can see myself putting him as high as #3.

But for me I guess the definitive choices are Spinks, Moore and Charles....With Foster closing lurking

[Lex]

Vicious Victor certainly utilized an approach all his own, exploding the stereotype of a counterpuncher being a slick boxing stylist...Galindez did not inspire any prominent imitators that I can think of off-hand. He truly seems to have been more inimitable than any other champion of his era in his peculiar approach to combat. An intriguing study. (How many other counterpunching brawlers have there been at the championship level?)

How on earth could anybody be so insanely tough as to counter to the body off the ropes, and make it work? (Just about everybody else I ever saw try this stunt nearly got decapitated.)

Yup, the closest I can think of to Galindez in style after him was Hagler. Before him, tho', there were some darned clever hard hitting counter punchers who were slick, with styles that defied their physiques: Gene Fullmer is one of my favorites.

[janitor]

Bringing up Bright Eyes just makes an uncomfortable selection process even more painful. Oh you sadistic bastard.

Some contemporary observers rated bright eyes as the greatest light heavy ever.

[teeto]

Ezzard Charles and Gene Tunney

[Jbuz]

Charles and Moore.

[Holmes' Jab]

Charles and Greb.

[Sizzle]

For me Ezzard Charles is comfortably in the top spot. Anyway you slice it, H2H or accomplishments. The man is 3-0 against Archie Moore for gods sake!

[Robbi]

Charles, Foster, Moore, Spinks.

Not in order, but you could make a strong case for either.

[Drew101]

Some contemporary observers rated bright eyes as the greatest light heavy ever.

Didn't do quite enough at the weight to warrant the top slot, but I'd say that he stays with any other light-heavyweight head-to-head. He's a bit similar to RJJ in that regard.

Charles remains my #1 pick, wityh Moore at #2.

After that, you can make a case for several fighters claiming the #3 slot.

[Maxmomer]

Charles, Moore, Tunney.

[werety]

Charles, Moore, Tunney, and Spinkks. Don't think Spinks is getting enough credit here. Came out undefeated from a deep lhw division.

[Drew101]

Charles, Moore, Tunney, and Spinkks. Don't think Spinks is getting enough credit here. Came out undefeated from a deep lhw division.

He's my #3 all-time, and most people here have him in their top 5. Rightfully so, too...he was a hell of a fighter.

[JohnThomas1]

He's my #3 all-time, and most people here have him in their top 5. Rightfully so, too...he was a hell of a fighter.

:yep

[Dempsey1238]

Didn't do quite enough at the weight to warrant the top slot, but I'd say that he stays with any other light-heavyweight head-to-head. He's a bit similar to RJJ in that regard.

Charles remains my #1 pick, wityh Moore at #2.

After that, you can make a case for several fighters claiming the #3 slot.

The guy beat Tommy Loughran, Paul Berlenbach, and to beat Tiger Flowers and Rosenbloom, thats more ATG's than Jones Jr imo. The guy may not have the record of Moore or Charles. But he is up there imo. Perhaps the top 5.

[Vockerman]

I'm talking about the Ali/Louis types who show clear water between themselves and the pack

Try to keep your choices to one or two if you can.

I think that the clear consensus here is that just isn't possible with the LHW the way it seems to be in the heavys.

In cronological order a top 2-3 case could be made for any of the following

Bob Fitzsimmons
Jack Dillon
Harry Greb
Gene Tunney
Billy Conn
Archie Moore
Ezzard Charles
Bob Foster
and Michael Spinks

It is an extremely deep, rich and competative division and usually is in most eras of boxing.

The most often used names - I think - are Charles, Moore, Tunney, Foster and Spinks.

That Fitzsimmons, Conn, Greb, Dillon, Braxton, Moorer, O'Brien, Loughran
and Delaney are not most often listed just tells you what a wild division packed out with great fighters it really is.

[Vockerman]

I'm talking about the Ali/Louis types who show clear water between themselves and the pack

Try to keep your choices to one or two if you can.

I think that the clear consensus here is that just isn't possible with the LHW the way it seems to be in the heavys.

In chronological order a top 2-3 case could be made for any of the following

Bob Fitzsimmons
Sam Langford
Jack Dillon
Harry Greb
Gene Tunney
Billy Conn
Archie Moore
Ezzard Charles
Bob Foster
and Michael Spinks

It is an extremely deep, rich and competitive division and usually is in most eras of boxing.

The most often used names - I think - are Charles, Moore, Tunney, Foster and Spinks.

That Fitzsimmons, Conn, Greb, Dillon, Braxton, Moorer, O'Brien, Loughran, Langford
and Delaney are not most often listed just tells you what a wild division packed out with great fighters it really is.

[Minotauro]

Ezzard Charles, Langford, Moore and Tunney