606v2 Light Heavyweight Rankings

You know the drill, thought i'd get a set one up every couple of days but will let them all run until I collate all the result, for the purpose of this the super middleweight is considered the junior division so boxers from that division are eligible.

1. Charles
2. Tunney
3. Moore
4. Foster
5. Spinks
6. Loughran
7. Rosenbloom
8. Greb
9. Conn
10. Henry Lewis
11. Bivins
12. Jones Jr
13. Gibbons
14. O'brien
15. Johnson

My, this is difficult, but I'll have a stab at it with :

1. Charles
2. Moore
3. Spinks
4. Tunney
5. Foster
6. Langford
7. Jones Jnr.
8. Loughran
9. Conn
10. Fitzsimmons
11. O'Brien
12. Saad Muhammad
13. John Henry Lewis
14. Greb
15. Rosenbloom

I shouldn't be at all surprised if I'm persuaded to change my mind a little later on. The division is a veritable gold mine of talent and margins are narrow, so I can well imagine that the offerings we await from other members might make me think again.

These will do for now, though.

It's now that it starts to get very very tricky to sort out a list you're happy with, it's men like Langford, Fitzsimmons, Greb and Jones who are difficult to place as they're what I would call pound for pound fighters and on the balance of things not sure if Fitz wins over Gardner and O'brien were enough for inclusion. As for Langford not sure he has an extensive enough resume at the weight to be included, like Fitz weighed within the limit more often than not but they were technically heavyweight fights so not inclined to consider them in this.

Then you have Calzaghe who is arguably the greatest super middleweight of them all with a brief spell at light heavyweight but still felt that overall it wasn't enough for inclusion, will say it's only Jones' win over Toney that made me include him, something I had initially overlooked.

Awful awful division to select beyond Charles.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:It's now that it starts to get very very tricky to sort out a list you're happy with, it's men like Langford, Fitzsimmons, Greb and Jones who are difficult to place as they're what I would call pound for pound fighters and on the balance of things not sure if Fitz wins over Gardner and O'brien were enough for inclusion. As for Langford not sure he has an extensive enough resume at the weight to be included, like Fitz weighed within the limit more often than not but they were technically heavyweight fights so not inclined to consider them in this.

Then you have Calzaghe who is arguably the greatest super middleweight of them all with a brief spell at light heavyweight but still felt that overall it wasn't enough for inclusion, will say it's only Jones' win over Toney that made me include him, something I had initially overlooked.

Awful awful division to select beyond Charles.

Exactly, Ghosty.

In the end I decided it would have been harder to omit them than to have included them. Either way, sorting out the lightheavies is a daunting task.

I'm not so sure Windy, taking into account some of the placings I have in other divisions not sure what Langford and Fitzsimmons did at Light Heavyweight for inclusion myself, harsh on the pair of them but not sure they rate highly in any one division.

Ayup Ghosty, thankfully including the 168 lb weight class doesn't muddy the waters too much for me; Jones is the only Super-Middleweight of years gone by who'd trouble my list, and as the majority of his resume lies at 175 lb, it doesn't alter his standing too much.

1) Ezzard Charles 2) Gene Tunney 3) Archie Moore 4) Michael Spinks 5) Bob Foster 6) Tommy Loughran 7) Harry Greb 8) John Henry Lewis 9) Roy Jones Jr 10) Maxie Rosenbloom 11) Jimmy Bivins 12) Harold Johnson 13) Billy Conn 14) Matthew Saad Muhammad 15) Jack Dillon

Cheers!

1) Charles 2) Moore 3) Spinks 4) Tunney 5) Foster 6) Jones Jr 7) Loughran 8) Conn 9) John Henry Lewis 10) Greb 11) Harold Johnson 12) Bivins 13) Saad Muhammad 14) Langford 15) Fitzsimmons

Impossible to know what to do with Langford. The way things are going, he won't get into any of my individual lists, so I'm shoe-horning him in here at 175, ahead of people like Rosenbloom, Dillon and Qawi. I'm aware that a lot of people rate Maxie highly - personally, I can't stand his style, and it's mostly that personal animus that sees him absent from my list. Not admirable, I know, but there we are.

The greatest of all divisions, for me, but there's still a clear demarcation between the top 5 and the rest at 175.

Very much how I feel about Jones as well Captain but against my better judgement decided to include him although i'd rather not. The top 5 which I think we'll all agree on is of the highest possible quality and beyond that you have men like Bivins and Johnson who I imagine will be at the lower reaches of our 15 both brought about a very split opinion as to their induction into our HOF.

Indded, Ghosty. I am more clear than ever that I erred in giving the thumbs down to Bivins first time round. I shall be rectifying that mistake on his second ballot. I will also be hoping that everyone thinks similarly about Harold Johnson by then!

Very little betweent the pair and I for one will be giving the thumbs up to both of them, who I would add possibly aren't quite good enough for first ballot entry.

Ghosty, as a sidenote (and I hope you don't think I'm sticking my nose in too much as I appreciate the fine work you're putting in to these lists) how about giving Light-Welterweight and Super-Featherweight their own separate billings, rather than including them with Welterweight and Lightweight respectively? I see why you've gone for your chosen system, as some of the minor / extra divisions don't have all that much quality beyond a top three or four, but in the cases of the 140 lb and 130 lb divisions I think an exception should be made. Very, very strong weight classes in which an all-time top ten / fifteen isn't all that much weaker than one from a classic weight. I feel we'd be doing a disservice to a few men who have done their best work in those weight classes if we overlook them, so to speak.

Anyway, just an idea.

Know what you mean Chris and can think of some very good names in particular who could miss out and somewhat strangely super featherweight and light welterweight have a far longer history than the rest of the junior divisions which in the case of SFW was never really needed.

140lbs you have Pryor, Loi, Locche, Benitez and Cervantes who would all miss out on a placing at 147lbs and all deserve a mention as do Arguello and Mayweather at 130lbs.

After considering it for some time (5 seconds) I have decided to take notice of your advice and will give both divisions seperate billing.

As pointed out elsewhere any lists you post can be edited at any time, preferably after we have decided the now 10 divisions and i'll edit the lists accordingly.

Good stuff Ghosty, apologies again for sticking my nose in, but as you rightly say there's some serious quality at Light-Welterweight and Super-Featherweight, more than enough to build a healthy-looking top ten or fifteen in both cases.

I'll have to start calling you Pinocchio from now on, it's a shame that McCallum will in all likelihood miss out but there's only real Hearns and he of any real note and calibre at light middleweight.

1) Ezzard Charles
2) Archie Moore
3) Gene Tunny
4) Michael Spinks
5) Bob Foster
6) Sam Langford
7) Tommy Loughran
8) Jimmy Bivins
9) Maxie Rosenbloom
10) Billy Conn
11) Roy Jones Jnr
12) Harry Greb
13) John Henry Lewis
14) Matthew Saad Muhammad
15) Bob Fitzsimmons

Notable mentions: Jack O'Brien, Joey Maxim, Harold Johnson

Post a list on the heavyweight thread as well if you could Liam.

Will do Ghosty.

Cheers mate

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I'm not so sure Windy, taking into account some of the placings I have in other divisions not sure what Langford and Fitzsimmons did at Light Heavyweight for inclusion myself, harsh on the pair of them but not sure they rate highly in any one division.

Fitzsimmons, like Choynski, Charley Mitchell and a few others besides, suffered in the sense that they were probably best suited to be lightheavies when no lightheavyweight division existed. Jack Root became first lightheavyweight champion in 1903, four years after Fitz had lost his heavyweight crown to Jeffries. That Fitz should then take that lightheavyweight crown, aged forty, is little short of astonishing.

We, quite rightly, ignore the fact that men such as Charles, Tunney, Greb, Bivins, etc., never held the lightheavyweight crown because we recognise that this was due to circumstances very much beyond their control. I'm inclined to do the same for Fitzsimmons. From as early as 1895 it was clear that Fitz had set his sights on the heavyweight crown and set about upending some very good heavyweights over the next few years while never weighing so much as a genuine lightheavy. To beat men such as Maher, Sharkey and Corbett would be something akin to Bob Foster's turning over Cleveland Williams, George Chuvalo and Floyd Patterson and for Fitz to have, ( at least the second time out, ) given Jeffries a very good argument would be the equivalent, in my opinion, of Foster's being able to do provide Liston with a stern test.

Langford is a little more complicated, since the recorded weights as listed by BoxRec don't always correspond to newspapers of the day. However, it probably isn't too much of a stretch to say that most would regard the mature Langford as having been a lightheavyweight, and it was during this period that he was beating men such as Jeannette, McVea, O'Brien, John Lester Johnson, Gunboat Smith, etc., as well as having frightened the life out of Jack Johnson. By any measure, these are impressive credentials and, in my opinion, are superior even to those of Fitzsimmons.

There is always an argument for the omission of Fitz and Langford but, on this occasion, I'm more inclined to make the argument for their inclusion and I certainly wouldn't be alone by so doing. By way of example, historian Tracy Callis, who is an elector for the IBHOF, has Fitz and Langford occupying two of the four places atop his lightheavyweight rankings, the others going to Tunney and Charles. Bit too rich for my blood, I must say, but I have absolutely no qualms in finding each a berth among the fifteen best at 175lb.

1. Charles
2. Spinks
3. Foster
4. Moore
5. Tunney
6. Loughran
7. Langford
8. Conn
9. Greb
10. Bivins
11. Jones Jr
12. Henry Lewis
13. Rosenbloom
14. Johnson
15. Saad Muhammad

After the first five I'd actually say that list might even change more on any given day than my Heavyweight one would. I'm still not happy that I cant find places for Fitzsimmons, Delaney or O'Brien in that list either.

Spink and Foster above Tunney and Moore?

Must be a little gripe of mine but I just don't understand how Langford is always rated above Fitzsimmons.

1. Charles
2. Tunney
3. Moore
4. Spinks
5. Foster
6. Tommy Loughran
7. Jimmy Bivins
8. Billy Conn
9. John Henry Lewis
10. Young Stribling
11. Harold Johnson
12. Jones Jr
13. Maxie Rosenbloom
14. Jack O'Brien
15. Jack Dillon

I must say I struggled mightily with this list due to the inclusion of the Super Middleweight limits being incorporated as part of Light heavy which put a large slant on things in a technical sense.

Trying to categorize each fighter was exceptionaally difficult for the earlier era's. The division I think had 3 golden era's which were, in broad terms the 1920s, 1940s and 1980s.

My first issue was the Fitzsimmons/Langord classification. Everyone struggles to rank these fighters divisionally an I grappled back and forth on where to place them or whether to include them at all in light heavy. In the end I felt I just could not compare them on equal footing to later fighters and decied they are just truly "pound for pound" fighters and that is the only real way to measure them due to the nature of their careers. Ive no doubt both could be top 5 material in a more structured era with different circumstances and I feel its just too much of an injustice to rank them further down divisional lists than they deserve based on an inability to find a level playing field. Thus I ultimately decided to leave them out entirely from divisional lists.

The second issue is more of a tehnical one with regards Harry Greb. If we are to include super middle weight limits as part of light heavy, I take this to mean any fight that occurs above the 160lb limit and inside the 175lb limit in the strictest sense. If this is the case then Harry Greb is surely a nailed on top 5. Despite being a reigning middleweight champion, the bulk of Grebs non title fights actually occured above the 160lb limit an he really only made the limit for his title affairs. If we include wins above the middleweight limit as art of lightheavy then his record is second only to Tunney and Charles in my view. Again its difficult as weights were not as strict back then and it was more of a pound for pound mentality. In many cases fighters only made limits for title affairs with non title affairs being much more broad in terms of weight. Greb holds wins over pretty much everyone there was to beat above the 160 limit - Gibbons, Loughran, Tunney, Norfolk, Rosenbloom, Slattery, Dillon, Flowers, Delaney, McTigue, Miske, Levinsky and many others. In fact one could argue that the bulk of his wins were actually above middleweight with mostly only his title fights coming within the limit. Ive always felt in historical terms that traditionally there was a fair bit of scope used for Greb in treating most of these as largely middleweight exploits, especially given there was no super middleweight division. But in the strictest sense it would seem hes actually more of a light heavy for the purpose of this list and in that regard hes a clear top 5 for me and ranks only behind Charles and Tunney, with Tunneys overall series win seperating the two.

Even looking at my list now I am not sure I am entirely happy with it and further shuffling could occur. I would welcome any thoughts on the issues I have highlighted and looking at several other lists perhaps I may be taking too strict an approach in terms of the weight limits regarding Greb, Langford and Fitzsimmons but I have to say that if we treat Grebs fights above the 160 limit as in the light heavyweight bracket I really couldnt see how he places outside the top 5 even in a division as rich in talent as light heavy. Its a rather grey area and historically I think many of Grebs wins are treated as part of his middleweight reign as thats where he held a title, but in a stricter sense they would have fallen into a higher weight class.

That's a very persuasive argument, Colonial.

I must say that you have contrived to drop an almighty spanner in my works with the inclusion of Stribling. To my shame and horror, I totally forgot him during my deliberations, figuring, no doubt, that I already had my hands full of worthy leftovers in the likes of Johnson, Bivins, Maxim, Dillon, Delaney and, at a push, Levinsky, Miske and all the way back to Choynski.

I thought very hard about my choices and I'm inclined to leave them as they are, but I might yet be persuaded to allow Stribling to gatecrash proceedings at the expense of Rosenbloom.

Watch this space, Ghosty, and blame Colonial Lion if I change my mind.

1 - Charles
2 Moore
3 Tunney
4 Greb
5 Foster
6 Spinks
7 Loughran
8 Conn
9 Bivins
10 Jones Jnr
11 Johnson
12 Stribling
13 Rosenblooom
14 Henry Lewis
15 O'Brien

Have excluded Fitz and Langford because the more I think about it they muddy my thinking which is confused enough, think they sit better exclusively in the P4P ranks.

Yes I would certainly say I think there is a great case for Stribling to be included. I still consider him essentially robbed of the title for the debacle with McTigue. Beat him in the title affair only for the bout to be changed to a draw and then beat him in the return which was made as a non title affair. Also holds a remarkeable record of having only been stopped once in over 250 bouts, and that was in the final round against Max Schmelling at heavyweight.

Stribling only just missed out by a very, very narrow margin for me, too. The McTigue affair was a compelling story, but at the same time a bit of a farce and it has to be said that the 'Georgia Peach' was terribly unlucky not to take the 175 lb crown that night. That said, I'm not sure he could oust Rosenbloom from consideration, even if he did get the better of him twice. From edging the great John Henry Lewis in their series, to making seven (if my memory serves me correctly) defences of the title, to defeating other respectable names such as Lewis, Wilson, Braddock and Slattery, 'Slapsie Maxie' has an extremely impressive resume.

There don't seem to be all that many on here who are fans of Rosenbloom. Granted, he was a clown prince, and didn't exactly dominate opposition when beating them. Some say he's lucky to have edged John Henry Lewis with some scrappy decisions, but he also lost the title on a very contentious verdict, so it evens itself out.

This was my problem with ' Slapsie ' Maxie, Chris.

It irks me beyond belief, but his record is there for all to see and I just can't nudge him out for fighters whom I would much prefer to see there.

Stribling may yet prove to be the man to do it, though.

I'm actually beginning to rue my defence of my position regarding the inclusion of Fitz and Langford, but my argument for their inclusion, ( whether right or wrong, ) was a sincere one, so I'm not about to sell them out so that I can accommodate Stribling or Johnson.

It's down to ' Slapsie, ' pure and simple.

Will get mine up soon, they're making me work today.

I must say I would struggle to rate Loughran above Greb. Greb got the better of him quite significantly overall. It was only after considering the super middleweight division, or lack of it that ironically shows that comparitively very few of Grebs actual big wins were at the strict middleweight level. Hes really much more of a super middleweight/light heavyweight on reflection and most of his big wins fall into that bracket. despite Loughran holding a version of the world title, I dont think his record above 160 compares with Grebs and their series was very much in Grebs favour.

Looking at many of the lists it seems that people are viewing him more along middleweight terms, which history tends to do also due to the fact thats where he held the title. But with the bulk of wins above that including over future champions like Loughran, McTigue, Dillon, Levinsky, Delaney and Slattery it should really only be Tunney who can claim to rank above him at light heavyweight of that era in my view.

All fair points there, Colonial. Mind you, I would add that Loughran was still pretty much a young pup when Greb scored those wins over him. Given the quality of Loughran's title reign and the fact that he never lost the title in the ring, I'm happy to just nick him in a place above Greb, but it does surprise me when people don't give Greb a top ten spot at Light-Heavyweight.

Again, Colonial, you provide not so much mere food for thought as a feast fit for Queensbury himself.

I have always considered Greb a middleweight ( he had the stature of a middle, in my view, ) whose exploits against larger men served to cement his position as the greatest middle of all time. I'm not sure that he was ever a legitimate lightheavy, though your referencing the supermiddles does blur the issue, somewhat.

Being a simple soul who always finds these lists infuriatingly difficult and akin to labyrinths at the best of times, I'm going to retreat into my nice, warm bunker in which Harry Greb is a middleweight.

I could actually get some sleep if the damned Young Stribling would stop knocking on the door.

I would concede Loughran was on the young side for his series with Greb, although he was still reasonably experienced by then and was capable of winning a the world title and boxing Tunney to a draw around the time Greb got the better of him. What I am grappling with is the idea of rating Greb at lightheavy as its something of a double edged sword. Traditionally I would view Greb as the greatest middleweight of all time, but have tended to incorporate most of his career as a largely middleweight one. But by the stricter criteria set out here it would really count Greb as largely a light heavyweight which would place him as high as third on my list when you consider his wins and career at above 160. But the on the other hand it would mean his actual middleweight career would not be remotely as impressive and even his title reign was really only marked out by a win over Walker and to a lesser extent, Wilson. His non title fights were by far the more challenging and impressive in general. So by limiting Greb solely to 160lb or below fights would have to mean he falls down the rankings quite significantly at middleweight, despite my belief he was the best ever there. Its a tricky scenario as it would seem a bit unfair to count all his wins as both lightheavy and middleweight.

I think perhaps you may have the right idea Human Windmill. Its something of a grey area but when it comes down to it I would also see Greb as more of a midleweight and feel more comfortable rating him there. I think it would unfair to rate all his wins as qualifying for both weights and I dont think I could bring myself to mark him down at middleweight so I may take the more traditionally held view of Greb as mainly a middleweight career, notwithstanding the super middleweight criteria incorporated in this list. In which case I think I may need to revise my list which will be no easy task!

1. Ezzard Charles
2. Archie Moore
3. Harry Greb
4. Gene Tunney
5. Michael Spinks
6. Bob Foster
7. Jimmy Bivins
8. Billy Conn
9. Tommy Loughran
10. Harold Johnson
11. John Henry Lewis
12. Jack O' Brien
13. Matthew Saad Muhammed
14. Maxie Rosenbloom
15. Young Stribling

Colonial Lion wrote:I think perhaps you may have the right idea Human Windmill. Its something of a grey area but when it comes down to it I would also see Greb as more of a midleweight and feel more comfortable rating him there. I think it would unfair to rate all his wins as qualifying for both weights and I dont think I could bring myself to mark him down at middleweight so I may take the more traditionally held view of Greb as mainly a middleweight career, notwithstanding the super middleweight criteria incorporated in this list. In which case I think I may need to revise my list which will be no easy task!

Under normal circumstances, Sir, I would extend my sympathies but, being that you have shone a nasty bright light on my incompetence in my overlooking of Stribling, and given that my list may yet require a little surgery as a result, I'm sure you'll forgive me if I save my sympathies for another occasion !

I hate you all.

You started it.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:I think perhaps you may have the right idea Human Windmill. Its something of a grey area but when it comes down to it I would also see Greb as more of a midleweight and feel more comfortable rating him there. I think it would unfair to rate all his wins as qualifying for both weights and I dont think I could bring myself to mark him down at middleweight so I may take the more traditionally held view of Greb as mainly a middleweight career, notwithstanding the super middleweight criteria incorporated in this list. In which case I think I may need to revise my list which will be no easy task!

Under normal circumstances, Sir, I would extend my sympathies but, being that you have shone a nasty bright light on my incompetence in my overlooking of Stribling, and given that my list may yet require a little surgery as a result, I'm sure you'll forgive me if I save my sympathies for another occasion !

Yes indeed. I am now completely unsure of where to place Greb at all at light heavy, or which wins to count and which to count towards middleweight. I may yet take the easy way out and add him with Fitzsimmons and Langford on the sidelines and simply judge him exclusively at middleweight in the circumstances.

With Greb I see any of his wins where he and his opponent weighed over about 165lbs as a light heavyweight fight or any fight where his opponent weighed over 168lbs, as is common today I see a fight that's a few pounds over a weight limit simply as an over the weight middleweight fight for instance rather than a super middleweight fight.

The votes for this are heating up very nicely, clear division between groups of fighters but very close between the fighters in the groups.

1. Charles
2. Moore
3. Tunney
4. Spinks
5. Foster
6. Greb
7. Loughran
8. Conn
9. Bivins
10. Jones Jr
11. Stribling
12. Henry Lewis
13. O'Brien
14. Johnson
15. Saad Muhammad

1. Charles
2. Tunney
3. Moore
4. Greb
5. Foster
6. Spinks
7. Loughran
8. Jones Jr
9. Henry Lewis
10. Rosenbloom
11. Bivins
12. Conn
13. O'brien
14. Fitzsimmons
15. Calzaghe

1. Charles
2. Moore
3. Tunney
4. Greb
5. Foster
6. M Spinks
7. Loughran
8. Langford
9. Rosenbloom
10. Bivins
11.Conn
12. RJJ
13. O'Brien
14. Henry Lewis
15. Stribling

Can't work out if I've been too kind to RJJ or too cruel.

After much deliberation I decided I felt most comfortable with simply removing Greb from the light heavyweight division with the intention of viewing him solely as a middleweight. I am aware this is far from ideal but such is the grey area bracket between middleweight and light heavyweight I thought the easiest thing to do was simply put him in one division or another rather than risk underselling him across two divisions. Im concerned that the decision by some to include fighters like Langford, Fitzsimmons and Greb at light heavyweight and the decision to exclude them by others will most likely see them criminally low down the lists which would be an unfair reflection on their ability, but at least with Greb I have the comfort in knowing he will sit top of my middleweight pile and I could entertain including Fitzsimmons at middleweight by adopting a similar policy to Greb.

Immensely difficult to decide overall and Im still not sure if I am happy with my list but just cant bring myself to include fighters of Langford, Fitzsimmons and Greb lower down as their talents and acheivements above 160 clearly warrant higher placings.

All i'll say Colonial is that Greb currently has a fairly high ranking for the light heavyweights which I feel does his talent and resume at the weight justice so you're far from alone having him rated highly at the weight and it's also worth noting that he defended the American light heavyweight title in many of the fights you've mentioned.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:All i'll say Colonial is that Greb currently has a fairly high ranking for the light heavyweights which I feel does his talent and resume at the weight justice so you're far from alone having him rated highly at the weight and it's also worth noting that he defended the American light heavyweight title in many of the fights you've mentioned.

Very true, but the problem I face is that if we take his plus 160lb fights as part of the light heavyweight bracket then it leaves his middleweight record very much reduced. As someone who has always rated him top of the pile as middleweight traditionally, I cant bring myself to start disecting his middleweight record and potentially leave him short there.

The reality is he is something of a hybrid who could easily be top five in either division. But such is the difficulty seperating the two and the fact he held his title at middleweight, I think ultimately I find it easiest just to rate him there, albeit with something of an asterix. By the strictest letter of the law I appreciate that the bulk of his victories were actually above the 160lb mark, but as he was generally seen as the middleweight champion I think this only adds to his legacy if anything.

All things considered if forced to choose I would either have him no.3 at light heavy or no.1 at middle. But I dont think he can have both so I plumped for middleweight in the end.

I see it similar to Robinson, he derserves a higher placing at middleweight than he gets but his record suggests something different, much like Greb is the greatest in his premier divisions but didnt replicate that replicate that the level of superiority above that, his p4p standing shouldn't detract from the fact he's great but not exceptional at other weights. Seems almost as if Fitzsimmons, Langford and Greb are dismissed because their divisional rankings aren't as high as their p4p rankings which shouldn't be the case.

I see Robinson as a little different because his middleweight record can be much more easily identified and measured. I dont think on record alone there he can claim a top 5 spot given its patchiness.

Langfod, Fitzsimmons and to a lesser extent Greb occupy a much greyer area.

With Greb, the bulk of his top level wins occur outside the middleweight limit in the strict sense and occupy the area between whats now super middleweight and light heavyweight. It doesnt pose any problems in the pound for pound sense, but in terms of classifying him divisionally its tricky. Other than defending his actual title, he rarely fought when both he and his opponent weighed inside the middleweight limit. I dont think its uite fair to count all his wins as occupying both the middleweight and light heavyweight bracket which would see him as a top 3 in both divisions for me in that case. I see it being a case of two schools of thought. One being that Greb was essentially a middleweight who fought above the limit very often, which is the traditionally taken view. The other is that he was essentially a light heavyweight that got down to middleweight occasionally to defend his title. Of the two I generally prefer the more traditional approach although his actual record gives plenty of argument for the latter which I would not really dispute.

With Langford and Fitzsimmons I think its simply to difficult to classify them divisionally as there isnt really enough information or accuracy in their records to indicate where they were fighting at most of the time. In general I find it simply too difficult to rank them on a level playing field alongside other divisional fighters so I tend to refrain from doing so.

Are people now happy with the lists they've posted, still need a lot more votes for this one.

1. Charles
2. Moore
3. Tunney
4. Spinks
5. Foster
6. Langford
7. Jones Jnr.
8. Conn
9. Loughran
10. Fitzsimmons
11. O'Brien
12. Greb
13. Saad Muhammad
14. Henry Lewis
15. Rosenbloom