606v2 Light Heavyweight Rankings

First topic message reminder :

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

How do you have a guy who was never a champion at 175 top of the list????

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

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:How do you have a guy who was never a champion at 175 top of the list????

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

More to the point Truss, how can you have Moore ahead of Charles when Charles was 3-0 against him and 2-0 against Burley, who also had the wood on Moore?

Didn't win the title (through no fault of his own), but his head to head record against Archie, as well as his career and results outside of their trilogy, simply prove that he was a better 175 lb fighter than him.

because Moore won when it mattered perhaps....

Like being the greatest Olympian when you don't have a gold medal..

The title meant something in them days....well aware of Charles record against Moore..

Forrest beat Mosley twice....

styles and all that..

Charles also had too much style for Maxim, Bivins, Marshall and Burley, to say nothing of a stack of other top men. He is clearly the man in this division, title or not.

He was a great light heavy but I just think the title meant something back then and I believe that is a reason why not that it's their fault..Burley and Langford should be demoted...

The title on the line......How many times did Charles mess up when that was the case....The second loss to Walcott he should've won but blew it...second fight with the Rock he should of treaded carefully after the nose cut but blew it..

A title fight was a big deal then.

Cleverly has a world title strap. He won when it mattered.

Truth is Charles never got a shot at the title. He beat those who did and only lost title fights at heavyweight (he started at middle) against natural heavies when clearly past his best.

Also, the losses you mentioned were at heavyweight. This is a thread about light heavyweghts. Give me an example of him not living up to standard at light heavyweight. I'll tell you, he had 1 SD loss that was seen as a robbery and he avenged by KO.

The title arguably didnt mean all that much for that particular period in history given we know that there was a much documented policy of avoidance. Lesnevich was a long reigning champion yet systematically refused to defend against the best. When he actually did face the likes of Bivins or Charles in non title affairs he was beaten.

Your take on the title confuses me to some extent as it seems slightly paradoxical. The title means less when the best fighters are excluded from fighting for it. To therefore cite not holding the title as the primary reason for demotion, by referencing that the title meant something greater would seem at odds with the reality of the day.

Spot on, Colonial. Fine fighter though he was, the case of Freddie Mills tells you everything you need to know about how grand the title really was at Light-Heavyweight back then - particularly after he got his shot off the back of a hammering from Marshall, who was brushed aside much like Charles had previously been, and as Moore would be until 1952 when he finally got a chance against Maxim (the same Maxim who Charles had beaten five times over with no real reward); and even then, that bout only came about as Moore and Maxim shared a manager in Kearns (although I'm not sure that getting through nine managers during his career helped Archie's case that much!).

As I've said before, Charles is unique in the sense that there isn't a single other fighter, generally accepted as a top two or three all-time man in his division, who can claim to be so dominant over another generally-accepted top three man. Whichever way you look at it, there clearly hasn't been a better or more dominant fighting machine at 175 lb than Charles.

Would also add, that I dont really understand the reasoning behind winning when it mattered.

Had Charles come up short at light heavyweight by losing title fights then I would certainly take that argument on board, but given he was never even given the opportunity to fight for the title I dont think that particular criticism can be levelled at him, at least with regards to light heavyweight where we are ranking the fighters.

Would not entirely agree with heavyweight either where Charles was reasonably sucessful despite being above his best weight and for much of it past his best. In addition, Moore who you rate above Charles pretty much defined coming up short at heavyweight by losing all his title bouts there.

Charles is the top man by an absolute mile, used to have it a close run thing between him and Tunney but upon re-evaluation it's obvious who has the far superior record. When you have such dominance over your main rivals including men the calibre of Moore, Bivins and Maxim it tells you all you need to know about Charles, he was the uncrowned king of the light heavyweight division much like Tunney was.

1. Ezzard Charles
2. Gene Tunney
3. Archie Moore
4. Bob Foster
5. Michael Spinks
6. Billy Conn
7. Harry Greb
8. Tommy Loughran
9. Maxie Rosenbloom
10. Jimmy Bivins
11. Roy Jones Jr
12. Harold johnson
13. John Henry Lewis
14. Young Stribling
15. Billy Miske

We're on for what I can imagine will be a fairly unique situation here.

Title meant everything in that period....

Just that it suits the purposes for the rose-tinted past was better brigade...

Title meant more money...why because it was the pinnacle of a guy's career..

sure it meant everything to Archie..

I don't think anyone's denying that the title meant a hell of a lot to those who were lucky enough to contest or hold it, more that it wasn't all that important an indicator as to who the actual best man in the weight class was. And based on the examples above, it's clear that it wasn't all that important in that second aspect.

So you're basically saying that Mills and Maxim were more deserving of the title than the BMR fighters along with Charles and Moore who couldn't get a shot or at least not at a more suitable age?

Not long left to get your votes in

Charles
Moore
Tunney
Spinks
Langford
Foster
Conn
Jones Jnr
Loughran
Fitzsimmons
Greb
O'Brien
Lewis
Rosenbloom
Gibbons

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