606 Light heavyweight knockout tournament *Final*

The semi final results

Ezzard Charles vs Harry Greb- The general consensus was that Charles would just have a little to much for Greb at 175lbs. Greb may well be the man at middle but he is seemingly out his depth in this one. 6 votes to 0 in favour of Charles.
Charles UD 146-142

Archie Moore vs Gene Tunney- Another landslide result for Tunney here. As tricky as Moore was the feeling was that Tunney could cope with it and take it on points.
Tunney UD UD 144-140

final

Gene Tunney vs Ezzard Charles

Rules: If you are picking a points victory please state UD/MD/SD and give a scorecard only one is nescessary. If you are picking a stoppage please state the round.

Charles versus Foster in the first round - how could you (or Scott, should I say?) do this to us!?

Disgustingly difficult one to call, at least in my eyes. Charles' 175 lb resume reads like no other, while some have questioned the strength of Foster's era in terms of depth. Understandable perhaps, but as far as I'm concerned Foster would still have done away with much, much tougher challengers than the ones he had if they'd have been there at the time. He was a freak at Light-Heavyweight, and though some won't have it, there was more to his game than just blistering one-punch knockout power. That said, if anyone can nullify him, it's Charles. The Cincinnati man was a superb at parrying opposition punches away in order to get his shots off first - against a man as savage as Foster, there will always be that kind of opening. Mind you, Foster could do this just as well - if you don't believe me, take a look at the knockout of Mike Quarry! Think I'm going to go against the grain (or what I suspect will be the grain) and back Foster to take this on points. He's a frightening proposition at the weight. Hits hard enough to force Charles to fight at range - not a problem with Foster's reach - and when he does get inside, unable to land cleanly with that sometimes unusual low stance of Foster. Foster by decision, 144-141. I await the torrent of abuse.

Moore versus Spinks is no picnic, but a little easier to decipher, I reckon. Spinks was a hard man to work out, but that won't bother Archie. I still feel that Spinks, even at his best weight, looked a little vulnerable when faced with a relentless forward march and pressure. He takes most of the early rounds, but begins to tire late on and Moore pounces, ala Durelle I and Johnson V. Moore by late stoppage or KO while behind on the cards. I'll go for round thirteen.

Tunney does everything Conn does, but does them that little bit better, I reckon. Always game, Conn would last the distance but would be outfoxed out outgunned from the off, losing a wide decision. 147-138 to Tunney.

Unfortunately, history tells us what to expect when it comes to Loughran and Greb; 4-1-1 in the Pittsburgh man's favour is pretty telling. Granted, Loughran wasn't far removed from his teens when these bouts took place, but I find it hard to believe that what he gained in his later career would have been enough to turn the tide. Greb by decision, 145-140.

Charles v Foster
Although I believe Foster to have possessed such power, he could KO any light heavyweight in history with the right punch. Although Foster was rangey and explosive, Charles is one of the most underrated defensive fighters in history in my opinion. When was Charles ever caught up on the ropes? Even when hurt, past his best fighting heavyweights he always had such a great ring brain he use subtle forms of movement to avoid direct punishment then come back. Take the Statterfield fight for example. I think Charles circles in different diretions and draws leads to counter, the problem with figting Charles is that he could do it all. He'd box when he had to and turn killer when the time came.

Foster's dangerous enough to keep Charles cautious but not skillful enough to outbox him. Slowed to a walk for the championship rounds Foster can't stop Charles from running away with the decision. Charles by UD


Moore v Spinks
This would be a really interesting matchup as both guys were great technicians as well as great punchers. Spinks has the range and I could imagine the Spinks Jinx sending Archie down for a short count early, but he's a master of comebacks. Spinks boxes well afterwards but I once read an account of Moore that described him as being like an engineer working on a car. He finds what's wrong with it, but when he finds it he doesn't fix it, he makes it worse. But what is Spinks' weakness? Never beaten as a light heavy, only beaten once at heavy by Tyson. After losing the early rounds I see Archie beginning to take more shots on the shoulders as he tries to work inside but Spinks has the movement and punch to keep him off. After the sixth they trade rounds and Archie commands the end of the fight, but the early rounds and knockdown were enough and Spinks takes the UD.

Tunney v Conn
This one's pretty simple for me. I feel Tunney had all the skills of Conn along with a hefty punch.

Tunney by KO in 11.


Loughran v Greb
It actually happened. Greb had the better of the series if memory serves correct.

Where is RJJ?

He was number 9 in our votes so didn't make t unfortunately. Much to my disappointment I must add.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Where is RJJ?

and I remember a time when you and coxy were accused of being the same person. If they only saw this!

It is not that I think he is guaranteed to win this tournemant (if even a fight) but it would be nice to have a fighter with his style taking part. For me, I do not have the knowledge to comment on the likes of Greb/Conn/Tunney/Loughran.

All great fighters from what I have read/watched, but I do not know enough to comment properly.

I wrote a more detailed reply and then my computer decided to skip back a page so I'll have to summarize..

Foster vs Charles - Arguably the greatest LHW and one of the greatest fighters ever full stop has too much for Foster. He has too much all round ability and ring savy and the fact he went the distance with the likes of Louis and Marciano make it hard for me to envision Bob getting him out of there. Foster's jab, reach and power make him a match for anyone at the weight but see him losing a clear UD 145-140.

Spinks vs Moore - Amazingly Moore KO'd 4 times more opponents than Spinks even faced. However I still see Spinks winning a close decision in a fight of 2 halves. 144-141. This is the one I'm least confident about.

Tunney vs Conn - Tunney is my favourite 175lber and did everything that Conn could but better. There aren't many I can see out-boxing him and he'd walk through Conn and win a wide UD 148-137

Loughran vs Greb - The proofs there. Greb UD 145-140

Would also have liked to see RJJ in there. His speed and style while not guaranteeing victory, would give any of the above a decent fight.

To me, Foster can only beat Charles by KO, good as his own boxing skills were. In Ezz, he meets the consummate all-rounder, skilled enough either to draw the heavy fire and counter or to launch his own marvellous combinations through and past Foster's defence.

After getting stopped by Lloyd Marshall at the age of 21, nobody could repeat the feat against Charles until Jersey Joe turned the trick with that once in a lifetime left uppercut in 1951, more than eight years later. Huge hitters such as Moore, Marshall, Violent Ray and Joe Louis couldn't manage it, and I don't believe that Foster could either. It should be remembered that Ezz was a great (the greatest for me) light-heavyweight, who also ruled the heavyweights for two years. Foster tried this and was found sadly wanting. I find myself imagining them fighting at, say 190, and always come up with the scenario that sees Charles gradually exerting control and stopping Foster late on. I see no reason why this should not be duplicated at 175, where Ezz still had his killer instinct and was absolutely merciless when he had his man in trouble. In round 13, Charles has Foster at his mercy and he finishes him. Charles KO 13.

Think that Archie knows just a little too much for Spinks. The difference in experience is frightening - thirty fights or so against a couple of hundred, and although Spinks lands the famous Jinx more than once, he is repeatedly peppered himself. Both men might make trips to the canvas, but I see Archie landing more often and harder. Moore UD 145-141.

Totally agree with Chris's analysis of Tunney-Conn. Billy meets his mirror image, but the mirror is better in all departments than he is. Tunney UD 147-138.

As has been said, we know about Greb-Loughran. Tommy never would have improved enough to alter the generally decisive slate against him. Greb wins in a hail of leather by UD - 145-140.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:It is not that I think he is guaranteed to win this tournemant (if even a fight) but it would be nice to have a fighter with his style taking part. For me, I do not have the knowledge to comment on the likes of Greb/Conn/Tunney/Loughran.

All great fighters from what I have read/watched, but I do not know enough to comment properly.

I don't disagree. I wasn't laughing at the notion of RJJ in the tournament, it just reminded me of those funny little feuds back on BBC606.

Jones would beat all these guys imo he was one of the best ever

Waingro wrote:Jones would beat all these guys imo he was one of the best ever

To decide that Jones would have beaten them all, you must be familiar with them, otherwise you couldn't possibily make that claim. So as you are familiar with them, why not just give your view on the actual match ups in the thread? That is, after all, the point of the article.

I'd also like to hear how you'd see Charles v Jones playing out, Waingro.

Which tactics would you see Charles employing, and what would be his strengths and weaknesses against Jones ?

Perhaps you'd like to share your insights with us.

I think Jones would school Charles like he did against Hopkins and Toney. Dont think there is much Charles can do Jones just too good, too fast and too hard to hit Charles would have to try and close him down but do not see that happening tbh. Maybe Jones might not knock him out but it would be one sided imo Jones was absolute qualty make no mistake he is past his best the Jones right now would lose but this is not Jones at his best I am talking about 10 years ago or more.

Oh heck, any chance you can block Coxy from seeing this thread windy, trust me you'll thank me for it long term.

Charles has beaten fighters like Burley, Maxim, Archie Moore and Joe Louis etc...also was the only boxer to last 15 rounds with Marciano correct me if I am wrong.

Jones might beat Charles but it certainly wont be one sided.

rowley wrote:Oh heck, any chance you can block Coxy from seeing this thread windy, trust me you'll thank me for it long term.

Waingro hasnt mentioned Tunney vs Jones yet so it should be okay.

rowley wrote:Oh heck, any chance you can block Coxy from seeing this thread windy, trust me you'll thank me for it long term.

I'm more than a little worried, jeff.

Waingro wrote:I think Jones would school Charles like he did against Hopkins and Toney. Dont think there is much Charles can do Jones just too good, too fast and too hard to hit Charles would have to try and close him down but do not see that happening tbh. Maybe Jones might not knock him out but it would be one sided imo Jones was absolute qualty make no mistake he is past his best the Jones right now would lose but this is not Jones at his best I am talking about 10 years ago or more.

Waingo, Charles would not be guaranteed victory against any great Light-Heavyweight from any era. Absolutely no fighter, no matter what weight class and no matter how great they are, would be. But to suggest that a man who proved himself more than anyone else during arguably the greatest ever period for the 175 lb weight class could be 'schooled' by a man whose record does not even come close strikes me as being, to be frank, ridiculous.

I'm sorry, but having read through your post a couple of times, I can't help but think that if we translate it roughy it equates to a simple, "I've never seen an Ezzard Charles fight."

Don't wish to be rude, Waingro, but I completely agree with Chris.

It is abundantly clear that you know absolutely nothing about Ezzard Charles.

HumanWindmill wrote:Don't wish to be rude, Waingro, but I completely agree with Chris.

It is abundantly clear that you know absolutely nothing about Ezzard Charles.

Even if we take out the two extremely close, controversial and fortunate decisions over Burley, who had ten bad toes in both fights his record is pretty much beyond compare at the weight

Ten bad toes, eh?

Eat your heart out, David Haye.

Waingro I would need to agree with Chris and Windy you clearly don't know what your talking about. My Knowledge of these guys is not on par with the likes of Wiindy, Chris and Rowley to name a few.

However I do know enough about them to know you are talking tripe.

Like I said before Jones wasn't voted by the members as a top 8 ATG light heavy so he isn't in.

lol just my opinion guys no need to get worked up. It was not me that brought up Jones but tbh he is better than those guys I think and he would beat them when he was at his best it looks like people only remember him for what he is like at the moment at his best he was untouchable and schooled guys like McCallum, Toney and Hopkins who never get beat easy shows his class and the level he was on.

Waingro wrote:lol just my opinion guys no need to get worked up. It was not me that brought up Jones but tbh he is better than those guys I think and he would beat them when he was at his best it looks like people only remember him for what he is like at the moment at his best he was untouchable and schooled guys like McCallum, Toney and Hopkins who never get beat easy shows his class and the level he was on.

Whereas you don't know Charles at all.

Nobody is getting worked up, Waingro. I'm sure you know the modern game quite well. I'm equally sure you know nothing about the earlier fighters, and it seems I'm not the only one to believe that to be the case.

Waingro wrote: at his best it looks like people only remember him for what he is like at the moment at his best he was untouchable and schooled guys like McCallum, Toney and Hopkins .

Beat Hopkins at middleweight and Toney at supermiddle so not sure how much they tell us about his abilities at light heavyweight

His ablities at light heavyweight were quality mate the result wold not have been any different cant believe anyone would think Hopkins or Toney or McCallum would beat him at light heavyweight when he schooled them

Hopkins did beat him at light heavy. Jones beat Hopkins at middleweight.

Waingro wrote:His ablities at light heavyweight were quality mate the result wold not have been any different cant believe anyone would think Hopkins or Toney or McCallum would beat him at light heavyweight when he schooled them

Don't recall anybody said they would beat him at light heavyweight, although if one wanted to be pedantic Hopkins did actually beat him at light heavy. The point being made was teh fights you mentioned did not happen at light heavy, and given this is the subject of this thread I was questioning how relevant they were.

lol Hopkins beat Jones when he was washed up mate you need to watch him like 10 or 15 years ago when he was at his best he schooled Hopkins nowadays he aint much not saying he would beat those guys now but seriously mate he was alot better before he is just carrying on too long like Holyfield.

lol tbh imo you should quit now before taking further punishment.

Can't we have Tunney vs RJJ in this tourney?

Haven't seen one of Coxy's rants in a while and it would cheer my dull afternoon at work!!

Waingro wrote:lol Hopkins beat Jones when he was washed up mate you need to watch him like 10 or 15 years ago when he was at his best he schooled Hopkins nowadays he aint much not saying he would beat those guys now but seriously mate he was alot better before he is just carrying on too long like Holyfield.

I know how good Jones was in his prime I have his career set on my hard drive. I was just pointing out that Hopkins did beat him at 175lbs. When you said he would school Hopkins at that weight.

There's an almost ethereal quality to the kind of vacuous stupidity that you're all being far too nice to call outright. I'd love to know what the triple figures IQ brigade think about Charles-Foster and Moore-Spinks, for example, rather than listening to the class remedial.

I must say that the captain's comments are necessarily sobering to me. What began as a bit of fun poking in the direction of our illustrious Waingro is beginning to appear a bit childish in itself.

To that end, I shall delete the offending ' Kramer ' comments.

As to Charles v Foster : Never wise to write off a man who can punch like Foster, but Charles' rich pedigree and experience carry the day for me. Swarmer, slugger, boxer or any permutation of those routinely came unstuck against Charles, who takes this one quite conclusively over the long haul, for me.

Charles by UD.

Spinks v Moore is very tricky but, once again, I believe that Archie at his best simply knows a wee bit too much and also takes a clear UD.

Tunney v Conn has already been admirably summed up. Tunney that bit better in every department, and another UD winner.

Greb and Loughran we already know. Greb, by UD.

Four clear UDs for me, then.

Further to above, I'm afraid that my temporary lapse into juvenile humour means that some contributions from innocent members fell foul and also required ditching.

My fault entirely, and I can only apologize.

Greb Loughran happened often enough to suggest it needs no real analysis on here so suffice to say Greb is through to the next round for me.

Charles Foster is interesting because whilst he had every asset you could hope for and maybe based on nothing other than the fact I read a biography of Bivins recently and know in one of their fights Bivins bounced Charles off the canvas like a rubber ball I am really struggling on this one because if Bivins can bounce Charles around have to thin a murderous puncher like Foster can. However what should also be said is against Bivins Charles got up (a lot!) and given his all round game I supect he does this against Foster, close decision for Charles.

Spinks vs Moore is interesting as Spinks is a guy capable of making anyone look bad but in Moore he is in with one of the cleverest guys ever to lace up a pair who was almost unrivalled in solving the puzzles put in front of him and whilst he may take a couple of rounds to suss Spinks suss him he most certainly would, you then just have to decide if Spinks sees the final bell and to be charitable I'll say he does but loses a close but lcear decision.

Love Conn to bits but how can you make an argument for him in this one. I actually think Conn is a bit better than he gets credit for because by the time he had developed into the weight and had a few years on his age he went up to heavyweight so we are probably robbed of him at his best at LH because he is always regarded as a light heavy but no less than Joe Louis said this was poppycock. However what ifs and might have beens don't work we have ot base this on the fighters we saw rather than those that might have developed and as others have said Tunney just did everything that little bit better. Tunney by UD.

HumanWindmill wrote:Further to above, I'm afraid that my temporary lapse into juvenile humour means that some contributions from innocent members fell foul and also required ditching.

My fault entirely, and I can only apologize.

Makes you feel any better it amused me Windy

That's a nice consolation, jeff.

Charles v Foster - Foster's destructive power at the weight would give him a chance but like the captain, I can only see Foster taking this one on a knockout. However, playing the odds I would have to take Charles to win by UD.

Spinks v Moore - I'm going to go against the consensus and take Spinks by SD. Moore had the slightest hint of a habit of losing to the best fighters he faced and Spinks would just about belong in that category. Would be hellishly close but I fancy Spinks to land the jinx often enough to impress the judges. It would be close though.

Tunney v Conn - Tunney by UD in an entertaining fight. As said above, Tunney just too good at everything for Conn.

Greb v Loughran - for reasons stated by others, Greb by wide UD.

I'm counting these later so any one else wanting to have their say do so soon.

Charles v Foster: This is a very interesting one. Its so difficult to pick against Charles against pretty much any light heavyweight because the strength of his record is just so overwhelming in itselfm that it almost forces people to play the percentages in his favour. I think this is the general gist of the picks so far where the safe bet would be Charles to win but at risk of Fosters formidable power. I think it might be underrating Fosters boxing skills a bit as can happen when you have such a fearsome hitter but the Fourie fights show his talents were ample outside his power. I would have this as a pick em really as whatever advanteage Charles has on paper could be offset against Fosters power. Charles was no stranger to visiting the canvas in his career and the big question for me would be could he survive if a puncher like Foster floored him and continue? Gun to head I will probably cave and play the percentage of a close Charles UD for the purposes of this thread but in reality I think anything is possible in this one.

Spinks v Moore: I like Spinks in this I have to say and I think he wins a competitive but clear UD. Despite Moores experience and calibre of opponents as pointed out on another thread, it was patchier when faced with the top guys at their best and much of his legacy comes from his longetivity. Spinks I think is a step up from everyone bar CHarles that Moore faced at lightheavy and I think he takes this one.

Tunney v Conn: Tunney takes this on points I think. I think he just edges Conn in every department and was better all round and tactically so find it hard to make a case for Conn in this one as I think he gets outboxed for the most part.

Greb v Loughran: Not much to add really. Greb the winner as the history books show.

Charles v Foster-Charles had a very cute style of defence. Slight movements slipping and rolling with punches. Whilst Foster was an excellent boxer with ferocious power I see Charles winning this with his cute defensive skills and counter punching maybe suffering a knock down on route to pretty tight points win. Charles UD 144-142.

Spinks v Moore-The toughest one to call imo. While I see Spinks being able to keep Moore at range early on I can see Moore getting at him in the later rounds and getting inside and taking many of Spinks shots on his shoulders. Both to go down at some point in the fight but I see Moore taking this one by a close decision. Moore UD 145-143

Tunney v Conn- Nothing more to add like everyone has said Tunney does just about everything better than Conn and takes this one by a pretty comfy points decision.. Tunney 147-141

Greb v Loughran-No need to guess this one it happened. Greb UD 145-141

The semi-final draws have given us two great bouts, the only snag being that we sort of know how they play out.

Moore couldn't beat Charles by slugging him or boxing him. Two decisions and a stoppage indicate that the gap between them was growing wider, rather than narrower. A fourth fight confirms the trend - Charles by 7th round stoppage.

The same is true of Tunney-Greb. Here, the trend, which started with one of Greb's great performances and Tunney's only loss, but finished with Greb good-naturedly telling Tunney that he never wanted to fight Gene again, would surely be upheld by a sixth fight between them. Tunney knows what he has to do to maintain distance and score when it matters and takes a UD, by 146-140.

A little switch around on the draw would have thrown up a couple of more intriguing semi-finals - as the captain says, we can be fairly confident in the outcome of these fights because of the real history between the fighters involved. Greb v Charles and particularly, Moore v Tunney would have been great to comment on ahead of a cracking potential final between Tunney and Charles.

Charles and Tunney to win by UD's.

Next time round I'm doing fresh draws for the semi's.

The draw has been edited.

I gave away my views on the eventual outcomes of both fights in my last comment. I'd take Tunney and Charles to win both fights by UD.

Greb would have been a tough night's work for Charles - he was a tough night's work for anyone but I would expect Charles to use his size advantage and employ Tunney's tactics against Greb. Expect lots of work to the body to slow Greb down and Charles' greater power to overwhelm Greb in the close exchanges as the fight wears on. Very hard to stop Greb but I think Charles had the power to come close. Saying that, I would expect Greb to hang onto the end to lose bravely but fairly convincingly.

Tunney and Moore could potentially be a bit of a stinker and it is a match up of speed and ring-smarts against crafft and ringsmarts. It would be pretty close but I'd take Tunney to use his greater speed to do the more eye-catching stuff and to impress the judges enough to take the decision.

Charles-Greb: An absolute classic, where Greb subjects Charles to severe pressure for the first half of the fight, landing more shots despite being on the end of some of Charles's more hurtful counters. However, in the ninth, Charles times one of Greb's windmilling rushes perfectly, floors Greb and takes complete control of the fight. He now has the distance between them judged to perfection and is even on the front foot as the fight nears its end. Greb's lead is a distant memory as Charles takes a UD, 146-141.

Tunney-Moore is another classic. Moore floors Tunney early and goes for the quick finish. However, Gene remains calm and his brilliant boxing brain starts to position him where Moore would like him least. He begins to hold his own in the close quarter exchanges, but the fight is being won at distance, where Tunney's jab scores repeatedly. Sensing he needs a KO to win, Moore throws all caution aside, but is countered perfectly in the last for a knockdown that removes all doubt about the result. Tunney UD 145-141.

Charles v Greb
Greb's style doesn't seem like one that could hope to outbox a fighter as rounded as Charles, and taking into account Ezzard's size and power advantages going to war wouldn't do Greb much good either. Unique as he is, Greb will never be easy to beat as he's always in his opponents face and always throwing, without an ounce of quit in him, but I'd pick Charles to be strong enough and smart enough to tame Greb and take a UD.

Moore v Tunney is such a tough pick, and my answer may be hindered because I don't want to see a Moore v Charles final for obvious reasons.
I'd pick Tunney to take the UD with his defensive movement and speed beign enough to edge the close rounds. He also had some power of his own and a fine chin so it wouldn't be a cat and mouse/bull matador game like Dempsey v Tunney. I think they'd trade the early rounds before Moore drops Tunney hard in the 6th, after which Tunney gets spooked and stays firmly on his bike. The next several rounds mainly go to Tunney, with Archie only getting points based on agression. With Tunney going conservative and Archie fighting in bursts the bout gets slow in action for this part. Going into the championship rounds though, Tunney can't keep away from Archie forever and occasionally they have to lock horns in ring centre. With the 15th being a close brawl and both men not quite as fresh as they were in round 1 it's anyone's guess who gets the decision. Tunney takes an unpopular MD.