Light Heavyweight rankings Top 10 Head to Head with a time machine and Peak for Peak.

I thought we handled the tricky task of basing a Heavyweights ranking on a head to head basis rather well - so I thought of throwing you an even tougher task in a seriously talent packed division.

For those who missed the other - this is just a simple () task of ranking your top 15/20 fighters of said division on a head to head basis - and he who wins the most heads to heads gets ranked highest - which is then ranked a top 10 after which if you are so inclined you compare them to your genuine top 10 and see how they compare.

Ezzard Charles
Sam Langford
Gene Tunney
Archie Moore
Tommy Loughran
Michael Spinks
Bob Foster
Billy Conn
Harry Greb
Roy Jones Jr
Jimmy Bivins
Fitzsimmons
Matthew Saad Muhammad
Jack Dillon
Dwight Muhammad Qawi

Just a little list of the top of my head to help you if you cant be arsed looking it up (unordered). Please assume all fighters are from the period where they were at their absolute best - the Dreaded prime.

Shah

I've got a top 6 so far, shah but need a bit more time to fill out the remaining spaces. An interesting task this one and even more difficult than the heavies as size doesn't really come into it!

Take your time mate - got a rough top 8 but i keep changing in my mind

I would need to watch at least three weeks of clips to decide this one. I'm not one to rate on what i've read.

Thanks for posting this, Shah. Not sure if I can offer up a proper list so far, much like Superfly, although I'm confident that Charles and Foster will be my top two. Once I've somehow come up with some kind of order for the rest I'll let you have it!

Not sure where to start, there is far too much talent on show here to do it quickly, think an excel spreadsheet is in order to try and decipher this.

Ok, here we go, rip my list to shreds at your will as I'm not on for a couple of days, haha.

1.) Charles
2.) Foster
3.) Langford
4.) Moore
5.) Tunney
6.) Spinks
7.) Loughran
8.) Rosenbloom
9.) Bivins
10.) Conn

Basically, through my own personal way of looking at it partially done in terms of head to heads, longevity, potential talent (speculation) and achievements, maybe I would change a couple around in the middle and down the bottom, but really you could tear me apart if you truly fancied it. But at this moment in time, that's more or less how I'd put it.

Roy hits the number 11 spot but at times would overtake Conn, I think I would fancy Roy to beat most those in terms of head-head though, so jeez I just don't know! haha. Would need proper time to get it truly spot on but it depends on what you are looking for to rate them with.

Interested to see Langford at 3 but Fitzsimmons at 12 or lower, head to head don't think he does any worse than Langford especially as we would have to consider the heavyweight exploits of both considering weight.

I'm going to discount Langford and Fitzsimmons - simply because the style of fighting employed by both at their peak was so different that it really is dificult to to assess how they would fare head to head and also because their inclusion makes a difficult task nigh on impossible. If anyone is interested - Langford just sneaks into my all time top 10 at the weight with Fitz just outside.

Head to head, I'd go for:

1) Charles
2) Tunney
3) Foster
4) Spinks
5) Roy Jones Junior
6) Moore
7) Bivens
8) Conn
9) Greb
10) Saad Muhammad

My top 6 are almost set in stone but I think that Jones Junior has a very good chance against all of the others in the top 5 with the exception of Charles. Foster and Spinks are split by the width of a fag paper.

Greb sneaks in by virtue of being almost impossible to stop and having an all action style that will be difficult to outpoint. I'd have him higher but I think Tunney developed the blueprint for beating him and whilst Greb would make it difficult, I do think the elite fighters in the division would be able to follow that blueprint.

Compiling this list does make you realise that there has been a real shortage of elite light-heavys (Jones aside) since Spinks moved up to heavyweight. Perhaps if Ward moves up to the division on a permanent basis we might see him threatening this list in a few years?

Superfly does it again. Good list.

Cheers Mackem. RJJ at 5 may prove to be controversial but I think there is a genuine argument to say that he starts off on pretty much an even par with the recognised greats of the division.

In addition to Charles, I don't think Foster is a great match up for Roy but it would be fun to watch him pit his wits against the very best.

1) Charles
2) Foster
3) Spinks
4) Moore
5) Jones Jr
6) Tunney
7) Bivins
8) Greb
9) Loughran
10) JH Lewis

As I said before, not an easy task. Harold Johnson was probably the toughest name to leave out, for me.

I think Jones' place near(ish) the top is quite justified, Superfly. He's favourite against a fair few, and in most cases outside of that can't be anything less than a very live underdog. The only 175 lb fighter I'd back to really give him a tanning would be Foster, who I was tempted to put at number one. At twelve and a half stone, he was little short of perfection.

Those last four spots are a nightmare to fill, aren't they, chris. Loughran and Johnson both came into the reckoning for me and I have no quibbles with anyone including them.

Loughran's a tough one isn't he, Superfly? He has a fantastic record at the weight and his title reign was top-notch. But I can't get out of my head the fact that Greb was 4-1-1 against him, and Greb was no weight hopper, either. Generally, when he took on the Light-Heavies, he still wasn't much higher than the 160 lb Middleweight limit, if at all. So ultimately (although he was young) Loughran having his hands so full with a Middleweight, albeit a truly exceptional one, makes me wonder how he'd have done in some other golden eras for the Light-Heavies. Worth slotting him in at the low end, I think, but wouldn't argue too much if others left him out.

The record against Greb is precisely the reason I left him out. However, the tough time he gave Tunney and the fact that he had a style (like Tunney) that would have adapted to the modern game, works in his favour.

Nice to see you include, John Henry who's often overlooked amongst the light-heavy greats. I couldn't find a place for him on a haed to head basis but he's always pushing for a place in my actual top 10.

I really do love the light-heavy division.

the one guy who like Douglas at the heavies who may waarant a place a lot nearer the top than you'd expect is Bivins. Between around 1942 and 1945 Bivins was about as close to unbeatable as you would hope to encounter and in some pretty decent company as well beating the likes of Marshall, Moore Charles, Bettina and Christoforidis. If we are talking pure peak in putting this together may be an argument that Jimmy could trouble the top five with ease.

I agree to some extent on Bivens but the sheer consistency (or more so in the case of Jones, the ludicrous skill levels) of the men I have above him makes me think that they would probably finish with more victories than Jimmy if this were a round robin tournament.

No shame in him being seventh in what is an unbelievably talent rich division.

If it just going off head to head ratings then theoretically anyone who fought at light heavyweight regardless of the legacy they left there could be considered. It leaves some interesting possibilities like Floyd Patterson who looked as if he would be much better at light heavyweight than heavyweight. He basically sacrificed what would probably have been a fairly long light heavyweight reign to stay at heavyweight. Had he not made the jump up he would probably have been the guy to dethrone Moore. The likes of JHL, Moore and Foster got knocked out pretty decisively when they steppe up but because they had established reigns at light heavy its not really held against them in the way Patterson is maybe remembered for being a rather fragile heavyweight. Im sometimes felt Patterson was a kind of an unrealised Bob Foster of the light heavyweight division.

It becomes a bit trickier when you go far back to establish the weights of fighters. Langfords weight fluctuated enormously and he doesnt really have any light heavyweight reign to speak of. But you would have to imagine he would be formidable head to head if he settled at 175lbs given he was regularly able to beat decent heavyweights (something some other light heavyweight struggled to do).

Greb is usually classified as a middleweight because thats where he held his title but he really only weighed insode the middleweight limit when he had to defend his title. His most comfortable weight appears to be what would be the modern super middleweight weight class which obviously didnt exist then. But most of his fights were above the middleweight limit which I suppose technically made them light heavyweight fights for that time.

Manos

Much of it I suppose depends on the weight of Grebs opposition, if he and his opponent were both only a couple of pounds over the middleweight limit I would feel uncomfortable considering it a light heavyweight fight.

After a bit of thought have come up with a list i'm not entirely happy with but then again I never would be.

Ezzard Charles
Gene Tunney
Bob Foster
Sam Langford
Archie Moore
Jimmy Bivins
Michael Spinks
Bob Fitzsimmons
Harry Greb
Roy Jones
Tommy Loughran
Billy Conn

Can't for the life of me see how Tunney can be considered to be any lower than two, was chopping and changing between Charles and he at the top but settled with Ezzard eventually. He's technically better than Moore while being more than tough enough to survive Foster and Spinks with ease, Jones speed may trouble him slightly but think his timing would overcome in the end.

Patterson briefly came into my thinking as I think he's the lost great light heavyweight. However, trying to rate him at the weight is full of if's but's and maybe's and I felt it was easier to leave him out.