My take on the Light-Heavyweights

Afternoon gents, hope you’re all well. Just another little Boobie bit for you to get your teeth in to if you fancy it.

I used to think that Middleweight was the hardest division in which to rank the all-time greats in any reasonable order. After spending a considerable amount of time pondering this article, I can safely say that I was wrong, and that the honour lies (in my opinion) firmly with the Light-Heavyweights from here on in.

What makes it a particularly tough division to rank, aside from the fact that it’s virtually always been full of the highest quality throughout history, is that there are more men at 175 lb than anywhere else who were never given the opportunity to hold the title, despite being bona fide ‘greats’ whichever way you look at them. In this respect, Middleweight has Holman Williams, Mike Gibbons and Eduardo Lausse. Welterweight has Charley Burley, Pedro Montanez and Billy Graham. But at Light-Heavyweight there’s Ezzard Charles, Gene Tunney, Harry Greb, Jimmy Bivins, Lloyd Marshall, Young Stribling, Tommy Gibbons and a few others on top of that to consider.

A quick point; for the reason of sanity as much as anything, I’ve decided not to rank either Sam Langford or Bob Fitzsimmons, as there is simply so much scope for uncertainly regarding their respective weights for some of their fights, and also because (more in the case of Fitzsimmons) some of their best work came before the Light-Heavyweight division even existed. It's a hard enough task as it is, and including these two would have made it nigh-on impossible. I've also decided to leave out Jack O'Brien; knowing that the fights in which he won the title (as well as his two attempts at the Heavyweight crown) were all fixed affairs, as were many of his other big fights if we believe the testimony he gave to a San Francisco newspaper in late 1907, I think it's impossible to judge from this point in history how great he really was, if he was at all.

Anyway, after a ridiculous amount of consideration and shuffling, here is my take on the Light-Heavyweights.

1) Ezzard Charles 2) Gene Tunney 3) Archie Moore 4) Mike Spinks 5) Tommy Loughran 6) Bob Foster 7) Harry Greb 8.) Maxie Rosenbloom 9) John Henry Lewis 10) Roy Jones Jr 11) Jimmy Bivins 12) Harold Johnson 13) Billy Conn 14) Matthew Saad Muhammad 15) Jack Dillon 16) Victor Galindez 17) Lloyd Marshall 18) Jack Delaney 19) Young Stribling 20) Dariusz Michalczewski

The near misses include Gus Lesnevich, John Conteh, Paul Berlenbach, Joey Maxim, Marvin Johnson, Joe Choynski and about half a dozen others, all of whom had reasonable claims for a top twenty spot.

Let me know if there’s anyone you think I’ve missed who is deserving of a place, any particular rankings you’d like to question, or anything else that’s relevant. Cheers everyone.

Not an easy task putting together a list like that with so many great fighters. This isn't my specialist subject so I expect to be shot down here but I think Billy Conn should be higher up, although I have no idea who I'd want to move down either. Also have you rated people purely on their exploits at Light heavy or have their careers at other weights come in to the equation?

bellchees wrote:Not an easy task putting together a list like that with so many great fighters. This isn't my specialist subject so I expect to be shot down here but I think Billy Conn should be higher up, although I have no idea who I'd want to move down either. Also have you rated people purely on their exploits at Light heavy or have their careers at other weights come in to the equation?

Thanks for contributing, bell. Certainly won't get shot down by me for suggesting that Conn should be a little higher - I think plenty would agree with you. You've hit the nail on the head when you say it's hard to imagine who'd move down to accommodate him. It's not that I don't rate Conn, but simply that there are so many names to consider (when trying to make this top twenty I ended up with over forty names in my head to consider, some of whom obviously weren't true contenders to be so high, but at the same time many of them at least had a legitimate case).

When ranking fighters for a certain division I only take in to account what they've done in that particular weight class, hence anything north or south of the Light-Heavyweight division has been excluded (and is a major reason why I simply couldn't rank Langford or Fitzsimmons). I know some others use different yard sticks, but if we did take in to account pound for pound standings and career outside of that particular weight class we'd have to make Gene Tunney a top two or three Heavyweight, which would simply be daft in my eyes.

I think the fact that Greb is only in at 7 and i cant disagree with that shows just how packed with quality the division has been.

As you have just said Chris, making a case for fighters to be considered higher is quite easy but deciding who should be moved down to accomodate is incredibly difficult. Its a great list though.

Gallindez may be slightly too high for my liking and would definitely have Maxim and Conteh above Michalczewski but other than that seems a reasonable list Chris

Charles and Tunney are the clear standouts in the division and despite never being given the opportunity to fight for the title they were beyond any reasonable doubt the top operators at the weight during possibly the two strongest eras in the division. Could argue all day as to which of the pair should be top but the margins between them are so fine that either order is perfectly valid, beyond that you can't overlook Moore who many would have as the number one but always felt he was more vulnerable than Charles or Tunney.

Cheers Ghosty. It's an understandable claim for Maxim, but ultimately I just think that a few too many of his contemporaries had the wood on him for him to make the cut.

Michalczewski is a hard one to rank but I think it would be harsh on him to miss out completely. There are others who have more eye-catching wins, no doubt, but his overall consistency makes him a hard man to ignore. Like it or not, he achieved a fair bit more than Conteh did in their respective careers.

I'd like to see Billy Miske sneak into the top twenty.

Miske, who only made Canastota last year, must be a contender for the title of ' most routinely overlooked fighter of all time. ' His record is choc full of excellent names, and even after coming up short against Dempsey for the heavyweight title - when he was already suffering the kidney disease which would kill him - he reeled off an excellent streak.

Great article about him here :

http://cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/wail900_callis.htm

HumanWindmill wrote:I'd like to see Billy Miske sneak into the top twenty.

Miske, who only made Canastota last year, must be a contender for the title of ' most routinely overlooked fighter of all time. ' His record is choc full of excellent names, and even after coming up short against Dempsey for the heavyweight title - when he was already suffering the kidney disease which would kill him - he reeled off an excellent streak.

Great article about him here :

http://cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/wail900_callis.htm

I'm a big fan of Miske, Windy. Thanks a lot for the article. He was certainly considered, but as we've all touched upon already - who makes way for him? The same could be said of Gibbons, Lesnevich, Maxim and a few others. Still, I knew what I was getting myself in for when I attempted sorting them in order!

Well, it's all about opinions, Chris, and I can see why he doesn't make the cut for you.

He'd sneak a top twenty place for me, ( in the absence of Fitz and Langford, ) purely on the basis that it's hard for me to find too many lightheavies with a more star - encrusted record and only three official losses. Given that he started out as a natural middle, and that he was terminally ill during the latter part of his career but was still clocking up wins over men such as Renault, Fulton, Brennan, Meehan, Gibbons, Burke and Roper, many of whom were rated heavies, I'd find it difficult to leave him out.

Just another example - as though it might be needed - to illustrate the great depth of the 175lb. division.

I don't envy you Chris trying to make sense of probably the most talent packed division of them all and think you have done a pretty admirable job of it. Would probably agree with Bellchees' assertion that Conn deserves a top ten berth as once he developed into a light heavy he was nigh on unstoppable and he could comfortably swap places with any of the three or four above him. Am probably inclined to favour him as he was active in a pretty formidable era for the division.

Other than that I like Moore above Tunney at two, is wafer thin but on longevity and the title I personally favour him.

Billy conn needs to be top 5......Charles waas never champion so he shouldn't be number 1...the title for me is the pinnacle and non title fights aren't as important...

Spinks higher than Tunney....Bob Foster too low at six..

Basically confirms my article....A severe reluctance to rank modern day fighters highly..

Because the author has been reading too much.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Basically confirms my article....A severe reluctance to rank modern day fighters highly..

Because the author has been reading too much.

Or, perhaps, because you haven't read enough.

Primary evidence man myself in the main....If I read about Fitzsimmons.. no doubt he wouldn't have seemed as limited as the uncultural upstart I saw against Corbett....

I read fact not fiction.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Primary evidence man myself in the main....If I read about Fitzsimmons.. no doubt he wouldn't have seemed as limited as the uncultural upstart I saw against Corbett....

I read fact not fiction.

Plenty of primary evidence for the 175lb. fighters. Maybe you should go watch some.

Only on here could someone argue that someones attempts to learn more about a subject would be hurt by reading too much about it.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit..

Wrong Rowley although I'm not surprised you turned up when you did!!

Read by all means but don't let it cloud your judgement..

Which you boys do all the time...

Thanks for the contributions, Truss. I know you have a different take on whether or not someone who never held the title can be called the greatest in a certain division, which is fair enough. But the fact is that Moore would make absolutely everyone's top three - Charles dominated him, 3-0 (1). I can't think of any other fighter in history who can claim to have been so dominant against a consensus top three merchant in that fighter's own weight class. Having Moore ahead of Charles is just an impossibility because, title reigns aside, Charles was clearly a better fighter than Moore, simple as that.

Conn in the top five? I'd have no objections with anyone putting him in the low end of the top ten, don't think he's quite top five worthy. I'm sure you'd agree that Charles, Tunney, Moore and Spinks are all musts for a top five spot. You then said I had Foster too low at number six - so where would you fit Conn in?

Anyway, thanks again for your offerings.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Wrong Rowley although I'm not surprised you turned up when you did!!

Read by all means but don't let it cloud your judgement..

Which you boys do all the time...

Perhaps, having seen the footage of many of these fighters, some of us are in a stronger position to judge them than you are since, by your own word, you have not seen them.

Primary evidence, Truss. It's important, you know.

Heard Windy and Chris are reading a Rosenbloom book...

That's Spinks and Foster down a place next time

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Heard Windy and Chris are reading a Rosenbloom book...

That's Spinks and Foster down a place next time

Heard Truss has never seen a fight in black and white. Explains why he feels so threatened by those who have seen Loughran and co.

I think as it's light heavy only then Roy Jones probably needs moving down a bit as his best 3 wins are at Middle against Hopkins, Super Middle against Toney and Heavy against Ruiz. As good as Jones was he didn't beat much quality at Light Heavyweight.

bellchees wrote:I think as it's light heavy only then Roy Jones probably needs moving down a bit as his best 3 wins are at Middle against Hopkins, Super Middle against Toney and Heavy against Ruiz. As good as Jones was he didn't beat much quality at Light Heavyweight.

Boy, did you ever pick the wrong time to make that argument.

In all seriousness guys this is my point....If no footage existed of Ali and respected wallies like Nat Fleischer kept going on about Dempsey beating him...then some people would think Dempsey was better than him..

However there is footage of Dempsey and Ali and we can see that this guy must have ben on acid....

Yet you read books by Fleischer types who are obviously in awe of the subject and so the guy becomes something he isn't...

Resulting in twonkishly high ratings in lists.....

Just worries me that intelligent guys like you are having the wool pulled over your eyes by rose tinted writers..

I like to use my own eyes.......

These authors are the reason great modern fighters get forgotten for the chaff of the past...and why some have Ketchel alongside or higher than Marvin..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Just worries me that intelligent guys like you are having the wool pulled over your eyes by rose tinted writers..

I like to use my own eyes.......

Maybe intelligent guys like you should open your eyes and read what others write. In many cases, these fighters ARE ON SURVIVING FILM. So many of us have SEEN them.

Have you ? If not, you are defeated by your own argument.

I'll bet....when the author does the welterweight list....Kid Gavilan is above Ray Leonard..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'll bet....when the author does the welterweight list....Kid Gavilan is above Ray Leonard..

I'll bet he isn't.

Not sure what the big deal is here, Truss. The twenty names I've given seem like a pretty good mix between the 'old' and 'new' as far as I'm concerned. Jones Jr and Michalczewski held titles at 175 lb as recently as 2003 / 2004. Spinks certainly seems to fit in to what you describe as 'modern', as do Matthew Saad Muhammad, Foster and Galindez, whose careers overlap with the second half of Ali's. Given that Ali seems to be your cut off point, I don't see how you've concluded that I'm being too favourable to the old-timers.

Virgil Hill broke the record for most succesful defences.. where is he?

Notice you've left Carpentier out..thought he'd be a shoe-in.

and you have got Gavilan higher haven't you??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Virgil Hill broke the record for most succesful defences.. where is he?

Notice you've left Carpentier out..thought he'd be a shoe-in.

and you have got Gavilan higher haven't you??

Had his record broken by Michalczewski, who only just scrapes in and who beat Hill. Hill just doesn't cut it for me, didn't beat enough quality for top twenty consideration.

Carpentier? He was considered but in all honestly there are a few more ahead of him in the queue who still didn't make my list. Tunney, Gibbons and Loughran had the wood on him and, off the top of my head, he only beat one 175 lb champion in the shape of Levinsky, who himself was usually beaten by the other great Light-Heavyweights of that era.

And no, I don't rank Gavilan higher than Leoard at Welterweight or pound for pound, you'll be glad to know!

......Hearns beat Hill first...he's not in it??? and he won the light heavy title twice......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:......Hearns beat Hill first...he's not in it??? and he won the light heavy title twice......

Hearns did little else at 175 lb other than beating Hill, though. The same can't be said for Michalczewski who, like it or not, reigned for some twenty-odd defences and proved a very tough man to beat. As I said, there aren't that many great names of Michalczewski's record, but his consistency over such a long period deserved to nick that last spot. Just how I see it.

No but the fact Hill lost after a long reign to Darius whne Hearns beat him first means bo diddly is what I'm saying..

Might as well have Honey higher than Curry..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No but the fact Hill lost after a long reign to Darius whne Hearns beat him first means bo diddly is what I'm saying..

Might as well have Honey higher than Curry..

Still not sure what you mean, to be honest. Michalczewski had done more at Light-Heavyweight before beating Hill than Hearns had done, and also did more at 175 lb after beating him than Hearns did. Tommy got their first, sure, but his record at that particular weight is in no way better than Michalczewski's.

Not talking about Tommy I'm talking about Hill..

Hill has the record for defences and he lost to Hearns before he lost Darius....

So Darius beat an over the hill Virgil....

Hence as Hearns had beat him the win meant sack all...

Better answer my question quickly...Notice my perfectly good thread has been shut down by an over zealous mod.....

Probably be shut down myself next..............

Maybe go to a site where people are less sensitive.

Truss, all anybody tried to do on the other thread was discuss the issues. It was YOU who began to get excited and throwing the insults around.

Let's start again, shall we ?

I just got put out by the Buddy Baer comment.....No offence... no one has more respect for your views than me..you know that...

My propensity to get carried away sometimes... you know as well..

If you reopen my thread you have my word that I'll be a good boy.

I do think modern fighters get slighted..

No offence meant..none taken and none ever will be..

Some of your friends don't remember the old days..

No offence taken by me either, Truss. And none meant in the ' wizard of oz ' comment.

Heat of the moment, and all.

I'm very fond of Dorothy....

Me, too.

Dorothy is a fox!

You do like contradicting yourself Truss

As for Hill see no reason for his inclusion in a top 20, his best win was over Henry Maske for christ sake

You do like contradicting yourself Truss..

easy thing to say...not easy to back up..

I've done some thinking about this thread this evening whilst drinking some low quality beer and it got me wondering about some of the ordering of the list. Matthew Saad Muhammad might be a bit high for my liking after some consideration. Also Bob Foster could well be placed a bit higher. I might be wrong but I think he was unbeaten at Light heavy weight and is marked down a bit for his less than successful attempts at Heavyweight. Also I'd like to bring up the case of Roy Jones being a bit high up again, I think his best wins were at other weight classes, the man was unbelievable at Super Middleweight in his brief stay there and I don't think he was quite as good at light Heavyweight despite spending a fair chunk of his career there.

Interesting points, bellchees. Remember, though, that Matthew Saad Muhammad belonged to an era of real quality for the 175 lb men; him, Galindez, Marvin Johnson, John Conteh, Dwight Muhammad Qawi, Yacqui Lopez, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad etc. Now granted, Qawi had a hold over him, but when weighing everything up I reckon Saad just about proved himself the best of a very, very strong bunch.

I seem to be getting a bit of a kicking for 'only' having Foster in sixth spot! It's all a matter of fractions. I think Charles, Tunney and Moore are a lock for the top three positions (although I think Charles and Moore are more or less on an equal footing). After that, Spinks was utterly dominant at the weight just as Foster was, but has that little bit more quality and depth to his record. That leaves Foster battling it out with Loughran for fifth spot - while Foster was utterly dominant during his reign, I don't think wins over Rondon, Tiger (a little overmatched at 175 lb, maybe), Fourie and Finnegan are of the same level of McTigue, Carpentier, Slattery or Greb, all of whom Loughran accounted for (although Greb had the upper hand more often than not). Throw in Loughran's impressive reign and my usual rule of thumb that quality matters more than quantity, and I simply have to put Loughran a shade ahead. I don't think I'm being harsh on Foster, it's simply a testament to the strength of the division that he doesn't crack my top five. You're right that he was a marvel, though. Only beaten twice inside the 175 lb limit and one of them was to Mauro Mina, one of the best Light-Heavyweights never to win the title - and many claim that it was a home town decision in Mina's favour.

As for Jones, the lack of Michalczewski on his record is a black mark against him, but for all that I can't ignore the fact that he made something like twelve successful title defences and was only very rarely troubled in them. The likes of Bivins and Johnson just behind him may have had a couple more eye-catching wins, but they weren't the best of their time. Jones was.

My favourite division, and definitely one about which I have an opinion! I'm in the Foster too low camp, I should say right away. He's a top 5 man, for me. Arguably the most dominant light-heavyweight of them all, without necessarily being the best. Rosenbloom is a fair bit too high; good technician, but in a division of this strength, he must rank lower. The great Greb, too, is flattered by a position quite as high as 7, in my opinion. Again, excellent victims, but in such a strong field, I would place him slightly outside the top 10.

My list might look something like 1) Charles 2) Moore 3) Spinks 4) Foster 5) Tunney 6) Jones Jr 7) Loughran 8) Conn 9) John Henry Lewis 10) Saad Muhammad 11) Greb 12) Langford (has to be here somewhere in my view) 13) Harold Johnson 14) Maxim (again, really has to be in this kind of list) 15) Rosenbloom 16) Bivins 17) Qawi 18) O'Brien (often unfairly overlooked) 19) Dillon 20) Michalczewski

Thanks for contributing, captain. Can always rely on you when it comes to a discussion on the 175 lb men!

I gave my reasons for leaving out Langford, Fitzsimmons and O'Brien, but kudos to you for being able to rank them. I'll stress again that I'm not attempting to diminish Foster - the margins between him, Spinks and Loughran were, in my mind, absolutely wafer-thin.

Out of genuine interest, what is it that compels you to leave Greb outside the top ten? Obviously he was a natural Middleweight, but a large bulk of his best work came at 175; given that he was so dominant against Loughran, I simply can't justify having Loughran more than two or three spots ahead of him. Granted, Loughran was a young pup when they fought, but he'd also still mixed it with the likes of McTigue and Tunney by then, so no real excuses, for me. I just can't see any way that a man who had a winning record against six lineal Light-Heavyweight champions, as well as the likes of Miske, Gibbons and a win over Tunney, can be left out of the top ten - but that's just me!

Rosenbloom down at fifteenth surprises me, although I'm sure you can more than justify that placing (I'll be the first to admit that there are people who know the division's ins and outs better than me). I don't see how he can be behind someone such as Maxim or Saad Muhammad - he had the edge on John Henry Lewis if I remember correctly, a borderline top ten man, whereas Maxim usually came up short against the very, very best men he faced, although obviously that's perfectly understandable when the two best men you've faced are Charles and Moore.

Still, thanks a lot for contributing, look forward to the reply if / when you get the time.

I think that Loughran deserves plenty of slack as a comparison with Greb - extraordinary for a twenty-one/twenty-two year old to be performing as he did at all against men like Tunney and Greb. Later, when much closer to his peak, Loughran comes out even against Greb, pretty much. The point is that Tommy fought at light-heavy the whole time, and when in his prime, was an utterly dominant champ.

Harry zips up and down between his two weights, and frankly hasn't enough fights at light-heavy to justify being ahead of Loughran. He is similar to Langford in this regard, although I'll accept that he could be somewhere around 9 or 10 at 175. Clearly, he comes out as the greatest pound for pounder in these lists, with only Charles to challenge him seriously in this regard. Saad Muhammad, on the face of it, is high in my list, but next to Spinks, he was the dominant figure in one of the division's two best eras. That unbeaten stretch when he beats Conteh, Pops Johnson and Lopez multiple times, as well as dominating a lot of other good uns entitles him to really high ranking for me.

I admit it - I don't like Maxie Rosebloom. Fiddling his way to a disputed decision here, eking out a points verdict there. Never a dominant fighter in any way, and damn lucky not to be 4-1 down against Lewis, if you ask me. I'm prepared to put him above Maxim, who may be a notch or so too high (but is clearly better than the Michalczewskis of this world), but never in a million years can I have him ahead of men like Jones Jr and Conn. Never!

Tunney at 5 Captain?