My take on the Light-Heavyweights

First topic message reminder :

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.

Thanks for getting back to me, captain. Had no idea you were such a critic of Slapsie Maxie, though. Have to confess, I've not seen his series with Jonh Henry Lewis - although I'd say that any good luck he had their probably evened itself out by losing his title to Olin on such a controversial decision.

I couldn’t have Saad Muhammad as high as you have him because, in my own head, I couldn’t justify having him more than a couple of places higher than Galindez who, like Saad Muhammad, didn’t unify but whose title reign is, at the very least, of a very similar quality and who also beat a similar level of opposition, too. I’m a little surprised that Galindez hasn’t cracked your top twenty – that said, he is one of my favourite fighters of all time, so maybe I’m a little biased!

Yep, I'm content with that Ghosty, and I've thought about this one quite a lot. To me, there is clear water between the first 5 and the rest, great as the division is. I don't think that there can be any doubt about Charles and Moore as 1 and 2. Their records in the strongest of all eras are extraordinary. As said elsewhere, Charles's is even better than Moore's and he has the cushion of the 3-0 head to head, so he's a clear top dog for me.

Spinks has to be third in my book. Utterly dominant in 175's second strongest era, no-one really came close to beating him. Great names on his resume, which is hard to fault. You may feel that Tunney should be above Foster, bearing in mind the relative absence of competition that Bob had in his day. It was Bob's total dominance at 175, though. I wouldn't, with confidence, back any 175 lb who ever lived not to get mauled by his ferocious hitting. The Mina result was a blatant case of 'larceny in Lima', so besides that and the draw in his last meaningful fight, Bob was invincible at the weight. However, as I say, Foster/Tunney is a pick 'em for me in terms of number 4 or number 5.

In any case, then we have a gap and then Jones Jr.

Well, I couldn't really have Galindez ahead of Conteh, Chris, and hand on heart, much as JC remains a hero of mine, he has to miss out, narrowly, on my top 20. I'd have the two of them, together with Virgil Hill, something like equal 22nd.

Will openly admit I can't see how Moore gets close to topping Tunney at Light Heavyweight let alone Spinks or Foster who don't have the quality wins that Gene has and despite not holding the title was fairly dominant in an era I class stronger than Spinks'.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Well, I couldn't really have Galindez ahead of Conteh, Chris, and hand on heart, much as JC remains a hero of mine, he has to miss out, narrowly, on my top 20. I'd have the two of them, together with Virgil Hill, something like equal 22nd.

Fair enough, captain. But if I may play a bit of Devil's advocate, on what grounds can Galindez only be considered on an equal footing with Conteh? I'll accept that Conteh, on his day, was the more rounded and complete fighter as opposed to the sometimes gung-ho Argentine, but when it comes to their overall achievements and careers, Galindez leaves Conteh eating his dust.

Ten successful defences of the WBA crown, which he did briefly regain after losing it for the first time, and wins over Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Ahumada, Lopez (though he got lucky in one of their fights in my eyes, can't remember if it was the first or second), Hutchins and Fourie. Granted, Conteh scored wins over a couple of those names, too, but given how (relatively) paltry his title reign and longevity were in comparison, I just don't think there's any way that Galindez can be anything other than comfortably ahead of Conteh.

Moore simply must be ahead of Gene, I think, Ghosty. Comes out on the short side against Charles and Burley, otherwise absolutely dominates everyone who fought at the weight between the 40s and the 60s (ie the strongest of all 175 eras). That kind of ability combined with longevity is a marvel of the modern age, so I can't see why Gene should be so clearly ahead of the Old Mongoose, splendid though his record is.

Well, Conteh not only beat Ahumada, Lopez and Hutchins, of course, but also Bennett, Finnegan and Bogs, all of whom were about as good as Fourie, in my opinion. The Mustafa Muhammad victory ranks as Galindez's finest hour, and was the best win that either man scored, but there is little excuse for the prime loss against Rossman, which should knock him back. The extra padding of defences against relative cannon-fodder doesn't prove much beyond the fact that Galindez remained a bit more dedicated for a bit longer than Conteh, but I have no problem attaching the two of them to each other in an overall ranking.

Ghosty as someone who also has Moore above Tunney think I have to stick with the decision. Think Moore's era is the little stronger for the division and with the exception of Charles nobody can really be considered to have the wood over him because whilst Burley beat him as they only fought once cannot be considered to have his number massively. However his record against the rest of the BMR stacks up. Add in the likes of Johnson, Maxim and Durelle as well as herculean longevity and for me it gives him the edge over Tunney as whilst the likes of Loughran, Levinsky, Greb and Gibbons are obviously excellent Tunney does not have the sheer volume of great wins at the weight or obviously the longevity, although it should be noted in this respect most pale to the mongoose

It's the whole Charles series that sees me mark Moore down a fair bit, being so comprehensively beaten by your closest rival shows to me he was only the dominant force once Charles had moved up to heavyweight. Whilst he had a title reign unlike Gene it wasn't exactly crammed full of talent and if we're completely honest he shouldn't have had such troubles with Durelle in the first place regardless of the brilliance of the comeback in that fight. It's hard to argue against anyone with wins over nearly the entire black murderers row but Tunney beat everyone there was to beat whereas Moore came up short against both Charles and Burley.

Difficult discussion to have as Moore, Tunney and Charles are among my favourite fighters and all 3 are probably in the top ten fighters with the best records.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Well, Conteh not only beat Ahumada, Lopez and Hutchins, of course, but also Bennett, Finnegan and Bogs, all of whom were better than Fourie, in my opinion. The Mustafa Muhammad victory ranks as Galindez's finest hour, and was the best win that either man scored, but there is little excuse for the prime loss against Rossman, which should knock him back. The extra padding of defences against relative cannon-fodder doesn't prove much beyond the fact that Galindez remained a bit more dedicated for a bit longer than Conteh, but I have no problem attaching the two of them to each other in an overall ranking.

In fairness, though, it's rare that any fighter in any weight class is going to make ten defences of a title without accommodating some 'cannon fodder' at some stage. He still beat Ahumada, Lopez, Mustafa Muhammad and Hutchins in title fights, which balances the ledger fairly well in my eyes, as well as avenging the loss to Rossman which you mentioned. Would argue, too, that Galindez had probably already seen slightly better days, at around thirty and having been through some absolute wars with Kates and Lopez (leaving him with detached retinas) by the time Rossman got to him, and so for me, it's to his eternal credit that he managed to reverse that in the rematch and briefly regain the title.

I tend to think that Galindez gets a bit of a raw deal from some, but as I said before, I may be biased!

As just a comparison piece this is how the IBRO have it, if we allow for them having Langford and Fitz in which I personally wouldn't they it pretty similar to how most on here see it, although much as I respect the IBRO I struggle to see how they get Moore above Charles given he went 0-3 against him

1.Archie Moore
2.Ezzard Charles
3.Sam Langford
4.Gene Tunney
5.Bob Foster
6.Tommy Loughran
7.Michael Spinks
8.Bob Fitzsimmons
9.Billy Conn
10.Roy Jones, Jr.
11.Maxie Rosenbloom
12.John Henry Lewis
13.Harry Greb
14.Tommy Gibbons
15.Philadelphia Jack O’Brien
16.Jack Dillon
17.Harold Johnson
18.Jimmy Bivins
19.Georges Carpentier
20.Battling Levinsky

No, I agree, but I'm just saying that the fact that he made ten defences to Conteh's three is a slightly misleading statistic. Two defences against Fourie and two against Kates both seemed a little excessive, and while it's hard to avoid the Skogs of this world, I don't really view Galindez's reign as vastly superior to Conteh's from the quality point of view.

Conteh beat Hutchins and Lopez more comfortably than Galindez, and Ahumada in similar fashion, and while Kates was a good gate-keeper to the division, he was not one whom a really top fighter should have struggled with to the extent that Victor did.

I'm equally biased in favour of Conteh, of course, but I think it a slight on neither man that they should jointly occupy a place just outside the top 20 in this most competitive of divisions.

This is Boxrec's take on the top 20, always a little different :

1 Archie Moore
2 Jimmy Bivins
3 Billy Conn
4 Maxie Rosenbloom
5 Tommy Loughran
6 Joey Maxim
7 John Henry Lewis
8 Harold Johnson
9 Bob Foster
10 Michael Spinks
11 Tommy Gibbons
12 Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
13 Battling Levinsky
14 Gus Lesnevich
15 Victor Emilio Galindez
16 Jose Torres
17 Melio Bettina
18 Lou Scozza
19 Lloyd Marshall
20 Gustav Scholz

Dear god union how do they compile that Moore top but the guy who went 3 zip against him nowhere to be seen

Mmm, most of the right names are there, and it's just a matter of arguing precise position with IBRO, it seems to me, Jeff. They're pretty good on their rankings, in general, albeit a little conservative at times. Think Spinks is particularly poorly served on this list and Tommy Gibbons is fortunate to be here at all, can't really see why Langford would be as high as 3 - great fighter, but hard to say that only two light-heavyweights are better/have better records at the weight than him.

When you look in depth at the three of them it's hard to imagine anyone coming close to having their kind of careers any more, did a breakdown comparing there best wins to Jones and it makes for very one sided reading

Agreed Captain, there is no bigger Langford fan than myself but totally agree with Windy's long held belief that the likes of him and Fitz belong on the P4P rankings. Appreciate the desire to find room for them on specific weight rankings but the truth is more than not they simply do not have the body of work at any one division to justify it, and as you say certainly not at number three above the likes of Tunney and Foster.

Yes, proving conclusively that boxrec should only ever be used as a reference for when a particular fight was fought and its precise result. No Ezzard Charles, no Gene Tunney, no Harry Greb, no Saad Muhammad and dear old Jimmy Bivins at number two! Well done that Gustav Scholz, whom I shall have to look up, so little do I know about him. I may have to choose a source other than boxrec, mind you.

rowley wrote:Dear god union how do they compile that Moore top but the guy who went 3 zip against him nowhere to be seen

I think they count Charles as a heavyweight, which is ridiculous. As I said, their lists are always a little different!

Scholz, it seems, was a German and a very handy European champ at middleweight and light-heavy, who lost and won fights with Charley Humez before finally establishing absolute dominance in Europe at 175 in the late 50s and early 60s. Comfortably outpointed in Berlin when challenging Harold Johnson for his world title. Carried on beating Europeans and retired with an eighty-odd and two record. Ah well, surely boxrec ought to have made him top 10 at least. As they should with the fabulous Lou Scozza, naturally....

Sorry, ignore my previous post - was getting mixed up between Scholz and Gustav Roth.

Carried on beating Europeans and retired with an eighty-odd and two record. Ah well, surely boxrec ought to have made him top 10 at least.
______________________________________________________

Glad I can't access Boxrec at work, god only knows how high they have Brian Neilsen at heavy

captain carrantuohil wrote:Well done that Gustav Scholz, whom I shall have to look up, so little do I know about him. I may have to choose a source other than boxrec, mind you.

You may be interested in this then captain...

(Taken from de.wikipedia and translated by a monkey by the look of it...)

"The family lived in the Choriner 54 in Berlin. His father was a blacksmith, his mother was a homemaker. His first money earned by the young Scholz newspapers.

Southpaw "Bubi" Scholz celebrated his greatest successes of the late 50s and early 60s years. He was only professional boxer, never amateurs. Scholz was at this time as the most popular boxer in Germany , and posted some international success. In the period from 1958 to 1961 he was the European title in the middleweight and 1964 the title in the heavyweight division held. In total he played 96 fights, of which he won 88, including 46 by knockout, he lost only twice (both defeats on points). In 1958 he defeated Charles Humez middleweight, but won the rematch in the same year by his task.

Middleweight he did not get a world title fight, he lost the half-heavyweight championship fight to the Hall of Famer Harold Johnson . The independent, eternal world computer rankings (Boxrec, "Best Boxer of all time") he takes middleweight ranked 45th in one.

After his active career, he was always with binge-drinking is talking about. Having reached the low point, he shot the noise in the night of 22 to 23 July 1984 his 49-year-old wife Helga and was arrested on the following day. He was a custodial sentence of three years for manslaughter sentenced to.

In October 1993, married the 63-year-old Scholz, a 35-year-old Sabine Arndt in the Charlottenburg registry office.

"Bubi" Scholz died on 21 August 2000, after he had suffered several years before the stroke and with him in Alzheimer's disease had been diagnosed.

His tomb was located in the forest cemetery Zehlendorf in Berlin and was on the high road cemetery laid.

Film

Scholz's life was filmed and New Year's Eve 1999 in 1998/Neujahr First program under the title The Bubi Scholz Story aired for the first time, said Benno Furmann the young, Götz George represented the old Scholz. Scholz himself could ill health not participate in the premiere of his motion."

So now you know.

rowley wrote:Dear god union how do they compile that Moore top but the guy who went 3 zip against him nowhere to be seen

He is ranked as a Heavyweight (#3), it's a P4P ranking inserted into whichever division they class him as. Presumably Heavy because he finished there. You wont find SRR in the Welterweight rankings for example.

I'd have 1. Charles 2. Moore 3. Spinks 4. Tunney 5. Foster 6. Greb 7. Loughran 8. Jones Jr. 9. Conn 10. Bivins but haven't given it that much thought.

rowley wrote:Carried on beating Europeans and retired with an eighty-odd and two record. Ah well, surely boxrec ought to have made him top 10 at least.
______________________________________________________

Glad I can't access Boxrec at work, god only knows how high they have Brian Neilsen at heavy

Not sure, Jeff - but they do only just have Jim Jeffries sneaking it to the top fifty, at number forty-eight...Which I feel is a tiny bit too low for him, as bold a statement as that may be!

I love the wiki translations, particularly of German. The old 'verb as second idea' and floating participle always baffle the computers, and you also end up with gems like boxrec described as "the independent, eternal" rankings. They wish!

Scott, you're out of the penalty box. Good. I want your observations on the Hall of Fame quintet, please. More votes needed.

Is that right, he got three years for shooting his wife?

She probably deserved it

I don't doubt it. Three years seems very lenient though.

Some advice, if you're going to shoot your wife, do it in Germany in the 1980's.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Scott, you're out of the penalty box. Good. I want your observations on the Hall of Fame quintet, please. More votes needed.

Will have a look in a bit and vote today.

88Chris05 wrote:

rowley wrote:Carried on beating Europeans and retired with an eighty-odd and two record. Ah well, surely boxrec ought to have made him top 10 at least.
______________________________________________________

Glad I can't access Boxrec at work, god only knows how high they have Brian Neilsen at heavy

Not sure, Jeff - but they do only just have Jim Jeffries sneaking it to the top fifty, at number forty-eight...Which I feel is a tiny bit too low for him, as bold a statement as that may be!

Because of incomplete records from that early I would guess.

88Chris05 wrote:

rowley wrote:Carried on beating Europeans and retired with an eighty-odd and two record. Ah well, surely boxrec ought to have made him top 10 at least.
______________________________________________________

Glad I can't access Boxrec at work, god only knows how high they have Brian Neilsen at heavy

Not sure, Jeff - but they do only just have Jim Jeffries sneaking it to the top fifty, at number forty-eight...Which I feel is a tiny bit too low for him, as bold a statement as that may be!

Typical to see you over rating the old timers again Chris

It appears that Scholz shot his wife with a hunting rifle, through a bathroom door, during or after a party at their house. Both were very drunk, it seems, and the charge appears to have been one of manslaughter, or involuntary homicide, or something similar.

rowley wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

rowley wrote:Carried on beating Europeans and retired with an eighty-odd and two record. Ah well, surely boxrec ought to have made him top 10 at least.
______________________________________________________

Glad I can't access Boxrec at work, god only knows how high they have Brian Neilsen at heavy

Not sure, Jeff - but they do only just have Jim Jeffries sneaking it to the top fifty, at number forty-eight...Which I feel is a tiny bit too low for him, as bold a statement as that may be!

Typical to see you over rating the old timers again Chris

Can think of at least 50 reasons why he wouldn't be in my top 50, one of them being Herbie Hide within 2 rounds

Do you think Herbie lasts that long Ghosty, you may be right I suppose Jeff could be a slow starter.

You clearly aren't taking into account his epic performances against Vitali and Bowe

Jones Jr @his best was unbeatable - thread closed.

hitmansam wrote:Jones Jr @his best was unbeatable - thread closed.

Matter of opinion - thread opened.

HumanWindmill wrote:

hitmansam wrote:Jones Jr @his best was unbeatable - thread closed.

Matter of opinion - thread opened.