Who was the greatest Light heavyweight?

[billeau2]

There is nobody on Moorer's resume at light heavy that would get him even into the top 20.

Consider the division: Quite a few greats do what Moorer did and what guys like Archie M and Ezzard Charles did: they go up and sometimes down in different weight classes. Can you tell me any light heavy/cruiser with an examplory record in that weight class specifically? I can't think of any but will eat crow if you can show me any guy who had heated comp amongst greats AT THAT WEIGHT LIMIT.... Most of these guys wind up snatching a heavyweight championship out of the alphabet soup when the comp is weak.

Also, one of my points may have gone over your (or another poster's head) I tried to point out that given the fact that Hollyfield was a great cruiser at one time....the win over Holly could be considered a double entendree. And yeah I know Moorer got starched in the rematch.

Moorer was a beast and many greats considered him the one who ruled the roost at the Kronk for a while.

[billeau2]

I'll take exception to that and say that Moorer was really a heavyweight who shrunk himself down to 175 for as long as he could. He was a bigger guy than most people think.

Thats silly. Again consider the weight class.

[SBleeder]

Consider the division: Quite a few greats do what Moorer did and what guys like Archie M and Ezzard Charles did: they go up and sometimes down in different weight classes. Can you tell me any light heavy/cruiser with an examplory record in that weight class specifically? I can't think of any but will eat crow if you can show me any guy who had heated comp amongst greats AT THAT WEIGHT LIMIT.... Most of these guys wind up snatching a heavyweight championship out of the alphabet soup when the comp is weak.

Also, one of my points may have gone over your (or another poster's head) I tried to point out that given the fact that Hollyfield was a great cruiser at one time....the win over Holly could be considered a double entendree. And yeah I know Moorer got starched in the rematch.

Moorer was a beast and many greats considered him the one who ruled the roost at the Kronk for a while.

You're saying Ezzard Charles' resume at light heavyweight wasn't exemplary???

[BattlingNelson]

It's funny to think, that by the time of his death in 1972, Nat Fleischer's all time top-10 at light heavyweight looked like this:

1 - Kid McCoy
2 - Philadelphia Jack O'Brian
3 - Jack Dillon
4 - Tommy Loughran
5 - Jack Root
6 - Battling Levinsky
7 - George Carpentier
8 - Tom Gibbons
9 - Jack Delaney
10- Paul Berlenbach

Imagine that; an all-time (and only up to 1972!) light heavyweight top-10, and no sign of Moore or Charles! Come to think of it, it's not really funny at all... but rather sad!

What the ....?!

It's not that I question your knowledge at all as I know you are one of the most knowledgeable and nicest poster on the forum, but where did you pick up that list?

It's quite common knowledge that Fleischer loved and arguably overrated the oldtimers, but ... He can't be serious here..?

[Barn]

Fleischer was deluded and all references to him or his views as evidence for a point shouldn't be taken seriously.

[billeau2]

You're saying Ezzard Charles' resume at light heavyweight wasn't exemplary???

Have you looked at his record? Like the elites for this weightclass more than a few of his best victories are against guys who moved up down and all around....Burley, Archie Moore, he also beat Walcott and Louis at heavy. Maxim came up from middle weight didn't he?



My point here is not to disparage Charles who I think was one of the best....simply to point out that like a lot of light heavies, his record has to be considered against all his comp....not just at the weight. You are the one who wants to say silly things like "Moore was a real heavyweight." I explained that in this division truly great fighters...like Charles had to fight up and sometimes down, there is no great standard group at that weight.

My point is that when we say "Fighter A at this weight was a beast but at this weight was mediocre..." Well, I would put Moore at light heavy against any one at that weight, including Charles, Foster, Spinks and Holyfield.

Also you may not be aware but some of Charles Record is debatable...and again that is to take nothing away from the Cincinnati Cobra.

Ohuh bleeder I don't know if you made those comments about Moore it may have been another poster. If I got you mixed up sorry...At any rate Charles was a great and head to head he was superior, my point is that at that weight Moore belongs in an elite group, nothing more

[Bundana]

Thank you for the kind words, Bat.

Yes, Fleischer's light heavyweight top-10 looks rather bizzare - but he wasn't kidding! He was certain, that the old-timers were superior to modern boxers... and being an "old-timer" himself it's only natural, that he would think the fighters he grew up with, were the best ever! Can't blame him for that, really.

However, Mr. Fleischer took this idea to such an extreme, that it really is hard to take him seriously. And it's not only the light heavyweights. Below is his top-10 in the 8 classic divisions:


Heavyweights:
1 - Jack Johnson
2 - James J. Jeffries
3 - Bob Fitzsimmons
4 - Jack Dempsey
5 - James J. Corbett
6 - Joe Louis
7 - Sam Langford
8 - Gene Tunney
9 - Max Schmeling
10- Rocky Marciano

Light Heavyweights:
1 - Kid McCoy
2 - Philadelphia Jack O'Brian
3 - Jack Dillon
4 - Tommy Loughran
5 - Jack Root
6 - Battling Levensky
7 - Georges Carpentier
8 - Tom Gibbons
9 - Jack Delaney
10- Paul Berlenbach

Middleweights:
1 - Stanley Ketchell
2 - Tommy Ryan
3 - Harry Greb
4 - Mickey Walker
5 - Ray Robinson
6 - Frank Klaus
7 - Billy Papke
8 - Les Darcy
9 - Mike Gibbons
10- Jeff Smith

Welterweights:
1 - Joe Walcott
2 - Mysterious Billy Smith
3 - Jack Britton
4 - Ted Kid Lewis
5 - Dixie Kid
6 - Harry Lewis
7 - Willie Lewis
8 - Henry Armstrong
9 - Barney Ross
10- Jimmy McLarnin

Lightweights:
1 - Joe Gans
2 - Benny Leonard
3 - Owen Moran
4 - Freddy Welsh
5 - Battling Nelson
6 - George Kid Lavigne
7 - Tony Canzoneri
8 - Willie Ritchie
9 - Lew Tendler
10- Ad Wolgast

Featherweights:
1 - Terry McGovern
2 - Jim Driscoll
3 - Abe Attell
4 - Willie Pep
5 - Johnny Dundee
6 - Young Griffo
7 - Johnny Kilbane
8 - Kid Chocolate
9 - George K.O. Chaney
10- Louis Kid Kaplan

Bantamweights:
1 - George Dixon
2 - Pete Herman
3 - Kid Williams
4 - Eder Jofre
5 - Joe Lynch
6 - Bud Taylor
7 - Johnny Coulon
8 - Frankie Burns
9 - Eddie Campi
10- Panama Al Brown

Flyweight:
1 - Jimmy Wilde
2 - Pancho Villa
3 - Frankie Genaro
4 - Fidel La Barba
5 - Benny Lynch
6 - Elky Clark
7 - Johnny Buff
8 - Midget Wolgast
9 - Peter Kane
10- Pascual Perez

(From the 1972 edition of The Ring Record Book and Boxing Encyclopedia)

[BattlingNelson]

Fleischer was deluded and all references to him or his views as evidence for a point shouldn't be taken seriously.

I think you are too harsh. Fleischer has written a lot of good stuff and contrary to almost every other socalled historian, he watched all the greats from ringside.

As implied above, I don't know the premisses under which he made the above ranking, but maybe he did not rank according to resumee at the weight, which IMO really is the proper method.

[Barn]

173 173
171 174
173 172

Going from third to first fight, those are the weights of the Charles vs Moore contests, all evidently at LHW. Same with victories against, Marshall, Bivins, Maxim, Gus Lesnevich, all at LHW.

[Barn]

I think you are too harsh. Fleischer has written a lot of good stuff and contrary to almost every other socalled historian, he watched all the greats from ringside.

As implied above, I don't know the premisses under which he made the above ranking, but maybe he did not rank according to resumee at the weight, which IMO really is the proper method.

You're right. I'll take back the "shouldn't be taken seriously" that was rash. However I don't think I was being crazy when I said he was deluded.

Regardless of his criteria those lists are crazily bad.