Greatest Light Heavyweight ever Charles or Greb?

[Humean]

To me it's clearly stacked with fighters of high quality.

How do you know this with such confidence? The video evidence is very thin and like I said the murderers row guys were largely fighting each other.


It would make sense if he lost every time he stepped up.

But, he beat Jersey Joe Walcott, Jimmy Bivins, Floyd Patterson (Green), Lesnevich passed prime but still highly ranked, had close fights with Ezzard Charles and Walcott in good losing efforts.

I think that's pretty decent, abit unfair to say the only reason he was a contender was because of race, considering.

I've never understood why it's seemingly only Robinson that feels heat. Is Maxim's white skin immune to heat? Was it only Robinson that could feel it?

They both were in the same heat and Maxim outlasted him.

I didn't say his race made him a contender, simply that it gave him a massive edge in securing the championship, surely that cannot be denied? He was undoubtably one of the best light heavyweights of his era but so was Clinton Woods in his. Does the Robinson win tell you that Maxim was all that good? He was losing the fight quite handedly. The win counts like any other but it doesn't tell you that Maxim was anything special despite having beaten Robinson. I'm not against giving credit for losing performances but it is far from clear how much credit he deserves even in these apparently close defeats

He did a hell of a lot more than Clinton Woods. Back to the original point of the comparison, comparing them is just ******.

I do not doubt he did a hell of a lot more than Woods, it is whether Maxim was clearly a better fighter than Woods and therefore whether beating Maxim has higher cachet than beating Woods.

You downplayed Maxim whilst using Laporte as a win.

And even then, they aren't comparable. Laporte didn't beat anyone, he literally lost every time he stepped up in class.


Laporte beat Ruben Castillo and knocked out Rocky Lockridge. He went the distance with Salvador Sanchez, Eusebio Pedroza, Wildredo Gomez, Barry McGuigan, Julio Cesar Chavez, Azumah Nelson, Kostya Tszyu, John John Molina, Charles Murray. Laporte was WBC Featherweight champ and made two successful defences. Indeed Laporte he may have faced the highest number of high quality opposition in history. I think he is comparable with Maxim in terms of the quality and the limitations of quality that he displayed.

Well that's you. You don't seem to see the quality that most others do. You also seem to think "No one gives credit to modern fighters" when many so.

Perhaps not to the likes of Clinton Woods and Juan Laporte but many others who deserve it.

I do see quality, I just think it is overblown. I have seen a hell of a lot of posters on this forum and others, as well as boxing 'historians' compare fighters from the past with their modern counterparts and been very dismissive of modern fighters. In the NSB you get these guys who think all modern fighters are better than all past fighters but these people haven't seen the older guys nor do they have any knowledge of them at all so their opinions are pretty worthless. I tried to do a poll to see how widespread my views were on here but unfortunately few voted and those who did did either thought the trend in quality was fairly level or that it had declined. I think too many recent modern fighters are not getting enough due respect and it is because fighters of the past are being overrated like mad.

^^^ above again

[RubenSonny]

I disagree on the latter; might agree on the former. Haven't sat down and gone through it. I don't want to rehash a million JoeCal debates; they all go the same. More than 100 guys across the various divisions who I think proved genuinely great. I see Calzaghe much the same way I do Finito and consider them great for similar reasons.

If you ever do even start to draw up a list you will shocked at how many great fighters there have been, there are more than 100 and Joe isn't one of them.

[RubenSonny]

It's not hard to rate the BMR, they didn't just fight eachother.

[IronDanHamza]

How do you know this with such confidence? The video evidence is very thin and like I said the murderers row guys were largely fighting each other

Just a lot of top quality fighters. The era doesn't start and end with the Murderer's Row.

I'm not saying it's the strongest era ever just that the era is strong.

I didn't say his race made him a contender, simply that it gave him a massive edge in securing the championship, surely that cannot be denied? He was undoubtably one of the best light heavyweights of his era but so was Clinton Woods in his. Does the Robinson win tell you that Maxim was all that good? He was losing the fight quite handedly. The win counts like any other but it doesn't tell you that Maxim was anything special despite having beaten Robinson. I'm not against giving credit for losing performances but it is far from clear how much credit he deserves even in these apparently close defeats

I'm not dis*****g that his race put his foot in the door but I think he showed that he was more than that. You are insinuating he was only a top contender because of his race.

Just because Woods was one of the best of his era doesn't mean he's the same level as the best of another era.

Castillo is probably the greatest Lightweight of his era but how does he compare to other Lightweights?

Margarito is probably the greatest Welterweight of his era but how does he compare to other Welterweights?

I suppose this just goes back to the ongoing circle of you not rating that era and rating the last one highly.

As for Robinson, despite losing the main thing that fight tells me is how great Robinson was.

I do not doubt he did a hell of a lot more than Woods, it is whether Maxim was clearly a better fighter than Woods and therefore whether beating Maxim has higher cachet than beating Woods.

Well that answers the question in my eyes.

He beat better fighters, much better. That tells me enough.

If you think beating Clinton Woods is the same as beating Maxim then that's fair enough.

Laporte beat Ruben Castillo and knocked out Rocky Lockridge. He went the distance with Salvador Sanchez, Eusebio Pedroza, Wildredo Gomez, Barry McGuigan, Julio Cesar Chavez, Azumah Nelson, Kostya Tszyu, John John Molina, Charles Murray. Laporte was WBC Featherweight champ and made two successful defences. Indeed Laporte he may have faced the highest number of high quality opposition in history. I think he is comparable with Maxim in terms of the quality and the limitations of quality that he displayed.

He's just not compable with Maxim at all.

He lost every single time he stepped up other than seldom wins over decent contenders.

I do see quality, I just think it is overblown. I have seen a hell of a lot of posters on this forum and others, as well as boxing 'historians' compare fighters from the past with their modern counterparts and been very dismissive of modern fighters. In the NSB you get these guys who think all modern fighters are better than all past fighters but these people haven't seen the older guys nor do they have any knowledge of them at all so their opinions are pretty worthless. I tried to do a poll to see how widespread my views were on here but unfortunately few voted and those who did did either thought the trend in quality was fairly level or that it had declined. I think too many recent modern fighters are not getting enough due respect and it is because fighters of the past are being overrated like mad.

I think it just needs to be put into context.

Yeah, the overall quality has declined in plenty of cases.

We also have the strongest SMW era we've had it's in short history.

We have a very strong Bantamweight era overall.

We have plenty of good quality in the modern era (00-present) it's also lacking in many areas.

Plenty of past era's have had weak areas aswell.

It's all got to be in context.

[UNiQU3]

Ummm... ROY MUTHA****IN JONES... You know damn well neither of these guys would know the first thing to do with RJJ. They would LITERALLY think he was some kind of demon possessed wizard.

[Humean]

Just a lot of top quality fighters. The era doesn't start and end with the Murderer's Row.

I'm not saying it's the strongest era ever just that the era is strong.

I think we were talking about Burley so I think it largely does concern the murderers row. I'm just more tentative in saying these guys were as great or as good or however else you'd like to put it than you are, laregly because of the lack of video footage.


I'm not dis*****g that his race put his foot in the door but I think he showed that he was more than that. You are insinuating he was only a top contender because of his race.

I'm not saying he was a top contender because of his race i'm saying his race, ethnicity and connections helped him to gain the light heavyweight championship and because he had that championship he has acquired more grativas that perhaps he deserves. Archie Moore was clearly the best light heavyweight immediately before and during Maxim's reign as champ.

Just because Woods was one of the best of his era doesn't mean he's the same level as the best of another era.

I agree i'm just doubting, largely from watching the film footage, that Maxim was much better or indeed better at all than Woods. This debate is motivating me to go back and watch Maxim again and see if I agree with my past evaluation!

Castillo is probably the greatest Lightweight of his era but how does he compare to other Lightweights?

Probably somewhere in the top 20 for me.

Margarito is probably the greatest Welterweight of his era but how does he compare to other Welterweights?

I don't think Margarito was the greatest welterweight of his era, one of the best but not the best.

I suppose this just goes back to the ongoing circle of you not rating that era and rating the last one highly.

It is not me not rating that era it is me not rating as highly as other seem to. I just don't think Maxim was much better in quality than someone like Clinton Woods. Therefore when Moore beats Maxim it counts for a lot but when Jones jr beats Woods it counts for very little. I just don't see that as correct.

As for Robinson, despite losing the main thing that fight tells me is how great Robinson was.



Well that answers the question in my eyes.

He beat better fighters, much better. That tells me enough.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this then.

If you think beating Clinton Woods is the same as beating Maxim then that's fair enough.


He's just not compable with Maxim at all.

He lost every single time he stepped up other than seldom wins over decent contenders.

I'm just repeating myself, you know my points. To make one point clear though I full accept that Maxim had a more impressive career than Woods, that he beat some better fighters and was in the ring with a number of very high quality fighters. I just don't think he was ultimately a much better fighter than Woods despite that.

I think it just needs to be put into context.

Yeah, the overall quality has declined in plenty of cases.

We also have the strongest SMW era we've had it's in short history.

We have a very strong Bantamweight era overall.

We have plenty of good quality in the modern era (00-present) it's also lacking in many areas.

Plenty of past era's have had weak areas aswell.

It's all got to be in context.

I agree, different divisions go up and down every few years in terms of quality. The lightweight division stinks right now for example, none of the belt holders hold a candle to practically all the champions before them. However I do maintain that the overall trend from the 1930s or Second World War onwards has been on an upward trend in terms of quality and not a downward trend but that is a different debate.

^^^^ Our debate has definitely come to a close, you can have the final say if you want.

[crold1]

If you ever do even start to draw up a list you will shocked at how many great fighters there have been, there are more than 100 and Joe isn't one of them.

No shock. I'm aware how deep the well goes.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

If you ever do even start to draw up a list you will shocked at how many great fighters there have been, there are more than 100 and Joe isn't one of them.

I agree

It's not hard to rate the BMR, they didn't just fight eachother.

I agree

Ummm... ROY MUTHA****IN JONES... You know damn well neither of these guys would know the first thing to do with RJJ. They would LITERALLY think he was some kind of demon possessed wizard.

I dont agree,,, spinks would have ko'd jones, bob foster would have been like tarver x's 10,,,
Roy was much better at mw and smw IMO

Roy was the best lightheavy of his era, no question but barely makes top 10 if at all in terms of all time