Top 15 Light Heavyweights

[just the facts]

I don't know why you are offended.

If you knew Boxing, you would know that Foster was a fabulous finisher. Not just one of the best of his division, but one of the best ever, at any weight. But that's about where it ends. He fell somewhere between Wilder and Louis, he liked when his opponents came at him, and made themselves avaialable to hit.

He was no Julian Jackson. (It took bona fide heavyweights to stop him). But outside of occassionaly using his long, long jab, he was really nothing more than somebody who knocked out people who were put in front of him to be knocked out. That's why his various attempts at the Heavyweight division failed miserably, but his tenure at 175 against relatively unheralded competition was such a theatrical success. Finnegan, Tiger, Quarry were all tough mother ****ers. Very hard men. But that's all they were. They had shown up, armed with knives, to a gun fight. Foster was carrying a glock.

And reference to the Fourie fight isn't over-played. Foster didn't handle movers well. theoretically, he'd make himself a game challenger against any other Light HEavyweight if he were to stay behind that telephone pole of a jab. But he was no Tommy Hearns - switching seemlessly between refined boxer, and lethal puncher, while exploiting his heighth and reach.

You can imagine he had it in him, but we never really saw him win a fight that way. And it discredits that far superior boxers of the Light Heavyweight division whom we saw adapt and overcome stiffer challenges. Instead, we see a guy hunched over, looking to bomb-out shorter undergunned opponents.

The footage says it all. Foster was lethal. But the Light Heavyweight division has seen men more skilled with better records. Take a look at my list, and you'll see what's up.

I'm not offended. I just didn't want to have the type of conversation with you that you've had with others here. If you'll make posts like this one, you'll never have issues here. I disagree and think Foster is not only top 5 but #1. Your points are valid, we just disagree. Certainly there's room for that here.

[The Old LefHook]

Franklin and Braxton never fought, did they?

[QueensburyRules]

Franklin and Braxton never fought, did they?

- -Saad and Qawi did.

[The Old LefHook]

You go ahead and buy into Moslemia.

[Blue54]

1 Ezzard Charles
2 Archie Moore
3 Roy Jones
4 Gene Tunney
5 Micheal Spinks
6 Billy Conn
7 Bob Foster
8 Harry Grebb
9 Tommy Loughran
10 Mathew saad Mummad
11 Harold Johnson
12 Dwight Muhmmad Qawi
13 Maxie Rosenbloom
14 Tommy Gibbons
15 Virgill Hill

[Luccio]

The Flyweights didn't get any where near as much attention as the Heavyweights, let's see if the Light Heavyweights fair any better. I'll put one out there, but I am finding this really difficult to pull off w/ any satisfaction:

1) Tunney
2) Charles
3) Loughran
4) Conn
5) Spinks
6) Moore
7) Johnson
8) Gibbons
9) Langford
10) Rosenbloom
11) Foster
12) Qawi
13) Jones
14) Muhammad
15) Slattery


That's a tremendous list of "who's who". I dunno if it's any good. I feel like footage, dominance, and competition all matter. I criterion that means a lot to me is "advancement". How advanced a fighter was for his era: maybe Langford is primitive compared to Kovalev, but his being ahead of the curve/more advanced helps him the rankings.

It's also clear that just because fighters fight in a shared era that their skills are equally developed: Ezzard Charles was a peer of Willie Pep, but he was clearly not on that level... in fact, it's hard to find anyone since who has been Pep's equal.


The problems with these lists is that it feels fighters could swap positions based on different qualifications: Rosenbloom had better competition than Jones, but what footage do we have? Conn looks (slightly) better than Jones on film, but look at Jones' record above 160. For people who take issue with that record, what about Tunney's/Muhammad's... do record's/competition really tell us everything?

what a pathetic list...

i hope this is the reason for the ban tbh... 😐

[The Old LefHook]

Tunney is a clear winner at #1. Speed kills. The other fast boxers (Conn, Loughran & Rosenbloom ) are no real problem for him, and lack his hard punch, though they would give plenty of problems to anyone else on the list.

Loughran, Conn & Rosenbloom could probably stay away from Braxton, but might find that impossible against Matt Franklin.

Moore, in particular has a problem, because Arch was SLOW. Charles was not quite as SLOW, but still SLow.

Anyone Foster can touch he will KO, but he cannot touch them all, and will be KO'd himself by clever Arch.

Could Greb really rough up Franklin, or would it go the other way around?

Slattery is there on history's honor system--i.e., enough knowledgeable old timers have assured us we should take him seriously, and his record is impressive for the numbers alone.

Beyond question we must take Greb seriously. One of the more intriguing matchups from the list is between Langford & Greb. What a fight.

From the few clips available it appears Langford would also be able to deal with the speedsters.

[QueensburyRules]

Tunney is a clear winner at #1. Speed kills. The other fast boxers (Conn, Loughran & Rosenbloom ) are no real problem for him, and lack his hard punch, though they would give plenty of problems to anyone else on the list.

Loughran, Conn & Rosenbloom could probably stay away from Braxton, but might find that impossible against Matt Franklin.

Moore, in particular has a problem, because Arch was SLOW. Charles was not quite as SLOW, but still SLow.

Anyone Foster can touch he will KO, but he cannot touch them all, and will be KO'd himself by clever Arch.

Could Greb really rough up Franklin, or would it go the other way around?

Slattery is there on history's honor system--i.e., enough knowledgeable old timers have assured us we should take him seriously, and his record is impressive for the numbers alone.

Beyond question we must take Greb seriously. One of the more intriguing matchups from the list is between Langford & Greb. What a fight.

From the few clips available it appears Langford would also be able to deal with the speedsters.

- -Not bad Leffy. You got your meds adjusted, so quaff one to your good health on me.

[Luccio]

Tunney is a clear winner at #1. Speed kills. The other fast boxers (Conn, Loughran & Rosenbloom ) are no real problem for him, and lack his hard punch, though they would give plenty of problems to anyone else on the list.

Loughran, Conn & Rosenbloom could probably stay away from Braxton, but might find that impossible against Matt Franklin.

Moore, in particular has a problem, because Arch was SLOW. Charles was not quite as SLOW, but still SLow.

Anyone Foster can touch he will KO, but he cannot touch them all, and will be KO'd himself by clever Arch.

Could Greb really rough up Franklin, or would it go the other way around?

Slattery is there on history's honor system--i.e., enough knowledgeable old timers have assured us we should take him seriously, and his record is impressive for the numbers alone.

Beyond question we must take Greb seriously. One of the more intriguing matchups from the list is between Langford & Greb. What a fight.

From the few clips available it appears Langford would also be able to deal with the speedsters.

bob foster would put fraud tunney to sleep...