Greatest Light Heavyweight ever Charles or Greb?

[IronDanHamza]

Charles was better than Moore, their three fights are a large part of the evidence of this although Moore's resume, particularly the length of it, might make him 'greater' than Charles although I tend not to think in that way.

Spinks fought in the greatest light heavyweight era, proved to be the best of the lot, and even managed to step up to become heavyweight champion (like Charles) which gives some extra evidence and indication of his quality.

Who was better between Pep and Saddler in your eyes?

What Spinks did at HW is irrelevant to where he ranks at LHW and frankly, his resume pales in comparison to Moore.

Spinks is still a top 5 LHW but Charles and Moore and clearly ahead of the pack.

[Humean]

Who was better between Pep and Saddler in your eyes?

What Spinks did at HW is irrelevant to where he ranks at LHW and frankly, his resume pales in comparison to Moore.

Spinks is still a top 5 LHW but Charles and Moore and clearly ahead of the pack.

That would be a good counterexample if I thought Pep was better but I actually don't. I think two guys fighting where both were probably in their prime and it ends 3-1, particularly 3-1 with 3 kos to one guys name then that fighter is probably the better of the two.

I don't think what Spinks did at heavyweight is irrelevant because it is an indication of his quality. I think the vast majority, lets say 90%, of the weight of a fighters greatness should be based on how good he is rather than the number of supposedly high quality names he defeated. I'm sure you and others beg to differ, which is fine as this is hardly a science but that is the way I personally see it. Therefore when I think of who is the greatest light heavyweight I think who is the best with only a slight remainder of weight going to things such as names defeated, titles, longevity, etc. To me the debate is then between Charles or Spinks.

[IronDanHamza]

That would be a good counterexample if I thought Pep was better but I actually don't. I think two guys fighting where both were probably in their prime and it ends 3-1, particularly 3-1 with 3 kos to one guys name then that fighter is probably the better of the two.

I don't think what Spinks did at heavyweight is irrelevant because it is an indication of his quality. I think the vast majority, lets say 90%, of the weight of a fighters greatness should be based on how good he is rather than the number of supposedly high quality names he defeated. I'm sure you and others beg to differ, which is fine as this is hardly a science but that is the way I personally see it. Therefore when I think of who is the greatest light heavyweight I think who is the best with only a slight remainder of weight going to things such as names defeated, titles, longevity, etc. To me the debate is then between Charles or Spinks.

Ok, I suppose that's fair enough in regards to Pep. No way was Pep in his prime obviously but still. I doubt a single Historian would rank Saddler above Pep, though.

Of course it is. What relevance does his HW resume have on his LHW resume? It's two different weights. You don't get ranked higher at LHW because you did something at HW.

Should Moore and Charles be ranked highly at MW for what they did at LHW and HW?

Just an absurd way to look at it, in my view.
And, Moore did decent work at HW anyway.

Spinks is a great fighter and one of the greatest LHW'S ever but he just doesn't rank higher than Moore. You're entitled to your opinion but I just can't see how it can be justified.

[walrusthewill]

Greb does belong in top 5, he shouldn't be ranked above Charles though

Tunney is a great win for Greb, Moore is a better one for Charles

Langford is difficult to evaluate at LHW, a win over an old Jack OBrien doesn't really establish him as being great at that weight.

[Humean]

Ok, I suppose that's fair enough in regards to Pep. No way was Pep in his prime obviously but still. I doubt a single Historian would rank Saddler above Pep, though.

Of course it is. What relevance does his HW resume have on his LHW resume? It's two different weights. You don't get ranked higher at LHW because you did something at HW.

Should Moore and Charles be ranked highly at MW for what they did at LHW and HW?

Just an absurd way to look at it, in my view.
And, Moore did decent work at HW anyway.

Spinks is a great fighter and one of the greatest LHW'S ever but he just doesn't rank higher than Moore. You're entitled to your opinion but I just can't see how it can be justified.

I think arguing that Pep wasn't in his prime is an easy way to claim he is better than Saddler. He fought Saddler when he was 26, 28 and 29. He had a lot of fights of course but was he damaged goods? I don't see it but I don't have enough of the video evidence to add weight to that either way. Boxing historians always seem to have completely incoherent yardsticks in measuring so I see it as evidence in favour of my opinion that Saddler ranks higher than Pep.

The relevance is the evidence of the fighters quality, many a light heavyweight champion has stepped up to heavyweight to try and become the heavyweight champion and failed. Conn, John Henry Lewis, Moore, Foster etc. As I said my view is that the large part of a fighter's greatness is smply how good he is therefore performance outside their typical weight provides evidence of that. It doesn't add weight to their resume, it adds weight to measuring their ability.

I think Spinks beats Moore more times than not over the course of 10 fights. A debatable opinion but that is largely the basis for me thinking Spinks is greater than Moore.

[IronDanHamza]

I think arguing that Pep wasn't in his prime is an easy way to claim he is better than Saddler. He fought Saddler when he was 26, 28 and 29. He had a lot of fights of course but was he damaged goods? I don't see it but I don't have enough of the video evidence to add weight to that either way. Boxing historians always seem to have completely incoherent yardsticks in measuring so I see it as evidence in favour of my opinion that Saddler ranks higher than Pep.

The relevance is the evidence of the fighters quality, many a light heavyweight champion has stepped up to heavyweight to try and become the heavyweight champion and failed. Conn, John Henry Lewis, Moore, Foster etc. As I said my view is that the large part of a fighter's greatness is smply how good he is therefore performance outside their typical weight provides evidence of that. It doesn't add weight to their resume, it adds weight to measuring their ability.

I think Spinks beats Moore more times than not over the course of 10 fights. A debatable opinion but that is largely the basis for me thinking Spinks is greater than Moore.

I think the plane accident and the obvious difference between his performance pre and post is a pretty safe bet as to whether Pep was at his best.

Like I said, historian or not, I would doubt anyone worth a damn is going to rank Saddler ahead of Pep.

Fighters react different going up in weight, that's why it's irrelevant to where they rank at LHW.

It's two separate weights. A fighter fairing better at a different weight has no bearing on where they should rank at the weight being discussed.

It may measure their ability but it doesn't measure their ability at the weight. Which is what's being measured in the first place.

[Humean]

I think the plane accident and the obvious difference between his performance pre and post is a pretty safe bet as to whether Pep was at his best.

Like I said, historian or not, I would doubt anyone worth a damn is going to rank Saddler ahead of Pep.

Fighters react different going up in weight, that's why it's irrelevant to where they rank at LHW.

It's two separate weights. A fighter fairing better at a different weight has no bearing on where they should rank at the weight being discussed.

It may measure their ability but it doesn't measure their ability at the weight. Which is what's being measured in the first place.

Pre and post which fight? He wasn't in his prime for any of the 4 fights? The evidence that after the fourth fight that Pep wasn't quite the force he once was is completely ambiguous as evidence that Pep wasn't in his prime against Saddler. The plane crash is over egged (the whole 'he'll never fight again and wow he is fighting again' all smells of journalism and PR to me), he fought 5 months later for God sake and didn't lose any fights up until he fought Saddler. I don't know why it is so difficult for people to suggest that Saddler may just have been better. Most but not all boxing historians are terrible historians, more like sycophants and hagiographers than decent historians. Their lists are always bafflingly incoherent and anyway the idea that there is anything close to a definitive list is really very silly.

If a smaller man goes up in weight and defeats a bigger man then that is clearly good evidence of the smaller man's abilities. I don't use a light heavyweights heavyweight failures against him but I do use a light heavyweights heavyweight successes for him. It is the same man moved up in weight after all.

[IronDanHamza]

Pre and post which fight? He wasn't in his prime for any of the 4 fights? The evidence that after the fourth fight that Pep wasn't quite the force he once was is completely ambiguous as evidence that Pep wasn't in his prime against Saddler. The plane crash is over egged (the whole 'he'll never fight again and wow he is fighting again' all smells of journalism and PR to me), he fought 5 months later for God sake and didn't lose any fights up until he fought Saddler. I don't know why it is so difficult for people to suggest that Saddler may just have been better. Most but not all boxing historians are terrible historians, more like sycophants and hagiographers than decent historians. Their lists are always bafflingly incoherent and anyway the idea that there is anything close to a definitive list is really very silly.

If a smaller man goes up in weight and defeats a bigger man then that is clearly good evidence of the smaller man's abilities. I don't use a light heavyweights heavyweight failures against him but I do use a light heavyweights heavyweight successes for him. It is the same man moved up in weight after all.

Pre and post accident. It might be overstated, as he was clearly still capable at the top level, but still. Hard to say it didn't affect him.

Styles make fights, any way. Very few would consider Saddler better than Pep. Styles make fights, though.

They're are plenty of great historians.

No not really, people's bodies react different to added weight. Hence, why it shouldn't and doesn't have any relevance to their standing at a different weight.

[Humean]

Pre and post accident. It might be overstated, as he was clearly still capable at the top level, but still. Hard to say it didn't affect him.

Styles make fights, any way. Very few would consider Saddler better than Pep. Styles make fights, though.

They're are plenty of great historians.

No not really, people's bodies react different to added weight. Hence, why it shouldn't and doesn't have any relevance to their standing at a different weight.

Harder to say it did affect him considering he fought so soon after and won all his fights up to Saddler I, including two successful world title defences that he won both by knockout. Styles make fights for sure, Saddler's style was better than Pep's in three of the four fights.

With your evaluations it always seems to be heads your guy wins, tails other people's guy loses.

Most boxing historians would not be considered part of the history writing profession, such is the incompetence of them. More intent on telling a sensational story and waxing lyrical about their favourite guys than actual historical enquiry.

You know fine well you would judge a smaller man stepping up in weight and beating the bigger man as impressive. Therefore it is impressive when a light heavyweight successfully fights in the heavyweight division. Therefore in my own terms it does make sense because it is some evidence of the fighters quality. Imagine a scenario where the best light heavyweight in a particular era had very limited opposition and people such as yourself said 'but who did he really beat?' but this very same light heavyweight stepped up to heavyweight and legitimately defeated the heavyweight champion who you did rate very highly. Are you telling me that this would not be evidence of the light heavyweights quality as a light heavyweight? If so then that is absolutely ridiculous. It would tell you that if he did have quality light heavyweights around then he'd probably beat them.

[IronDanHamza]

Harder to say it did affect him considering he fought so soon after and won all his fights up to Saddler I, including two successful world title defences that he won both by knockout. Styles make fights for sure, Saddler's style was better than Pep's in three of the four fights.

With your evaluations it always seems to be heads your guy wins, tails other people's guy loses.

Most boxing historians would not be considered part of the history writing profession, such is the incompetence of them. More intent on telling a sensational story and waxing lyrical about their favourite guys than actual historical enquiry.

You know fine well you would judge a smaller man stepping up in weight and beating the bigger man as impressive. Therefore it is impressive when a light heavyweight successfully fights in the heavyweight division. Therefore in my own terms it does make sense because it is some evidence of the fighters quality. Imagine a scenario where the best light heavyweight in a particular era had very limited opposition and people such as yourself said 'but who did he really beat?' but this very same light heavyweight stepped up to heavyweight and legitimately defeated the heavyweight champion who you did rate very highly. Are you telling me that this would not be evidence of the light heavyweights quality as a light heavyweight? If so then that is absolutely ridiculous. It would tell you that if he did have quality light heavyweights around then he'd probably beat them.

Of course it highlights quality. I didn't refute that.

What I did refute, is it add's to their standing at a different weight. Which, to me, is glaringly obvious.

Spinks moving up and having success at HW adds to his ATG legacy, that goes without saying. It doesn't add notches to his LHW standing, though.

Beating and "He would probably beat" are black and white. You don't get ranked highly in my book by "Probably being able to beat" someone.

As for the nice heads and tails evalutation. Don't really see how that works. Plenty in here will tell you I am more than reasonable and unbiased (For the most part) in regards to who I rank where.