Top 10 head to head under 190lb all time?

[SuzieQ49]

Here is my list, please provide the year.

Guidelines: THEY MUST HAVE CONSISTENTLY WEIGHED BELOW 190LB EITHER DURING THERE CAREER OR DURING A 3 YEAR SPAN FOR THEM TO BE RANKED.



1. Rocky Marciano- 1951


2. Jack Dempsey- 1919



3. Ezzard Charles- 1948


4. Floyd Patterson- 1956


5. Roy Jones- 1999


6. Sam Langford- 1910


7. Michael Spinks 1982


8. Gene Tunney- 1924


9. Archie Moore 1952


10. Billy Conn 1941

[SuzieQ49]

HM:

[lufcrazy]

Rocky
Jones
Tunney
Holyfield
Dempsey
Charles
Conn
Patterson
Moore
Foster

Not seen enough of langford, greb or fitz to list them.

[janitor]

It is a good list apart from the fact that Roy Jones is on it.

He simply dosn't belong in the same company as the other people on the list.

I also don't see how Sam Langford can be ranked any lower than #3.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by janitor

It is a good list apart from the fact that Roy Jones is on it.

He simply dosn't belong in the same company as the other people on the list.

I also don't see how Sam Langford can be ranked any lower than #3.

Such a ridiculous comment about Jones.

I've not seen enough of langford to rate him as a h2h force below 190.

[Boilermaker]

Jim Corbett shouldnt be forgotten.

[McGrain]

So, so difficult.

Just using your list Q.

I'm happy with Rocky at #1. I think I might pick Dempsey to beat Rocky (I know you disagree strongly) but I believe that Rocky would do better versus the wider field anyway.

Demspey at 2 is OK.

I agree with Janitor that Langford fits nicely at 3.

Charles above Patterson? OK. After that...Jesus man, interchageable, sorry for the cop out. Greb and Fitz anyone?

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Such a ridiculous comment about Jones.

I honestly don't buy the idea that Jones was some invincible alien in his prime.

I think that he always had issues with his durability, and he always knew it. It wasn't apparent at the time, in part due to his athleticism, but also in part due to his level of competition.

His failure to match many of the top contenders of his era had me scratching my head at the time, but viewed in the context of his past prime losses, it suddenly made sense.

I've not seen enough of langford to rate him as a h2h force below 190.

His record should be enough for that.

[Rattler]

What is the minimum, because I'm gonna start throwing Duran, Robinson and Armstrong in there.

[Bummy Davis]

I know I am Missing a few here but



1. Rocky Marciano- 1951


2. Jack Dempsey- 1919



3. Ezzard Charles- 1948








4. Sam Langford- 1910











5. Gene Tunney- 1924


6. Archie Moore 1952


7. Billy Conn 1941
[/quote]

eight) Michael Spinks

9) Floyd Patterson

10) Harold Johnson -Greb

[Senor Pepe']

Suzie Q,,


That is some impressive list,,,,,,,can't imagine anyone in that 'round robin'
tournament coming out undefeated.

[Webbiano]

1. Marciano - 1951
2. Johnson - 1904
3. Dempsey - 1919
4. Holyfield - 1988
5. Tunney - 1924
6. Langford - 1910
7. Patterson - 1956
8. Charles - 1948
9. Jones Jr - 2000
10. Spinks - 1982

[PowerPuncher]

To a degree it depends on same day weigh ins or 24 hour weigh ins, but mine is:

1. RJJ
2. Holyfield
3. Marciano
4. Patterson
5. Charles
6. Haye
7.Tunney
8. Moore
9.Dempsey
10. Spinks

Johnson @ 185lb doesn't have footage, Langford doesn't have significant footage either, both may make the list but without footage I won't judge. The same applies for Harry Greb

Originally Posted by janitor

I honestly don't buy the idea that Jones was some invincible alien in his prime.

I think that he always had issues with his durability, and he always knew it. It wasn't apparent at the time, in part due to his athleticism, but also in part due to his level of competition.

His failure to match many of the top contenders of his era had me scratching my head at the time, but viewed in the context of his past prime losses, it suddenly made sense.

Probably because you didn't/don't follow or watch boxing at the time, now or ever

[Webbiano]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

To a degree it depends on same day weigh ins or 24 hour weigh ins, but mine is:

1. RJJ
2. Holyfield
3. Marciano
4. Patterson
5. Charles
6. Haye
7.Tunney
8. Moore
9.Dempsey
10. Spinks

Johnson @ 185lb doesn't have footage, Langford doesn't have significant footage either, both may make the list but without footage I won't judge. The same applies for Harry Greb

Probably because you didn't/don't follow or watch boxing at the time, now or ever

There are a lot of posts of yours that I don't agree with PP, however I like the way you keep your views so consistently in evey thread and don't make exceptions for fighters you may favour. Having already seen Johnson film and the fact that most if not all sources suggest Langford was easy work for Johnson. I know this wasn't the best version of langford, but to do it in such emphatic fashion suggests he was more than a force to be reckoned with under 190 and I can't see anyone matching him for strength under 190 lbs.

Greb on the other hand is a mystery to almost everyone. We've seen how good Tunney looked on film as a boxer, but the fact he was able to get the better of him, justifies many to think highly of Greb, but considering we have seen no footage of Greb fighting, I feel he gets slightly overrated on this forum.

Oh and btw, pretty good list

[Nightcrawler]

[quote=janitor;13912219]

I honestly don't buy the idea that Jones was some invincible alien in his prime.

I think that he always had issues with his durability, and he always knew it. It wasn't apparent at the time, in part due to his athleticism, but also in part due to his level of competition.

His failure to match many of the top contenders of his era had me scratching my head at the time, but viewed in the context of his past prime losses, it suddenly made sense.



His record should be enough for that.

there are a lot of assumptions in here jan. on fact, he dominated the competition to which he was matched in the most thorough manner seen in the modern era. it's not that he didn't lose fights, he didn't lose rounds.

crack on the competition, but that's frankly the only flaw when in his prime. he tried to make fights, they didn't happen. in the end, at his best he conclusively dominated EVERY SINGLE MAN who stepped in the ring with him. and that includes 3 hall of famers, 2 of whom were at their best

assuming he had durability issues at his best would be as unfair as saying ezzard charles or erik morales did because their twlight years featured knockdowns and knockouts. jones was rarely hit, but when he was he took it just fine. that based on film, nothing else