Battling Levinsky: thoughts?

How do you rate Levinsky?

It seems the man had great conditioning as he never seemed to show signs of being "shot" despite the huge amount of fights he had (especially including the barney fights, if that's true!)

Obviously like a lot of LHW champs he had a bogus claim to the belt, but still it shouldn't be ignored that he fought and beat a whole stack of top level 175 pound fighters

McMahon, Mantell, Dillon, Clark, McGoorty, Flynn, Moha, Smith, Zulu, Miske and McTigue

as well as facing the likes of dempsey, tunney and greb in his career.

How should this man be remembered? He did lose an awful lot of times but usually put up a very good showing whenever he came to fight.

I'm beginning my research into this division and he strikes me as odd in that he can some days beat the likes of dillon and miske, whilst others losing to complete no hopers.

I think he was the best lhw in the world for a very short period, but even that is in doubt due to the miske fights (circa 180, but enough to raise doubt in my eyes)

Does anyone else have further insight into this man?

 

It's very hard nailing down when his prime actually was, I mean there doesn't seem to be much decline in his level of performance over the years.

I'm not sure he's deserving of a tag of legendary lightheavyweight, but he did at one point or another beat some of the best around.

Victories over gibbons, tunney, miske and greb could have secured his legacy as a p4p great but it seems he came up short.

The only way I can describe him is that his whole is greater than the sum of his parts: whilst his paper championship distracts from what he did, he amassed a great resume over his career.

 

On his night he could have been a match for anyone, I don't really doubt that. It just seems he lost too many fights whilst prime for me to call him a legend.

 

Well when do you define his prime as? I can't nail it down.

A lot of his decisions against high profile opponents have fairly good writeups and he always seems to have a good account of himself.

He's a great fighter, don't get me wrong. I think anyone hitting top spot in their division can call themselves a great.

Not many qualify as a legend but it's basically a benchmark. It's entirely subjective as well because I don't follow any one belt (alphabet nor linear) I just evaluate year by year.

He fought in a great era though so he'd have to be special to make it as a legend: gibbons, miske, dempsey, dillon, greb, tunney. No wonder some of histories greatest lhw's are those that emerge from that pack successful.

Lowest guy i'd call a legend in that division is perhaps gibbons.

 

Ok I think I can narrow his prime down a little bit, it seems to me it should be from 1915-1920, So only including prime losses his meaningful resume at the division stands at

McMahon (3-1-0), Mantell (1-0-1), Dillon (2-3-2), Clark, McGoorty (1-0-0), Flynn (3-0-0), Moha (1-1-0), Smith (3-0-0), Zulu (2-0-0), Miske (1-2-0), Gibbons (0-1-0), Greb (0-3-0), Carpentier (0-1-0)

 

i think carpentier ended his prime. Yeah his prime years probably started sooner than I claimed, but he wasn't a full time lightheavy until 1915 by my reckoning.

To escape from that era as a legend is mightily difficult.

I'd put him behind greb, loughran, gibbons and dillon for that era.

I'm currently studying rosenbloom at the moment so i'll reserve judgement on him for now.

 

I don't follow :-(