Is Charles really the greatest LHW in History?

Mc ,you make a very convincing case. Ezzard Charles's dominance over
Archie Moore shows how great LH Ezzard Charles was. However I am not convinced that Tunney who kod Tommy Gibbons is not as impressive a win
as the Moore defeats. I am very, very impressed by Tommy Gibbons record
Of seldom ever defeated,[twice], his ko of Battling Norfolk,His being stopped just ONCE in 106 bouts [his last bout,age 34, by Tunney],and his destructive ko of Jack Bloomfield of England, shown on Youtube a while ago. Very impressive. Nat Fleischer rated Gibbons higher than Charles as a Lightheavy.
So,in my eyes I see both Gene Tunney and Ezzard Charles as the best 2 LH
fighters in history...But , I have to probably go with the Tunney at his peak
because of his great wheels, sturdiness, and great boxing mind.

 

Charles beat a Prime Archie Moore. Tunney beat an over the hill Tommy Gibbons. Big Difference.

 

Don´t drink and post. :nono

 

I disagree for two reasons. One, Pavlik was the man who beat the man who beat Hopkins twice. And two, Hopkins was ancient.

 

Charles has a better resume but ability wise wasn't quite up there

DM wasn't necessarily the best of the era he lost and went life and death with 2 of Jones weaker opponents, while not facing some of the better names. Aside from him Jones cleaned out most of the top 10 of LHWs. The biggest punchers at 175 aside from Jones were probably Sosa, Hall and Tarver, Darius was more an accumulation kind of guy

 

Pavlik was also as average as middleweight champions go and accomplished nothing as a light heavyweight. Beating Taylor, on hindsight, was not much of a feat.

I know I could sound overly critical here, but comparisons to Charles, Moore or Greb is pretty much a golden standard. A run-of-the-mill victory over a Kelly Pavlik doesn't cut it. Bobo Olson was better and got iced in 3 rounds by an old Moore but that's not the win that gets Moore in these discussions.

 

Maybe so S, but Archie Moore was no spring chicken when he first lost to Charles in 1946 [33 years old] and 1947 at 34 years of age. Tommy Gibbons was also 34 when Tunney kod him in 1925. Do the math.
When Gibbons was battered and stopped in 1925 by the prime Tunney, was it because Gibbons was past his peak, or was it because Gene Tunney was a helluva Lightheavy in 1925 ?
Ezzard was great , not a shred of doubt about that. I say pick-em between Tunney and Charles...:hi:

 

I'd say it's more probable that Moore was 30 years old in 1946. Some controversy about his age but I think it's more likely he was born in 1916 than 1913. Of course Moore went onto have what was arguably his best run during his late 30's so age was nothing but a number for him.

 

It´s not about Pavlik, it´s about Hopkins. IMO his age and the facts that Pavlik established himself as the mw champ by twice beating the man who twice beat himself makes this an excellent win. Sure not as good as Greb´s over Tunney or Charles over Moore or Moore over Johnson but you made it sound as if it was no feat at all and I strongly disagree with that.

 

"Ability-wise wasn't quite up there"...?

 

This was the line you quoted:

"Beating Pavlik is also an achievement for Hopkins but it will not go down as a feat worth mentioning next to what the likes of Charles, Greb or Moore achieved as light heavyweights."