My top 20 Light Heavyweights, All Time

Andries above Saad is unfathomable. Hearns at 39 beat your 29 and 15 and the only excuse one could imagine would be he didn't fight much there, but then we see Hopkins at 26 :yikes

He's had what, 2 fights there. Tarver isn't THAT great and he beat Wright who had never even fought there. How does that get 26?

Strange stuff.

 

TBooze is infamous for making terrible lists.

 

Also lost his debut at Light Heavy as well

Andries is underrated IMO; I saw him fight Collins in 82, and if you said then he would be decking Tommy Hearns and beating Boby Czyz five years later, you would of been committed.

Muhammad/Frankin is another great story redemption and gets kudos for it.

I loathe rating Tommy at 175lbs, like Duran I try and believe his career finished after the last Leonard fight. Sure it did not, but I like to immortalize my heroes and the Hill and Maynard fights just do not cancel out that Hearns was outpointed by Barkley and was still fighting in the 21st century. Watching Hearns in Britain going though the motions against Miller was just not right IMO.

 

Mate, Andries is a great story, but how is he underrated so as to deserve a rank at 29? Who did he beat. Bobby is no great win.

What he did was beat many many fine fighters, which is a lot more than Adnries has, or Bhop at 175 for that matter.

I know what you mean, but he beat your 29 and 15 which makes things a bit awkward. Granted he lost to Barkley, but Andries lost to Harding twice, which is worse. Also, Andries hasn't beaten anyone above himself.

Hopkins has but one win here, over a Tarver you rate so high based on mainly on his wins over a shot Jones.

 

Muhammed/Franklin was a lovely story and held his own in arguably the strongest era of the division and (generally) if you did not like a Muhammaed/Franklin fight perhaps you need to find another sport. I liked Matt an awful lot.

Andries gets his rating on being bigger than the sum of his parts. You have to a degree rate fighters on your own heart. And I think Andries does not get the respect he deserves. Czyz pre Williams was rated as the finest fighter in the division; Andries victory was an excellent achievement.

I went to Harding/AndriesIII; it was no robbery, but it was close (I had Andries 7-5); home town advantage and being the defending champion should of given Andries the benefit of the doubt IMO, but I do not grumble about it. Harding was another who was better than he is given credit for, I think he could of beaten Moorer in the era, and given Williams and Hill fair arguments.

 

Dull and stereotypical; yes.

Dated; yes.

Infamous; yes.

But terrible? You are harsh but fair!

 

Your lists are the sparks from which debates blaze. So for that, I like them.

 

Thanks, it been said thousands of times, but if we all had the same opinions, what is the point of the forum? I do not care who you are, you do learn a lot here. I know I have, and on top of that, been put down a peg or two, which when it comes to boxing, without blowing my trumpet too much, is no mean achievement.

 

You can't have liked him too much to rank some of the guys you have ahead of him. Saad did better than hold his own, he beat many top fighters. One for the ages.

What you are saying is that you like Andries so much you are going to rate him a lot higher than he has actually earned, because with him you are rating from the heart, not from actual achievement or merit. At least you admit it. Czyz no matter what way we look at it was never that good.

Great, but limited warriors who had heart to die for. Moorer would have decimated Harding IMO and Hill and Charles would have been bad news too.

 

Moorer IMO is big time overrated at 175. Journeymen and faded contenders gave him fits, and he avoided legitmate fighters like the plague. Steward admitted in recent years Moorer's ticker was not what it could be. Moorer had more ability in one finger than Harding, but Jeff was always up for it in his prime, and he would of got the job done.

 

Well i don't agree because of two big factors.

1. Despite his nickname, i really don't think Harding had that much power at all. He was painful to watch at times, his punches seemed so damn slow and snapless. Griffo will prolly kill me, but that's the way i saw it.

2. Harding blocked 90% of punches with his face. Moorer is a murderous puncher at 175 and would really hurt Harding. He just hits too hard for a very easy to hit guy who isn't going to take him out in return. Moorer soaked up punches against a lot of guys that hit plenty harder than Harding.

 

Not at 175lbs; Steward carefully matched him up, but even then the Stewart and Allen fights hurt him. Harding was better, probably a lot better than anything that Moorer fought at 175.

 

What did Harding ever do besides go life and death with Andries?

Eddie Mustafa Muhhamad not being here is bad too, his resume demands inclusion and the likes of Tarver and Andries pale beside him.

 

George

 

#1. Ezzard Charles
#2. Archie Moore
#3. Harry Greb
#4. Gene Tunney
#5. Tommy Loughran
#6. John Henry Lewis
#7. Michael Spinks
#8. Jimmy Bivins
#9. Philadelphia Jack O'Brian
#10. Maxie Rosenbloom
#11. Harold Johnson
#12. Jack Delaney
#13. Matthew Saad Muhammad
#14. Billy Conn
#15. Roy Jones Jr
#16. Lloyd Marshall
#17. Bob Foster
#18. Joey Maxim
#19. Victor Galíndez
#20. Jack Dillon
#21. Dwight Muhammad Qawi
#22. Young Stribling
#23. Paul Berlenbach
#24. Jimmy Slattery
#25. Kid Norfolk

I may underrate
Spinks, Foster, Conn

I may overrate
Lewis, Delaney, Galíndez

Langford doesn't get graded at any weight imo, he's too much of a wild card.

@The Morlocks killing it with the LHW ****.