I'm neither supporting nor criticising either yours or Entaowed's posts, just making an observation/recommendation on criteria when making ranked lists, one should either: 1) Base their ranking on fights that actually happened and limit analysis to what fighters did within the weight division of the era they were competing in. This ignores predicated outcomes of fights that didn't happen, which is particularly problematic when ATGs of the division competed in eras with different rulesets & different resources, e.g. day before/same day weigh ins, with/without access to PEDs, etc. Or 2) H2H, based on predicted outcomes of fights that didn't happen. As you can probably tell, I work to number 1). Whilst not entirely objective, it's more objective than number 2), which as your exchange with Entaowed is testament to, can at best, become complicated.
What about a fighter who probably was never over 175 and beat Sam Langford, Jim Johnson, Norfolk, Battling Levinsky, Luther McCarty among others and drew with Wills and Jeanette? Are there 10 better light heavyweights than the Joplin Goast? Probably, twenty? I doubt it. Great thread BTW McVey and as regards Rosenbloom, yeah he is impossible to rank but if you fight decent opponents 20 or more times a year, it is totaly different to our modern concept.
How is that to complicated? I just described how folks weigh in heavier than the listed weights-even if at LHW & below-may not make, or be as effective, when already lean & very fit at well over the LHW limit. Everyone does & should assume many things-including you & those who like your comment. Just like we all judge-being rational & fair just means we do not assume or judge absent reasonable evidence, especially something negative or unfair. If guys often weigh the same or less than the division limit in ring, even when weighing in the day before, please show me that evidence. Everything I have heard previously indicates that this at best is the exception. We should not want guys ranked high at 175 BASED upon fights where they were well above it when already as light as they could be & likely be as effective. Otherwise it is unfair to compare them to guys who fought at a maximim of 175. Since some who fought at LHW were This content is protected as around heavy as say prime Dempsey & Marciano... In the ring.
I suspect Clark would rank comparatively higher p4p based on all the fights he contested, than he would at LHW based strictly on fights contested within or close to within that weight range. Point taken on Rosenbloom. Greb (incredibly harsh comparison, I accept) & Dillon, for example, also had <20 fights in a single year, but with much greater consistency and dominance. Both rank above Rosenbloom at LHW, for me.
Yeah, I'd definitely rate Levinsky below Dillon (perhaps an obvious assessment given their H2H record), probably below Rosenbloom and probably ahead of Clark, based on fights contested in & around LHW.
Yes, when the 20 year old Levinsky had been a pro for less than 2-years. I suspect in fights contested at & around LHW (i.e. where the heavier fighter was between 165 & 180lbs), Levinsky would have the deeper win resume, but I doubt I'm as well read on either fighter as you, so I'm interested if you'd disagree?
Foster did nothing but get posterized by guys over 175 and never even beat anyone that good. Beterbiev would break him in half.
I'm sure your opinion is as good as mine! However, I aagree with a lot of what you said, Levinsky was indeed green for the Clarke fights and without weights for most of their fights, it is hard to say who fought the best using your criteria. Just my opinion but wins over Norfolk, Langford(possibly under 175?) the underrated Harry Wuest, match Levinskys best. Now against heavyweights, which I factor, both did good stuff too. I rate Clarke's results with Jeanette, McCarty, Wills and Langford as better than the Battler's best heavyweight wins but Levinsky has the deeper resume against fighters over 175. You could mix and match Dillon, Levinsky, Norfolk and Clarke anyway which way you want, I tend to favour and champion Jeff as he usually forgotten in these conversations.
Well since i'm one of the two "likes" called out and the other fella isn't allowed to comment to/at you i'd better speak for us i guess. The only modern light heavyweight mentioned with any frequency was RJJ. Roy was coming in around the light heavyweight limit when fighting at 168 and actually came in at 174 when he completely schooled James Toney in what most consider his greatest win ever. So we don't really need to take anything away from RJJ or factor too much of anything in.....we can just apply the KISS principle as mcvey has indicated. 168 is considered by most to be Roys best weight and his in ring weights per that division were around light heavyweight. Lastly you need to stop baiting Pug (referring to him as your interlocutor, referring to him liking mcvey's post etc etc etc) as i'd hate to see him lose patience and get banned for responding. Not quite in order Mac but close....... Ezzard Charles Archie Moore Michael Spinks Harry Greb Gene Tunney Tommy Loughran Bob Foster John Henry Lewis Jimmy Bivins Harold Johnson
