Archie Moore - #1 All Time LHW?

Just a point, what Foster did at Heavyweight should not be used to gauge him at 175. P4P yes indeed.

I think you'll see many argue for Moore at 175, he's one of those a very decent debate can be made for.

 

Look at every Lightheavyweights case for the #1 spot and Charles is obvious IMO. Moore is 2nd on my list, but it's clear that Charles rates over him as I see it.

 

you can make a strong case. I rate him at # 2 behind charles

 

Agree with that JT. If you are going to rank them purely at 175 it doesnt count.

Without a doubt Moore is one guy who could be considered as the no1 lightheavy of alltime. There are arguements for others but for the most part those arguements are not as stong except of course for Charles.

I made a thread a few days ago where I said H2H I rate Foster as the best light heavy I had seen. Simply because I thought he could beat all others but Im really starting to think that the ol Mongoose could defo knock him off in a H2H matchup.

 

Cheers mate. I think it was Manassa ages and ages back who made point Moore and Charles were extremely close at 175 and he basically said if i remember right there's nothing between them. He's a big fan of the pair and has dug pretty deep on both. Hopefully someone will give some in depth discussion on the pair.

Love Foster, for sure. I think he's a chance vs Moore. Moore might be a narrow fave in the betting. Fosters awesome peak.

 

Charles, his resume at 175 was second to none even though he never won the title at that weight. You can make a good case for Moore though. I just think if you take each of their five best wins at 175, you'll see Charles is better.

 

Three of the Charles list would be Moore. Five aside from each other would be interesting.

 

Moore meets every criteria for being a great fighter.

1) He had a great record (proved the ablilty to be consistent over a career)
2) He won great fights (proved the ability to overcome adversity)
3) He defeated great fighters (proved the ability to compete at the sport's top level)
4) He dominated during his title reign. He was 10-0 in light heavyweight title fights
5) He proved himself pound-for-pound. While he never won the heavyweight title, he defeated several world class heavyweights even as a natural light heavyweight

 

I suppose if you dismiss Charles as simply having Moore's number, you could make the case that Moore ranks over him.

But I don't see what Moore has done that makes him a clearly better or more accomplished fighter even outside of that.

Charles is #1, Moore is either #2 or 3 (alternating with Gene Tunney IMO).

 

My top 10 light-heavies....

1) Charles
2) Moore
3) Tunney (could be switched with Moore)
4) Spinks
5) Foster
6) Harold Johnson
7) Conn
8) Greb
9) Loughran
10) Qawi
Honorable Mention: Jimmy Bivins and Lloyd Marshall

I often see Langford rated as a light-heavyweight as well, if so he would be in my top 5.

 

Well, nice list also Tunney should be lower, Foster and Johnson should be above Spinks and Loughran should be higher. Something like that:

1. Charles/Moore

3. Loughran
4. Foster
5. Johnson
6. Spinks
7. Tunney
8. Conn
9. Greb
10. Bivins

Like you see, I don´t think there´s much between them. Charles beat Moore at mw, so I don´t think those fights should count for their ranking at lhw. It´s very close and if you try hard I think you could make an arguemtn for Loughran to be up there with both.

 

The Mongoose is at #2, behind Charles. I think most will have it that way.

 

Tunney has decisive wins over one of the best cruiserweights ever (Dempsey) and one of the best middleweight/super-middleweights ever (Greb), as well as wins over other HOFers Gibbons, Carpentier, and of course Loughran. Also, if you're going to make direct comparisons to Loughran and Tunney, note that Tunney got the better of his fight series with Greb, whereas Greb got the better of his series with Loughran.

If anything, Tunney is the fighter who is undersold IMO.

 

The three fights with Charles were at Light heavy.