Greatest Light Heavyweight (175lbs) of all time (based on achievements NOT H2H)

As I said, your criteria is your own, and as senseless as it appears to me, I have no right to definitively say its wrong, this is all subjective, as you say.

You're saying it is possible to rank a non-champion above a champion, but there's a "cutoff" that needs to be met to do so and that 3 wins out of 3 over a prime version of the champion, 1 by 10-0 shut out and another by KO, doesn't meet your threshold for that cutoff. Ok. That's fine, no skin off my nose. The majority rank Charles the GOAT at LHW. That's more than enough for me.

I'm glad your criteria isn't mine, because applying it consistently (which I suspect you don't), would be a proper mind ****.

 

I get you're placing a big emphasis on titles, but how big? Is beating the guys Charles did just unimportant? Does resume come into this at all for you?

 

If holding the world title is such a key criteria for the OP, then the unbeaten, at LHW, world champion John Henry Lewis is conspicuous by his absence.

Arguably the most under appreciated of all LHW champions, iirc he went 49-0-3 at LHW and beat some excellent fighters.

 

I get it. You rank 1 fighter above another he lost 3 out of 3 to during his prime, 2 of those 3 in dominant fashion. It clearly makes sense to you, but not to most others.

 

Anything where either fighter is over 175 is HW. I would prefer moving LHW to 185 instead of CW but thats not the reality. Anyhow after the Marshall fight Bivins left LHW. He never fought at the weight class again. He was a HW its pretty cut and dry for an era where many went back and forth.

Regardless Bivins and Marshall beat Charles when there was actually titles and title shots on the line. Bivins got to win the duration title because he beat Charles in the SF of a tournament. Marshall got to replace Bivins as duration champ specifically because he beat Charles. Charles wins over Bivins and Marshall were lower stakes. Bivins streak had ended and he was coming off 2 losses when Charles beat him at HW the first time. Marshall had been stopped twice at LHW twice in a year by Archie Moore and Billy Smith when Charles beat him for the first time. Their H2Hs aren't equal but Charles wins were lower stakes fights than the losses.

Charles being the LHW GOAT is based on the Usykian idea that beating Moore 3x trumps everything regardless of context. We can debate whether to include the Bivins wins but going by your logic Charles is LHW GOAT because of like 7 wins over 4 fighters 2 of whom beat him very badly. While the first Moore win was a shutout the other 2 were competitive fights.

 

This is the greatest thing I've ever read.

 

Ezzard Charles, Harry Greb and Archie Moore,plus Sam Langford,coin flip.

 

I've explained my reasoning on weight. A couple of fighters contesting a non title fight at 136lbs seems better attributed to LW than WW to me.

Charles was a 21 year old kid no where near the LHW limit when he lost to Marshall and Bivins. I, and the majority, don't rank him GOAT at LHW because of the LHW he was as a c.165lbs underdeveloped 21 year old kid, but because of the LHW he would later become.

And yes, a big, but not only, part of the reasoning, is beating a prime version of a consensus top 3 LHW of all time, including once by KO and another by 10 round shut out.

 

To support this, the Charles book by William Dettlof mentions how going to the military helped him gain weight and grow into LHW.

 

Yup and no ones proclaiming Norton their HW GOAT or putting him in all time top 5s. Non champions should be rated above champions if the results say they were better. The fascination with the shiny object is a problem but thats about putting fighter 1 over fighter 2 just because 1s a champion and 2 wasn't. In terms of being in the GOAT conversation its a different story. I just don't see how its possible to be the single greatest fighter in the history of a weight class without ever having a title claim. Greb has a belt and a defense, Tunney has a belt and defenses. Virtually everyone in this conversation at 175 has some sort of trinket or claim. Even Sam Langford apparently has one at 175 for beating O Brien and I think that was his only fight at the weight class. Charles doesn't have a title he didn't have a title claim and he was fighting at a time there was as many as 4 other champions and no less than 2 others. None of whom were named Archie Moore who became champion in a different decade than the one Charles beat him in.

If this was solely about elevating Charles above Archie Moore I'd kinda get it same way I'd get the Usyk GOAT talk if Fury or AJ already had that status(lol). But Archie Moore isn't the clear cut LHW GOAT we've got a small army of greats here.

Jimmy Young briefly held the NABF belt which was the 2nd biggest HW title at the time just like Leon Spinks. Norton held that title multiple times. Those aren't proper world titles and some revisonists don't consider Greb and Tunneys belts proper titles but they are answers to the question "if they were so good why didn't they win anything". For Charles the answer to that question is because he got knocked down 11 times in the 2 biggest fights he had at the weight class.