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

While a few pounds doesn't matter very much and the existence of weight classes have led us to grossly overestimate the importance of 7-8 pounds these weight classes have strict definitions except HW. Hence why when someone doesn't make the limit for a title fight they cannot win the title. I actually am more open to calling the other Bivins wins LHW for Charles more because Charles was a LHW while the 176-179 is clearly HW. But the problem with that is a fighter being below 175 doesn't make a fight not HW.

At the end of 1942 right before these fights Ring Magazine ranked Charles 3rd at LHW. This ranking was because in 1942 Charles had beaten 4 of the Rings top 10 from 1941 and kicked them all out of the top 10 besides Christophordis. Charles was one of 4 fighters selected for the duration LHW tournament and he'd already beaten another one in the aformentioned Christophordis who'd been a champion. Before the Bivins loss Charles was 6-1-1 against top 10 LHWs all of whom had been top 5 except Maxim who was a future champion and had been above the LHW limit. Charles was also 4-1 against top 5 rated MWs who aren't part of that 6-1-1. So this idea he was "an undeveloped 21 year old kid" isn't really accurate. He'd had over a dozen fights at the top non title level and did well in all of them even the fights he didn't win.

When you're saying Charles was "nowhere close to the LHW limit" you mean 7-10 pounds. Which is a rather trivial difference and really isn't an excuse when you consider Charles was 171 for the Moore shutout and 169 for his first Marshall win. Charles is 2 and 3 inches taller than Marshall and Bivins and he actually outweighed Marshall by 3 pounds in the loss who split time between LHW and MW. Charles was the bigger man here and while he was fighting light for his size this isn't a Braddock situation where he was a drained power guy who wasn't heavy enough to knock his opponents out. Nor was it a situation where he was vulnerable because he was too light. Charles losses don't seem tied to his weight in anyway.

Well yeah in the other 2 fights Moore was competitive and could have won. So it really is that 1st fight. If Charles destroyed Moore H2H and hes the best at 175 that means Charles is really the best at 175 instead and the Maxim and Bivins wins despite being at HW reinforce this. Thats basically the argument hes 26-3-1 with his only title fight being the SF loss to Bivins. If we count all the stuff where hes at LHW and his opponent isn't that gets him another 9 or 10 wins. Hes not being called the greatest because of that.

 

I agree with this. I'm talking blindly elevating champs over non champs just because of that status which is situational belts are given value by what feats they represent not the other way around. Non champs can be better than champs. Being better than all of them when you got an oppurtunity to contend and got knocked down 11 times in 2 fights? Yeah I'll raise my eyebrows.

There is also of course the literal issue of title fights(usually) being scheduled for more rounds than non title fights against title level opponents. Ironically I think the duration title fights of WW2 were among the last 10 round title fights until Tyson Fury decided it was time to bring them back.

While Norton was champion who has an official belt Frazier being considered consistantly better because he had a title reign at an easier time really captures the spirit of what I'm talking about here.

In terms of Moores prime the elephant in the room is his ulcers, his surgery and his recovery which messes up his whole aging timeline because the man probably did feel signifigantly better at 40 than 30. While really isn't possible unless theres something seriously wrong with you in your physical prime that ceases to be wrong with you later on. Because of this we can't look at Moores longevity the same we do with a Hopkins or a Foreman.

 

Alright, let's just get this over with. If we can't say Charles is the GOAT for beating Moore because there are other champions with GOAT cases aside from Moore, then I just have to prove that there aren't. Greb and Tunney were not champions, they only held regional titles, so they won't be included as they supposedly can't be the GOATs due to that according to Devon. So let's see how other LHW champs compare to Moore. Warning, this post is too long for the Tiktok generation. You are advised to proceed with caution.

Spinks: wins over top 10 ranked Light heavyweights consists of Qawi, Eddie, Pops, Lopez, Suttherland, Davis, Rivadenerya, Calestine, Wassajja and Johnson. So he is 10-0 over fighters who were ranked at one point in their life. And it should be noted that about half of them weren't at the time of the Spinks fight. Underwhelming depth, but his best victories are great.

Loughran: Undefeated vs Slattery, Walker, Carpentier, Lomski, Burke x2, Marullo x3, Okun x2, Sekyra, Latzo x2, Emanuel x2 and Maier. He is 3-1 vs McTigue, 1-4-1 vs Greb, 0-1 vs Tunney, 1-2 vs Stribling, 1-1-1 vs Stone and 0-1-2 vs the Delaneys. So he is 23-10-1 against fighters that were top 10 ranked at the poundage, having secured some great victories over Slattery, Stribling, a smaller but still elite Walker and of the course the great Harry Greb. He is 7-0 in title matches with 6 successful defences. But he never established that he was better than his 2 best opponents (Being 1-5-1 total against Greb and Tunney) and despite being very dominant over his average ranked opponent, he also lost the series to Stribling and had trouble against the 2 Delaneys, ending up with a record of 0-2-1 against them.

Lewis: Undefeated against Jack Fox x1, McAvoy x1, Olin x3, Nichols x1, Harvey x2, Shucco x2, Lenhart x1, Scoza x1, Okun x2, Godwin x1, Gainer x2. His blemishes include minor draws against Nichols and Lenhart, and him losing the series to the great Rosenbloom by 2-3. Very impressive.

Foster: wins Tiger x1, Hank x2, Cotton x1, Quarry x1, Finnegan x1, Rouse x2, Fourrie x2, Kelly x1, Tessman x1, Anderson x1, Kendall x1, Carrol x1 and Rondon x1. Early losses to Jones and Mina, as well as a draw to Ahumada when close to his prime. Incredible dominance and solid depth, but over very unispiring opposition. Not a GOAT candidate.

Jones: 40 year old McCallum, Griffin, Hill, Tarver, Talle, Johnson, Telesco, Harding, Harmon, Gonzalez, Woods. So 11-0 in his prime, but also lost to Tarver x2, Glen Johnson and Calzaghe. But he was obviously very past it after the first Tarver KO. Impressive for sure, but not GOAT worthy.

Johnson: Hall x2, Bivins, Lytell, Cotton, Morrow, Satterfield, Jones, Slade x2, old Doc Williams, Andrews x2, Ray, Clay, Bowdry, Scholz, Hank, Stengel when Johnson was 40 and of course a win over Moore himself. He is even at 1-1 with Satterfield and suffered only 1 freak loss to Oakland Billy Smith and a SD to Pastrano when he was way past his prime. Incredible right ? Consider he is also Archie Moore's 4 time *****.

Conn: Undefeated over Actis, Bettina x2 and Lesnevich x2, an impressive 5-0 but not ATG worthy even. P4P great for sure, but it's mostly due to his overall record rather than particular achievements at any weight. I say that as a big Conn admirer.

Qawi: Saad x2, Rossman, Davies, Scott, Martin and lost the fight to the generational best (Spinks). Impressive for sure, but not GOAT worthy.

Saad: Conteh x2, Lopez x2, Pops x2, Mwale x1, Martin x1, Sutherland x1, 1-0-1 with Parlov, 1-1 with Camel. Lost to the best he fought (Eddie and twice vs Qawi). All time great, but not GOAT worthy.

Beterbiev (lol): Undefeated vs Bivol (highly disputed), Gvozdyck, Smith, Smith jr, Yarde and Browne. A total of 6 ranked wins (should be 5-1). ''He iS a tOp TeN AlL tImE gReAt ThOuGh''

Let's finally get to Moore: Harold Johnson x4, Jimmy Bivins, Lloyd Marshall x2, Joey Maxim x3 and countless other top 10 rated LHW's like Jimmy Slade, Jack Chase, Oakland Billy Smith x3, Bert Lytell x2, Bob Satterfield, Henry Hall, Charley Williams x3, Leonard Morrow, Nate Bolden x2, Yolande Pompey, Yvon Durelle x2, Eddie Cotton, Tony Anthony and Gulio Rinaldi.That's 31 victories over men in the top 10 at LHW (don't get me started on his whole resume), all of them in or close to their prime.

But wait, it gets better. He's simultaneously the oldest and longest reigning Light Heavyweight champion, and holds the record for most lineal title defences to this day. Let's also look at his losses at 175 against ranked opposition, shall we ? A freak KO loss to Morrow (avenged), a decision loss to Hall (avenged), a decision loss to Harold Johnson (his 4 time *****) and a decision loss to Rinaldi at 46 years old (avenged). He also drew once with Oakland Billy Smith (who he has beaten 3 times) and Jack Chase (same thing). One good look will tell you the vast majority of his blemishes came when at Middleweight. So particularly at LHW, he has a record of 31-4-2 against ranked fighters, with ALL the losses and draws avenged. So not only does he have the best record against ranked fighters, not only does he have the best wins over the best opponents, not only is he the oldest and longest reigning champ with the lineal title defences record, but he never met a LHW he couldn't inevitably beat.

Except Ezzard Charles. Charles 10-0'd him in their first fight, beat him close but clear the second time around, and knocked him out the third time. Whatever Moore did, he could not prove he was superior to Charles. It's also not that Charles only has Moore on his resume. He has wins over Marshall x2, Bivins x1 (or 4 if you believe Bivins to merely be a blown up LHW, due to him weighing at the early 180's at HW), Maxim x5, Christoforidis x1, Fitzpatrick x2, and Oakland Billy Smith x2. So he is 16-2 (with the Marshall loss being due to an injury and the other being due to Bivins being a division heavier) at the weight against arguably the best overall opposition in the division's history.

Ezzard Charles is the GOAT Light Heavyweight.

 

The ABA was not a regional title. It was a major title. At this time there was no sanctioning body that couldn't be described as a non regional body. You had the IBU which was European, the BBBC which was British, the NBA which was also American and the NYSAC which was part of the New York state government. The IBU lineage is the lineal title because Carpentier beat Battling Levinsky and that is the only reason.

Charles got knocked down 11 times in his 2 biggest fights at LHW and has no title wins. He was ranked in the top 10 only 3 years. John Henry Lewis was retired before 25 and he was ranked 7 years. John Henry Lewis was a better HW and LHW than Charles with his eyes closed. If he fought until 30 he would be the undisputed P4P GOAT of boxing.

Archie Moore almost knocked Charles out in the 3rd fight. You are also ignoring Moores recovery from his surgery.

In terms of Loughran
"But he never established that he was better than his 2 best opponents (Being 1-5-1 total against Greb and Tunney)". It was Greb and Tunney and 3 of the losses were close with 2 you could argue Loughran won. The 2 you could argue were 8 rounders. Loughran lost the series to Stribling because of a 6 rounder. If you are looking at Loughrans fights with Greb and Tunney and seeing 1-5-1 you're seeing them wrong. The point was that even at 21 Loughran was level with them.

 

Charles is possibly just the answer P4P#1 overall… he is absolutely the answer for 175lbs “greatness” or even 175lbs H2H… H2H it could be Tunney, Conn or Greb?

 

All the more power to Charles. Coulda, shoulda, woulda, mighta, the fact of the matter is that Moore had three goes, THREE, and couldn't find a way to beat him.

Regarding your earlier comments, Charles absolutely unequivocally was not a patch on the machine he was to become later prior to his break for the war. He developed notably physically during his time not fighting and it's akin to a hugely talented youngster turning into a man. The truth is in the results.......one disputed loss in his next 40 odd fights and take a look at those he beat. It's one of the greatest streaks in boxing history at any weight. His one loss was to a hard punching top 3 heavyweight that outweighed him by 20 odd pounds.

Charles for me is the greatest light heavyweight ever title or no title.

 

I don't intend any offence, but you have some very bizarre takes.

You're either a troll or someone who genuinely revels in being a contrarian just for the sake of it, and as such I tend not to take your posts seriously and won't respond to you on this thread again.

Charles was an underdeveloped 21 year old boy who was no near a fully fledged LHW when he lost to Marshall and Bivins, both of whom he beat multiple times when he was fully muture.

Charles beat a prime Moore 3 out of 3. 1 by 10 round shut out and another by KO. It's the most conclusive series victory one top 5 divisional ATG holds over another in the entire history of boxing.

You claim a 21 year old 165lbs Charles losing to Bivins, who he'd go on to beat multiple times once fully developed, should determine Ezzard's standing at LHW, whilst the value of his victories over an Archie Moore who was in his 30's and a veteran of almost 100 fights, should be diminished because Moore didn't win the LHW title until the following decade.

That's the absurd extent of your double standards, trolling or not is definitely disingenuous and frankly, a perfect example of why your posts shouldn't be taken seriously.

Charles is the consensus GOAT at LHW and rightfully so.

 

Heres some numbers to consider

Charles fought 19 LHW contenders in his career(at all weight classes). He went 16-3. I am not counting Overlin for example because he never fought for a LHW belt or major eliminator. I had their total fights and I hurredly subtracted their losses and draws from that number. Its a zero sum game and in these golden eras only so many fighters can have good records in a fixed group.



Greb 53-9-5
Dillon 37-10-4
Rosenbloom 27-22-8
Virgil Hill 25-4
Gibbons 23-4(24-3 with DQ)
Archie Moore 23-6-1
John Henry Lewis 19-5-1
Loughran 19-10-2
Foster 18-1-1
Roy Jones 18-6
Ezzard Charles 17-3
O Brien 17-4-3
Schreck 15-7-3
Billy Miske 14-9-2
Schreck 15-7-3
Stribling 14-3-2
Tunney 13-1-1
Bivins 13-11-1
Maxim 13-14
Said Muhammad 12-2-1
Gainer 12-12-3
Michalczewski 11-2
Root 11-3-1
Gardner 11-4-3
Lesnevich 11-6
Slattery 11-8
Spinks 10-0
Maske 10-1
Stevenson 10-1
Beterbiev 9-0
Harold Johnson 9-5
Hopkins 9-5-1
Mickey Walker 9-5-2
F Tiozzo 8-2
Bivol 7-1
Chad Dawson 7-5
Tarver 7-6
Fitzsimmons 6-3-3
Conn 5-0
Ward 4-0
Qawi 4-1
Calzaghe 3-0

 

"Charles was an underdeveloped 21 year old boy"

He was rated 3rd and had beaten 4 of the top 10 in a year. Would you say that about Louis, Mike Tyson or any of the young challengers on a roll? No because when things go well the age doesn't matter. John Henry Lewis couldn't see and he was champ at 20 whats Charles excuse? You can say thats unfair but when you call Charles one of the greatest LHW ever those are the sort of standards hes being compared to.

The Bivins loss prevented him from becoming champion and after the Marshall loss it took him 3 years to get back in the ring with a top LHW so they quite literally did determine his standing.

If by diminished meaning hes not in the GOAT conversation and more is a top 3ish guy in his (very good)era then yes. Also I brought up Moores rather unique situation. For some reason Charles being an allegedly underdeveloped 21 year old is an acceptable excuse but major surgery isn't. And I'm not discounting the wins you're the ones naming Charles the best ever of an 100 year division he was never champion of and was ranked in for only 3 years because of them. And if by not going there means I'm diminishing them then yes I'm diminishing them.

 

some very well informed Boxing Guru's on here, which is always good at touching base with Boxing History because of them Thank you.

my 1st thought was Charles & Moore, going with Moore only because too many times in the past, people had deliberate placed him, Charles, as a Better HW. I don't know, but I do know that Charles & Moore are Kings among Kings, some pretty impressive Fighters & Contenders on those lists, which is always a credit to the people that give them credit... Respect, because they deserve it.

Great linage in the L-HW department (as well as most other Divisions too for that matter), I think it is time for an Encyclopedia of "Boxing - the CONTENDERS".

providing of course it is thoroughly put together by non partisan Boxing Guru's who depend solely and use only Actual Ratings, Fight Reports and Newspaper Commentaries.

Some of you Gentleman here could do a good job of such an arduous task, while a few others would only look to marginalise some of these Great Girths of TOP Boxers & Fighters.

Kudos to you and the Fighters of course.

 

Fine post!

 

Spinks with more than 50% of the vote

The correct answer is Greb.

 

Brilliant post, this debate is more conclusively one sided than the Charles vs prime Moore trilogy

Frankly, this post definitively ends the debate.