Greatest Light Heavyweight?

Charles because he beat Moore 3 times,then Archie,then Foster, then Spinks,thenTunney,then Greb, Loughran and Conn are about tied for me.
The greatest fighter at the weight might actually be Langford imo but he didn't do much there.

 

Not sure how Moore can rate above Charles as Ezzard beat him three out of three. Charles also revenged the Bivins loss, multiple times (at least on via KO) and beat a number of LH champions. He may have fought, like many have, far past his prime, but IMO best LH of all time.

 

Yes, the distinction should be drawn between whether your criteria is the greatest boxer who typically/often weighed in as a LHW based on their entire career fights at all weights (either Greb or Langford, for most) or whether it's based solely on fights contested at LHW.

When I did my top 20, based on the latter criteria, a few years ago I had it:

1. Charles
2. Greb
3. Tunney
4. JHL
5. Spinks
6. Moore
7. Foster
8. Bivins
9. Loughran
10. RJJ

I'd need to consult my list to remember 11-20, I think Conn was in there, but he contested surprisingly few fights at LHW.

I know I underrate Moore relative to almost everyone else and I suspect if I took another look he'd climb at least a couple of spots.

 

I normally agree with your rankings, Greg, and you’ve explained your logic and that Moore could be higher, but I just can’t see him as low as number 6.

I’ve actually been weighing up recently whether he should conceivably be no. 1 even factoring the three losses to Charles. I completely get the Charles over Moore debate, of course, but Moore is the greatest light-heavyweight champion of all-time - yes, Charles, Greb, Tunney and the like never fought for the world title so that alone is not a definitive measure as the greatest light heavyweight - but his resumé is insane (was planning on creating a separate thread about it) even factoring in the losses to Charles, plus his combination of elite longevity is unparalleled in the history of the sport and there’s an argument to say that as much as Moore was in his physical prime when he met Charles, he may have been a better fighter later in his light heavyweight career.

Not trying to change your mind re the Charles-Moore thing but, yeah, number 6 I just can’t accept! Sorry.

 

No problem at all Jel, the vast majority will agree with you and on the point of #6 being too low, I suspect if I've reassessed in detail, I would too.

It was a few years ago when I did my top 20 rankings in each of the original 8 weights divisions and since then I completed substantial research to support ranking fighters per decade in Rummy's sticky thread. I had Moore p4p #1 in the 1950's, whilst a lot of that was for his work at HW (I wonder how many people would be surprised to learn Archie's record in fights contested above 180lbs is 75-4-3, & was 42-1-1 before he lost to Marciano aged 41), viewing the 50's in isolation helped me gain a different perspective on his career arch that would probably lead me to rank him higher if I started my LHW analysis afresh.

I find guys like Moore, who have incredibly deep win resume's, interspersed with relatively frequent losses, some to non-great fighters, the hardest to rank, I generally rank them lower than most, as dominance in a fighter's prime is my key criteria.

My rationale at the time, aside from the fact his substantial resume at MW & HW counts not a jot to my LHW rankings, was that dominance played a big part, as well as quality of win resume, to my ordering. So losses during a fighters prime years, whilst viewed in the context of quality of opposition, frequency and quantity of fights, counted against the boxer I was ranking. Moore lost 9 x fights during what I considered his prime years that were contested in the weight range I considered for LHW (allowing a few lbs over 175 for non-title fights). That's more than anyone else in my top 20. Clearly quantity of fights & quality of opposition has to be factored in and his longevity works against him (e.g. I include his loss to Harold Johnson as a prime loss even though he was 38, because his entire world title reign was ahead of him, whereas I don't consider losses suffered post the age of 35 for most fighters to typically be prime losses), but I don't consider Leonard Morrow, Henry Hall, Lloyd Gibson or Clinton Bacon (the latter 2 x defeats were DQ's, tbf) as great, or even close to great, LHWs. I have a great deal of sympathy to the counter argument though, i.e. you fight that often for that long, quite possibly often carrying injuries, & you're going to lose some. Like I say, Moore is one of, if not the, most difficult fighter I've found to rank.

Consider that neither my #4, #5 or 7# ever lost at the weight and so score highly on the dominance scale. My #3 lost once, avenged, whilst my #2 has the deepest resume ever at LHW (honestly, Greb's win resume in fights contested at LHW is even deeper than Archie's & he has 5 prime losses in that weight range compared to Archie's 9. 6 losses in total compared to Moore's 10) and my #1 beat him 3 out 3, twice in dominating &/or convincing fashion.

Which brings me on to my final counter point, his losses to Charles. I have a difficult time considering a 32-34-year old veteran of 96, 103 & 109-fights respectively, green or even pre-prime. The KO loss was aged 34 in his 110th fight. I'm open to the possibility that Moore's peak night lay in his future, but those were very much prime losses to me.

Moore has:

• The 2nd deepest win resume in the divisions history;
• His 9 successful defences in lineal LHW title fights is bettered only by Foster & Michalczewski;
• His 10-year reign, as well as his wider longevity, is the best of all time at the weight.

So, depending on your criteria, you could make reasonable arguments for ranking as the GOAT LHW of all time. I'm comfortable that Charles & Greb are ahead, but could easily see him at #3 if I took another look.

 

This here. Add in M. Spinks and Bob Foster and we're done.

 

1. Charles
2. Langford
3. Moore
4. Spinks
5. Tunney
6. Conn
7. Foster
8. RJJ
9. Loughran
10. Beterbiev

 

Welll, consider me schooled, Greg!

I can’t counter much of what you’ve said with anything definitive the other way. I’ve made the argument in the past (and against my own earlier argument in this thread) that the 1940s light heavyweights were better than the 1950s light heavies and that Moore simply outlasted them and picked up the pieces so I think your point about Moore’s prime being in the 1940s is, on balance, fair. Difficult to prove incontrovertibly either way as Moore’s prime was pretty unique in that he lasted so long at a high level… but I do think Moore became a better fighter over the years and may have peaked around the early 50s - but hard to say for sure. He certainly became more consistent from that point on.

I think top 3 is fair for Moore. Placing Charles and Greb above him based on resumé is certainly a reasonable position to take and thanks for contextualising your ranking of him in terms of the time you did it - makes sense now.

 

Not schooled at all mate, just insight into my reasoning for ranking as I did at the time.

As I said, the majority rank him top 2 at the weight, as you do.

Though I suspect many aren't fully aware of Greb's win resume in fights contested at LHW, which is absurdly good.

 

Charles from '46-48 may have had the greatest run of wins by any LHW in history - Moore x3 (once by KO), Lloyd Marshall x2 (both KOs), Bivins x3 (one KO), Billy Smith x2 (one KO), Fitzie Fitzpatrick x2 (both KOs), Elmer Ray (by KO), Joe Baksi, with his only loss during this time frame being a hotly disputed SD to HW Ray (which he avenged). That's on top of the fact that Charles had already beaten Maxim x 2 while barely more than a MW himself.

 

Archie Moore
Tunney
Spinks
Harold Johnson
Ezzard Charles

are my top five not sure where to put Charles as he did most of his career at HW. But I do like the guys w a lot of success at HW like Tommy Loughran too.