I'll go with either Bob Foster or Michael Spinks.. I may lean a little more towards Spinks. I also think Moorer would beat Foster, as well, don't know about Spinks though.
Foster would have a chance against anybody with his power. He was also pretty durable at 175. Harold Johnson aswell doesn't tend to get a lot of credit, not saying he would be the best, but with his boxing ability he could rank highly H2H.
It's very, very hard. At a push I will go for Sam Langford, but you could certainly make the case for Spinks or Charles.
I actually think Moorer was a harder puncher than Foster, although Foster was more accurate with his shots than Moorer.
Roy Jones and Moore could beat anyone on a given night too. Honorable mentions for Michalczewski and Virgil Hill.
No one gonna mention Jones? I would go with Spinks or Foster myself...but Roy deserves to be in the arguement. (edit...as I post it...two people make posts mentioning him LOL)
He definitely deserves a mention when discussing the greatest in the division but I wouldn't call him thee greatest.
I don't care what anybody says....I think Jones would've beaten them all. Foster, Spinks and Moore were great at 175 and hit hard but I think they would've had a hard time landing anything flush on a prime Jones...plus Foster didn't have the greatest chin either.
It's official, noone from the General Forum lauding his prowess has actually seen any substantial footage of Michael Moorer at LHW. He's ABSURDLY overrated on here for whatever reason. Better than Foster? :rofl Not only would he fail to make a top 20 list of greatest LHW's, he'd be hard-pressed to make a head to head list. He was a big puncher with a good jab, which worked out against his C rate opposition, but he was a limited fighter, one who actually improved in most areas technically when he moved up to HW. I wouldn't favor him over a single great LHW.