Top 20 Light Heavyweights of all time

True but that were all struggles .. Johnson was past his best, Lopez was far past his best, Davis was razor thin, Qwai he fought a Wlad style safety first fight, very impressive but also definitive, Mustafa was severely weight drained coming down from his heavyweight farce again Snipes a few months earlier. He also only had 26 fights at 175, a novice compared to many .. That said I'm not saying Spinks wasn't great I just question number 2 all time at 175. I don't see him over Tunney, Moore or Foster who I just see as stylistically a nightmare ..

 

Good points again.

It could also just be that Charles always had Moore's number and that stylistically, he was a bad matchup for Archie. In which case, even if they'd met later Charles might have still won.

 

Definitely Jeff Clarke must be a ghost!

 

"I believe Archie was at his peak in 1948 when Charles knocked him out."

Kind of a tough sell though when you look at his record, Charles aside. Moore was 9-4 that year. One KO loss was to Charles. Okay. One other loss was a DQ to Lloyd Gibson. Okay. But he was also blown out in one by Leonard Morrow and lost a decision to Henry Hall. In the whole decade of the fifties, Moore has only three losses, to Harold Johnson, Marciano, and Patterson. Morrow and Hall were decent contenders, but hardly on the level of the 1950's group. Hall would lose 5 times in 1949 alone.

Moore was 67-3-2 against the field in the 1950's. He was 17-3 against fighters the Boxing Register considers rated (they don't always seem accurate). Moore was 72-10-4 against the field in the 1940's. He was 24-9-3 against the Boxing Register's rated fighters. So no question Moore was far more consistent in the fifties. This would still be true if the three Charles fights are taken off his resume. So the fall back position has to be that competition was tougher in the 1940's, but it goes against all common sense, and contemporary opinion, that competition was best when 15 million young men in the USA, and of course more in Europe, were in the service.

Another issue with Charles is when would he be last considered a light-heavyweight. The last time he made the light-heavy limit was against Erv Sarlin on May 20, 1948. The last time he made 180 lbs. was Johnny Haynes in early 1949.

 

Beating Morrow and Hall in a return? All right. But he also first lost to them. Moore as an old man is tough to judge. As late as 1962 he KO'd Lavorante who was a top five heavyweight who had KO'd Folley, and fought a draw (which many thought he won) with Willie Pastrano.

It is difficult to dispute he was going downhill, just on age, but it is also difficult to see arguing his peak years were when he was losing more often and to lesser fighters.

Whitehurst seems an odd choice to use against Moore as Archie stopped Whitehurst in the fight directly before Whitehurst went the full 10 with Sonny Liston. Liston would go the full distance twice that year with Whitehurst.

 

The point about Jeff Clarke is that he was effectively light-heavy number one from 1909 to 196,defeating Norfolk, Langford, Levinsky and Norfolk, backed up by a strong performance against the elite heavies, hard to find twenty fighters who surpass that and also incredible consistency not equaled by many in the divisions history.

 

Well, Archie was obviously getting old by the late fifties, but none of this deals with his losing so much more often in the 1940's. Just between 1945 and 1949 Moore lost 9 fights. Taking off Charles, that is still 6, twice as many as he lost in the entire 1950's.

Personally, I think he peaked in the 1950-1955 period, even though this flies in the face of the "old man" logic so many use. Joe Brown is another who was better in his 30's. So was D-ick Tiger. And Fitz. It happens.

It must take a combination of staying in great shape and increased skill. But I think results trump theory.

 

Spinks #2, that's pretty rare.

Guys I'd move ^ = Tunney, Jones, Fitz. I'd McCoy

Guy's I'd move v = Spinks, Johnson, Greb