Can a reasonable case be made that these men are the best? In no order. Langford Charles Tunney Fitzsimmons Moore Foster Spinks Conn Loughran Johnson On the bench: Choynski, Lewis, Jones,Delaney. N B I have Greb at middleweight, [number one].
Very difficult to presume that Langford is among the best, with the limited footage, although i've sympathy with that point of view. There's very little footage of Charles at LHW too. A tiny bit of Conn. Are you saying that you think Fitzsimmons is one of the best ever at 175, based upon footage you've seen?
But footage of all except Foster and Spinks is between fairly limited and non-existent, so would you leave them out regardless of their obvious accomplishments? I know some don't agree but I think Greb does belong on a 175lb list. He was good enough to beat two men named here, so surely he warrants a place among them. But otherwise a tough list to argue with.
Well if someone asks me for names specific to best, which McVey has done, I wouldn't name fighters I hadn't seen/hadn't seen very much of at all. So, yes. Accomplishments and quality are obviously linked, but it's reasonable to say that based upon what footage is available, Ike Ibeabuchi would beat Tommy Burns. Who achieved more? But as Unforgiven has said, an argument can be made - one can be constructed and it could be reasonable. Even "best" is interpretable. If the question is who looks best though, the most literal interpretation, then I'd pick Andre Ward to beat Fitzsimmons, for example. Based upon the footage.
No, I am saying that at around 175lbs or less Langford and Fitzsimmons ko'd very good heavyweights.Fitzsimmons, as lhvy champ didn't accomplish much, yet at the weight, or less, it was where he did his best work, ditto Langford,imo I have never seen Greb ,but never the less , I rank him number one at middleweight.I haven't seen more than clips of Tunney as a light heavy yet I rate him among the best at the weight, it's just my perception.
Kovalev has already acheived and Beterbiev is a two time olympian and world and european champion every little helps:good
Kovalev is on his way dont get me wrong but he still has some way to go. Beterbiev? European champion? The worlds full of European champions.
I'm not sure what the problem is ,for example Langford at around175lbs,[his optimum weight according to Moyle,] beat many of the top heavyweights of his time,I havent seen him koing them should I therefore ignore his work? Fitz beat the hell out of Jeffries face when he was 39 years old,scaling 172lbs. I don't think you are being intentionally pedantic but it comes across that way:huh
I get the argument for both including and not including Sam in the LHW rankings. Personally, I'm on the fence about it. Yes, he could compete with much bigger fighters while fighting under the LHW limit. Still, he was technically competing at heavyweight for much of his career. I suppose it'd be kind of like if someone wanted to rank Ezzard, Dempsey, Marciano, etc. at Cruiserweight. I don't know if I'd do it, but using in-ring weights, the shoe fits.
Well you said "best". Best, tends to mean how good someone is at doing something, literally. What i'm saying is, it's hard for me to understand how someone can say that someone they've never seen boxing at a given weight can be best at something if you've never seen them boxing at that weight, or haven't seen much of them boxing at that weight. But I think you are using the word "best" like most people use "greatest", maybe. So, Fitz is unquestionably very great at 175lbs, but Hopkins would pretty clearly beat him based upon the film we have. So Hopkins is a better 175lb fighter, but Fitz is greater, if you like.