Who are the two or three definitve choices for #1 at LHW?

Reading up the late 20s, I am starting to have a lot of time for Loughran, he really was rated and considered the best 175lber up until that time.

 

Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles & Bob Foster AND Micheal Spinks (Foster, Spinks tie).

 

It's a very fair question. Like most, I look at how Charles did during the post WW II era against other LHW's. He had two controversial split decision losses, to Elmer Ray (a HW who Charles later kayoed while still weighing the LH limit), and Harold Johnson (a split decision in Johnson's Philadelphia). A real case could be made for Charles being essentially invincible within the light heavyweight division during the postwar era. He went 5-0 against a younger and peak Joey Maxim, 3-0 against a prime Archie Moore, 2-0 against a peak Charley Burley (both on Burley's home turf), 4-1 against a peak Jimmy Bivins, and 2-1 against Lloyd Marshall. He lost his first contests against Bivins and Marshall, then swept the remainder of each series.

Tunney didn't quite have the impressive resume Charles had in that division, although it was nonetheless formidable. Battling Levinski and Carpentier were the only HOF LHW's I can think of off the top of my head whom Tunney defeated while in that division. I think much of his high rating is presumptive. But it sometimes seemed as though Charles was taking on anybody and everybody, and could have made the LH weight limit at any time during his prime, if he so desired. (Why Ezz didn't do that after the Marciano rematch is something of a mystery to me, as he might have vaulted himself right back into the HW Title picture by dethroning an older opponent he was undefeated against.)

 

His record is impressive however the is an unusual part of him being the greatest LHW without ever being a LHW Champion.

When you think of Ezzard Charles, what pops into your head?
Ezzard Charles the LHW or Ezzard Charles the HW?

How much stock do you put into a fighter who is officially recognized as the champion?

Foster was champ and he ruled the division.
Spinks was champ and he cleaned out a more talent laden division.
Moore was denied his title shot but once he got his chance he ruled the division for years.

Ezzard Charles to me is the guy who'd play tough pick up games with Jordan, Magic, Kobe, etc and take them to school but never really faced them in the NBA. He never fought them for the title or defended his title against them. I have him at #5

1. Moore
2. Spinks
3. Foster
4. Tunney
5. Charles

 

But, here's the thing...Charles was still, for all intests and purposes a LH even when he started to make noise in the heavyweight division. He weighed the LH limit when he kayoed Ray. He weighed all of 178 when he stopped Joe Baski, and when he kayoed Gus Lesnevich.

Look at it this way...the Light heavyweight Champions of the fourties and fifties were Gus Lesnevich, Freddie Mills, Joey Maxim, and Archie Moore. Charles holds victories over three of the four. It's almost certain that Charles would have been the LH champion had he gotten a crack at it in the late fourties, and given how much success he had in terms of holding and retaining the heavyweight title, it's certain that his LH reign might have been at least as long.

 

:good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good

I'm a big Galindez fan now whereas before I use to think he was a bit on the boring side. Having studied the tapes I find him an extremely smart and cagey fighter who had tremendous power when he chose to unleash it.
He generally fought to the level of his opposition, like many of the great ones did, and I find his bouts immensely interesting from a tactical, and technical, standpoint.

 

You never loose the capacity to surprize me old chap.

 

You offer a perfectly reasonable position on Charles. I think of Charles himself as a light hevyweight competing against heavyweights. I feel that his body of work against other prominent light heavyweights was more substantial than Tunney's.

Bob Foster was tremendous at his best, and a rational case could be made for placing him atop the heap. But he did fall short against Terrell, Mina, Folley and Jones at an age which would normally be assumed the athletic peak of most boxers. Through no fault of his own, his legacy did suffer for lack of competition (which may have contributed to his longevity, but also his eventual decline). I greatly appreciate him for his final career win, when he took out steroid saturated Bob Hazelton in ten rounds while pushing 40.

To name the three I did required some wrenching omissions. Billy Conn also seemed invincible as a light heavyweight. I rate Charles on the strength of the top LHW opponents he defeated, Moore for his longevity, and Mike Spinks for cleaning out and unifying the championship of an extremely competitive division. Admittedly, it is unusual to rate a non-champion so highly, but not unprecedented. (Hagler was widely considered by much of the boxing press as the top MW before dethroning Minter.)

 

Vicious Victor certainly utilized an approach all his own, exploding the stereotype of a counterpuncher being a slick boxing stylist. Ali himself was fascinated with Galindez's first bout with Rossman, on the undercard of Ali/Spinks II, even discussing it live with Cosell during the early stages of Rossman's upset. In sharp contrast to Ali, Galindez did not inspire any prominent imitators that I can think of off-hand. He truly seems to have been more inimitable than any other champion of his era in his peculiar approach to combat. An intriguing study. (How many other counterpunching brawlers have there been at the championship level?)

How on earth could anybody be so insanely tough as to counter to the body off the ropes, and make it work? (Just about everybody else I ever saw try this stunt nearly got decapitated.)

 

Tommy Loughran and Jack Delaney.

 

Bringing up Bright Eyes just makes an uncomfortable selection process even more painful. Oh you sadistic *******.

 

Well Rankings are not set in stone.

I can't see myself rating him at #1 (reserved for Archie Moore) but I can see myself putting him as high as #3.

But for me I guess the definitive choices are Spinks, Moore and Charles....With Foster closing lurking

 

Yup, the closest I can think of to Galindez in style after him was Hagler. Before him, tho', there were some darned clever hard hitting counter punchers who were slick, with styles that defied their physiques: Gene Fullmer is one of my favorites.

 

Some contemporary observers rated bright eyes as the greatest light heavy ever.

 

Ezzard Charles and Gene Tunney