Alright, this is my first actual 175 top 10 that I've put a bit of time into. Its actually alot different than past ones I've put together with fighters I thought I knew about. Tell me what you think, and if you have one yourself, post it. Constructive criticism welcome.

1. Archie Moore -185-23-11(131) More career ko's than any fight in history. Fought such names as durelle, Maxim, Lowry, Lytell, chase, Holman Williams, Marshall, Johnson, satterfield and Johnson.

2. Gene Tunney -81-1-3(48) fought some of the best fighters in history, some multiple times. Has such greats on his resume as Greb, Carpentier, Delaney, Levinski and Loughran. Moved up to heavyweight and beat Jack Dempsey twice.

3. Ezzard charles - 90-25-1(51) In my opinion p4p the best guy on the list. Beat fighters such as Moore, Marshall, Maxim and Bivins. Was also a heavyweight champion.

4. Tommy Gibbons - 94-5-3(48) Fought a who's who of great fighters from the early twentieth century including Kid Norfolk, Tunney, Greb, Carpentier, Miske, Levinski and Meehan.

5. Bob Foster - 56-8-1(46) In my opinion the hardest hitting fighter ever below heavyweight. His comp wasn't as good as most on this list, but he was 15-0 in lightheavy title fights. capeable of beating any fighter on this list IMO.

6. Micheal Spinks - 31-1(21) Won gold at the 1976 olympics. Held the title 4 years before moving up to beat Larry Holmes for the heavyweight championship. Beat top lightheavies John Conteh, Eddie Mustapha Muhammed, Qawi, Lopez and Johnson.

7. Billy Conn - 64-12-1(15) Conn is another fighter I rank relatively high p4p. He was an excellent middleweight before moving up to 175, and almost beat Joe Louis in a bid for the heavyweight title. Fought such notable fighters at 175 as gus Lesnivich, Bettina, Krieger, and Freddie Apostoli.

8. Tommy Loughran - 116-30-13(17) One of the best fighters of the roaring twenties. Fought the great Harry Greb to a draw. Also fough such top fighters from that period Young Stribling, Jimmy Slattery, McTigue, Delaney and Carpentier.

9. Mike McTigue - 108-46-13(52) The only fighter on this list not in the Hall of fame, and still somewhat of a question mark in my mind. But Mctigue fought a who's who of his era with mixed result. Among some of the names are Levinski, Loughran, siki, Stribling, Walker, Flower and Delaney.

10. Philidelphia Jack O'Brien - 134-11-23(54) Another question mark in my opinion, but I have seen him ranked highly by some notable historians. Made his bones against some top fighters from the early 20th century. Marvin Hart, who would go on to win the heavyweight title. Peter Maher and Joe choynski who were both rated fighter at 175b and heavy. And he also fought the great Jack Johnson to a draw while being out weighed by almost 45lbs.

no Roy Jones? you have sorry ass Michael Spinks, and no Roy Jones???

no Roy Jones? you have sorry ass Michael Spinks, and no Roy Jones???

Spink fought the better comp and never lost at 175. At their best, head to head it might be close. But Spinks was head and shoulders better than
Tarver or Johnson who both turned Roys lights out, albeit later in his career. That said, Spinks would have a shot at doing the same to a prime 175 version of Jones.

I know history is unkind to modern fighters but I'd have Roy Jones up there for unifying and cleaning out the division.

I know history is unkind to modern fighters but I'd have Roy Jones up there for unifying and cleaning out the division.

Believe me, I respect Jones. I just don't have him in my top 10. P4p he would rate higher than Spinks and maybe a couple other guys on the list (I'd have to be more thorough to say for sure) but at lightheavy his credential are a bit thin compared to the others I've listed. Keep in mind also, this is just MY opinion. I'd love to see some other lists to make a comparison. One fighter I totally forgot about was sam Langford. My whole list has to be juggled around again if he makes the cut (and I would imagine he does).. Other peoples opiions and mistakes are great learning tools when it comes to boxing history.

I really think Roy should be in that list. I would say he should be somewhere between 1 and 3. Not having him there pretty much makes it ridiculous.

One fighter I totally forgot about was sam Langford.

That'd be my choice as the number one light heavyweight fighter of all-time, as his best work was done while weighing in within the light heavyweight limits, which was basically from 1908, when some reports listed him as 165, to 1912 when he was still being referred to as a light heavyweight by the press. After that is when you'll see the frequent reports about him being "fat", "out of shape", and things of that nature. Also during those years is when the newspaper men seemed to have the highest opinion of him as a fighter, as you'll see him being called the greatest black fighter of all-time during those years, predictions where he's favoured over other elite fighters of the time like Ketchel, as well as some comparisions (in mythical matchups and such) to what many early newspapermen thought was the greatest fighter up to that point, Bob Fitzsimmons.

A couple of quick things about his record during those years;

BoxRec lists a newspaper loss to Jim Barry in Sept of 1907 for Langford, but don't believe that as they're usage of the NY Times is quite selective and puzzling considering that's the only source out of the five or so that I've seen which stated Barry won the fight, including Barry's hometown paper which gave the fight to Langford.

Those three NC that BoxRec lists in late 1907/early 1908 for the Langford/Barry fights, well the first two of those were reported to have gone to Langford by the papers of the day, with the last one being called even or a "draw" (I've only seen one report for the last one, though). Just something to throw in there seeing as how BoxRec doesn't have them listed.

BoxRec lists a newspaper draw over six with Joe Jeannette in Sept of 1908, but again, the NY Times are the only one who I saw report it as such, as the rest I've seen voted for Langford (who weighed 165 for the fight), including two other papers out of New York, which was basically Jeannette's home territory.

Although Sandy Ferguson was reported to have had a good last couple of rounds against Langford in 1909 to earn a "draw", that fight was reported as a bad decision due to Langford being very dominate over the first ten rounds, including the reports consistently giving him every round from the third to the tenth.

The "draw" against McVey in early 1911 was also reportedly not an accurate account of what took place in the fight in France, with reports coming out of that country stating that the decision caused quite a scandal because some believed that the fighters took part in a "frame up" by agreeing to a pre-arranged draw (i.e. "In view of fact that Boston scrapper had much the better of mill, many are inclined to think that something had been arranged beforehand." - Apr 3rd, 1911, Washington Post).

Just a couple of examples where BoxRec doesn't tell nearly the whole story of Langford's fights during those years, and even the newspaper "draw" that Fireman Flynn was given credit for in early 1910 by that site may not have been accurate considering they're using a source that's outdated by nearly a year (i.e. "A little black fighter, Sam Langford, beat the local heavyweight, Jim Flynn, in ten rounds last night at McCarey's Naud Junction fight house" - Feb 9th, 1910, Los Angeles Times, which was reported from the site of where the fight took place).

If you want some expanded sources on any of that jusk ask.

****ing bull**** not having roy Jones, his talent has yet to be matched.

This is a Biased list of Old time fighter's.

no Roy Jones? you have sorry ass Michael Spinks, and no Roy Jones???

As jab has stated, Spinks fought in a far better divison with loads of talent. That was one of if not the best era of light heavyweights in history. He was the undisputed light heavyweight champion, was unbeaten at light heavyweight and was dominate for 4 years going without a loss. Just take a look at the competition that was around of that time. A prime Dewight Qawi, Eddie Mustafa Muhhamad and many top unbeaten condeners at the time.

I personally would favor Spinks and Qawi over Jones at light heavyweight. Jones has not seen a consistant tough pressure fighter and hard puncher as Qawi or a fluent boxer and mover that also had lots of power at light heavyweight, in Michael Spinks.

That'd be my choice as the number one light heavyweight fighter of all-time, as his best work was done while weighing in within the light heavyweight limits, which was basically from 1908, when some reports listed him as 165, to 1912 when he was still being referred to as a light heavyweight by the press. After that is when you'll see the frequent reports about him being "fat", "out of shape", and things of that nature. Also during those years is when the newspaper men seemed to have the highest opinion of him as a fighter, as you'll see him being called the greatest black fighter of all-time during those years, predictions where he's favoured over other elite fighters of the time like Ketchel, as well as some comparisions (in mythical matchups and such) to what many early newspapermen thought was the greatest fighter up to that point, Bob Fitzsimmons.

A couple of quick things about his record during those years;

BoxRec lists a newspaper loss to Jim Barry in Sept of 1907 for Langford, but don't believe that as they're usage of the NY Times is quite selective and puzzling considering that's the only source out of the five or so that I've seen which stated Barry won the fight, including Barry's hometown paper which gave the fight to Langford.

Those three NC that BoxRec lists in late 1907/early 1908 for the Langford/Barry fights, well the first two of those were reported to have gone to Langford by the papers of the day, with the last one being called even or a "draw" (I've only seen one report for the last one, though). Just something to throw in there seeing as how BoxRec doesn't have them listed.

BoxRec lists a newspaper draw over six with Joe Jeannette in Sept of 1908, but again, the NY Times are the only one who I saw report it as such, as the rest I've seen voted for Langford (who weighed 165 for the fight), including two other papers out of New York, which was basically Jeannette's home territory.

Although Sandy Ferguson was reported to have had a good last couple of rounds against Langford in 1909 to earn a "draw", that fight was reported as a bad decision due to Langford being very dominate over the first ten rounds, including the reports consistently giving him every round from the third to the tenth.

The "draw" against McVey in early 1911 was also reportedly not an accurate account of what took place in the fight in France, with reports coming out of that country stating that the decision caused quite a scandal because some believed that the fighters took part in a "frame up" by agreeing to a pre-arranged draw (i.e. "In view of fact that Boston scrapper had much the better of mill, many are inclined to think that something had been arranged beforehand." - Apr 3rd, 1911, Washington Post).

Just a couple of examples where BoxRec doesn't tell nearly the whole story of Langford's fights during those years, and even the newspaper "draw" that Fireman Flynn was given credit for in early 1910 by that site may not have been accurate considering they're using a source that's outdated by nearly a year (i.e. "A little black fighter, Sam Langford, beat the local heavyweight, Jim Flynn, in ten rounds last night at McCarey's Naud Junction fight house" - Feb 9th, 1910, Los Angeles Times, which was reported from the site of where the fight took place).

If you want some expanded sources on any of that jusk ask.

Great, informative post!!!

I personally would favor Spinks and Qawi over Jones at light heavyweight. Jones has not seen a consistant tough pressure fighter and hard puncher as Qawi or a fluent boxer and mover that also had lots of power at light heavyweight, in Michael Spinks.


I would give spinks a better chance at beating Jones than Qawi. I haven't seen a lot of Qawi, but I think he had trouble with speed and angles, both of which Roy would give him plenty of. Like you said though, Jones hasb never fought a fighter who would bring so much pressure. How do you see the fight going, Pea?

I would have to have Roy somewhere in the top 10

I would have to have Roy somewhere in the top 10

With all due respect, why do you think you "would have to have him somewhere in the top 10"? At 168 he HAS to be included. #1 on most peoples lists. But the lightheavyweight division is much older than 168 and has had countless great fighters pass thru it. You can't make a judgement based on mythical head to head match ups only. You have to also factor in era, opposition and accomplishment. Most of the guys on my list fought in an era where everybody in their division was fighting for 1 title, and was filled with top notch talent. Many contenders to these men could have been champions in different era's. What Roy did unifying the titles and keeping them together with 7 or 8 defenses was impressive by todays standards, but his competition was a shade sub par by any standards. Let me give you an example.....Bob Fosters opposition is any better than roys in my opinion. But he defended the title,(WBA, WBC, there was no IBF at the time) 15 times with only 1 man going the distance. That is far more impressive than what Jones accomplished in my opinion.

id like to know what themanchine thinks..... ill take his input as the truth

Alright, this is my first actual 175 top 10 that I've put a bit of time into. Its actually alot different than past ones I've put together with fighters I thought I knew about. Tell me what you think, and if you have one yourself, post it. Constructive criticism welcome.

1. Archie Moore -185-23-11(131) More career ko's than any fight in history. Fought such names as durelle, Maxim, Lowry, Lytell, chase, Holman Williams, Marshall, Johnson, satterfield and Johnson.

2. Gene Tunney -81-1-3(48) fought some of the best fighters in history, some multiple times. Has such greats on his resume as Greb, Carpentier, Delaney, Levinski and Loughran. Moved up to heavyweight and beat Jack Dempsey twice.

3. Ezzard charles - 90-25-1(51) In my opinion p4p the best guy on the list. Beat fighters such as Moore, Marshall, Maxim and Bivins. Was also a heavyweight champion.

4. Tommy Gibbons - 94-5-3(48) Fought a who's who of great fighters from the early twentieth century including Kid Norfolk, Tunney, Greb, Carpentier, Miske, Levinski and Meehan.

5. Bob Foster - 56-8-1(46) In my opinion the hardest hitting fighter ever below heavyweight. His comp wasn't as good as most on this list, but he was 15-0 in lightheavy title fights. capeable of beating any fighter on this list IMO.

6. Micheal Spinks - 31-1(21) Won gold at the 1976 olympics. Held the title 4 years before moving up to beat Larry Holmes for the heavyweight championship. Beat top lightheavies John Conteh, Eddie Mustapha Muhammed, Qawi, Lopez and Johnson.

7. Billy Conn - 64-12-1(15) Conn is another fighter I rank relatively high p4p. He was an excellent middleweight before moving up to 175, and almost beat Joe Louis in a bid for the heavyweight title. Fought such notable fighters at 175 as gus Lesnivich, Bettina, Krieger, and Freddie Apostoli.

8. Tommy Loughran - 116-30-13(17) One of the best fighters of the roaring twenties. Fought the great Harry Greb to a draw. Also fough such top fighters from that period Young Stribling, Jimmy Slattery, McTigue, Delaney and Carpentier.

9. Mike McTigue - 108-46-13(52) The only fighter on this list not in the Hall of fame, and still somewhat of a question mark in my mind. But Mctigue fought a who's who of his era with mixed result. Among some of the names are Levinski, Loughran, siki, Stribling, Walker, Flower and Delaney.

10. Philidelphia Jack O'Brien - 134-11-23(54) Another question mark in my opinion, but I have seen him ranked highly by some notable historians. Made his bones against some top fighters from the early 20th century. Marvin Hart, who would go on to win the heavyweight title. Peter Maher and Joe choynski who were both rated fighter at 175b and heavy. And he also fought the great Jack Johnson to a draw while being out weighed by almost 45lbs.


I just want to know have u seen any of these boxers fight? or are you just going off what so called boxing historians say? have you actually sat down and watched these fighters and analyzed their fights?

I would give spinks a better chance at beating Jones than Qawi. I haven't seen a lot of Qawi, but I think he had trouble with speed and angles, both of which Roy would give him plenty of. Like you said though, Jones hasb never fought a fighter who would bring so much pressure. How do you see the fight going, Pea?


Oops, I meant slick. I see the avatar and it gets stuck in my head. Sorry.

I just want to know have u seen any of these boxers fight? or are you just going off what so called boxing historians say? have you actually sat down and watched these fighters and analyzed their fights?

I have seen most of them. Some extensively. Why, do you not think you can anylize a fighter and his opponents thru historians and newspaper accounts from the day?

My ten:

1. Ezzard Charles
2. Archie Moore
3. Gene Tunney
4. Bob Foster
5. Michael Spinks
6. Roy Jones
7. Billy Conn
8. Harold Johnson
9. Joey Maxim
10. Doug Jones

Also deserving mention (in no particular order):

Tommy Gibbons
Maxie Rosenbloom
John Henry Lewis
Tommy Loughran
Mathew Saad Muhammed
Eddie Mustafa Muhammed
Victor Galindez
Dwight Qawi

Poet

id like to know what themanchine thinks..... ill take his input as the truth

1. Roy Jones
2. Montell Griffin
3. Julio Cesar Gonzales
4. Clinton Woods
5. Eric Harding
6. Reggie Johnson
7. Richard Hall
8. David Telesco
9. Glen Kelly
10. Otis Grant

:notworthy

I would give spinks a better chance at beating Jones than Qawi. I haven't seen a lot of Qawi, but I think he had trouble with speed and angles, both of which Roy would give him plenty of. Like you said though, Jones hasb never fought a fighter who would bring so much pressure. How do you see the fight going, Pea?

I personally would give Qawi a better shot at beating Jones than Spinks but i would favor both over him. He was one of those consistant pressure fighters that stuck to their game and didn't back up even when hit. He also had the abilty slip punches and had that bob and weave defense, kind of similar to Joe Frazier. The only fighter that was as consistant in his pressure that Jones has faced was Glen Johnson, and we all know what happened there. Too bad Jones was past his prime when the fight happened so we never had the chance to see how they would match up. Where he would run into more problem with Qawi is the fact that he is a far harder puncher than Johnson, a better inside fighter and has counter punching ability. I see Qawi stopping Jones late.

Youtube didn't have any light heavyweight fights of Qawi so you should check out the video trading block for some of his fights.

I have seen most of them. Some extensively. Why, do you not think you can anylize a fighter and his opponents thru historians and newspaper accounts from the day?

naw i dont think you would be able to do that but most people that make these kind of threads dont really watch these older generation fighter's fights. they just go off hear say or go to boxrec or something or hear bert sugar say something and go on and agree with it.. im glad to hear that you have extensively watched these fighters and came up with your opinion instead of going off of other sources

Has anybody else noticed that a sizeable percentage of the younger crowd has a rabid contempt for boxing historians? I'm guessing the assumption is that once people get over 30 they're smitten with Alzheimer's and don't know ****-all anymore.

Poet

Has anybody else noticed that a sizeable percentage of the younger crowd has a rabid contempt for boxing historians? I'm guessing the assumption is that once people get over 30 they're smitten with Alzheimer's and don't know ****-all anymore.

Poet

Yeah, I've noticed that too. Their theory seems to be if they haven't seen them they can't be as good as the guys they have seen.
I don't try to say some of these fighters are better than guys today, just had better careers at that particular weight. Its impossible to compare era's and say one guy is better because he fought in such and such era. Fighters can't be blamed for the era they fought in.

I personally would give Qawi a better shot at beating Jones than Spinks but i would favor both over him. He was one of those consistant pressure fighters that stuck to their game and didn't back up even when hit. He also had the abilty slip punches and had that bob and weave defense, kind of similar to Joe Frazier. The only fighter that was as consistant in his pressure that Jones has faced was Glen Johnson, and we all know what happened there. Too bad Jones was past his prime when the fight happened so we never had the chance to see how they would match up. Where he would run into more problem with Qawi is the fact that he is a far harder puncher than Johnson, a better inside fighter and has counter punching ability. I see Qawi stopping Jones late.

Youtube didn't have any light heavyweight fights of Qawi so you should check out the video trading block for some of his fights.

You make a strong case my friend!

Yeah, I've noticed that too. Their theory seems to be if they haven't seen them they can't be as good as the guys they have seen.
I don't try to say some of these fighters are better than guys today, just had better careers at that particular weight. Its impossible to compare era's and say one guy is better because he fought in such and such era. Fighters can't be blamed for the era they fought in.

i'm one of those young people that has a rabbid dislike for boxing historians.

Why? Because they are on cloud 9 half of the time. they will rank someone like Jack Johnson over Lennox Lewis. That is just UTTER stupidity. Boxing wasn't even a developed sport back then yet they rank those fighters so high because their grand-pa used to tell them stories about them.

I watch old footage, It's fun to watch the rivalries back in the day, but no fool is going to tell me some slow moving, one punch donkey is going to KO a newer ATG who has mastered the art of boxing, has blinding handspeed and power.

George Foreman vs Joe Louis, another complete mismatch..however chances are all boxing historians will pick Louis.

a boxing historian is just that, someone who has watched a lot of fights - It doesn't mean they know who would win in a matchup.

i'm one of those young people that has a rabbit dislike for boxing historians.

Why? Because they are on cloud 9 half of the time. they will rank someone like Jack Johnson over Lennox Lewis. That is just UTTER stupidity. Boxing wasn't even a developed sport back then yet they rank those fighters so high because their grand-pa used to tell them stories about them.

I watch old footage, It's fun to watch the rivalries back in the day, but no fool is going to tell me some slow moving, one punch donkey is going to KO a newer ATG who has mastered the art of boxing, has blinding handspeed and power.

George Foreman vs Joe Louis, another complete mismatch..however chances are all boxing historians will pick Louis.

a boxing historian is just that, someone who has watched a lot of fights - It doesn't mean they know who would win in a matchup.

It's even more annoying when guys like you say that Marciano wouldn't have lasted 30 seconds with Mike Tyson.

Ezzard Charles
Archie Moore
Gene Tunney
Michael Spinks
Bob Foster
Roy Jones
Billy Conn
Harry Greb
Maxie Rosenbloom
Harold Johnson

It's even more annoying when guys like you say that Marciano wouldn't have lasted 30 seconds with Mike Tyson.

them_apples has made more than a few ridiculous statements:

pound for pound foreman punches way harder

Tye is 6'8 and a lot bigger, so I'd probably give it to Tye..although I can't see a 90's foreman losing to him, esp since Tye isn't really that quick ether.

I don't know if this was supposed to be a joke or not.

Bernard Hopkins vs. Pernell Whitaker

probably hopkins by a close UD

Close?

I voted Duran, but I definitely wouldn't take Cottos chance away ether. If he beats Margarito (tough slow fighter, much like Duran) then I may change my mind.

I should point out that

Ali and Patterson aren't "old timers"

and Robinson is the ONLY older fighter with any amount of speed, hence why he dominated.

show me someone quick from the 40's and I'll congratulate you.

Louis, charles, moore, Baer..all those guys were slow as mud.

them_apples has made more than a few ridiculous statements:



I don't know if this was supposed to be a joke or not.



Close?

A couple of those must have been jokes. Pretty funny that a win over Margarito would somehow mean that Cotto could beat Duran. What did he call Duran again? A slow what?

Ezzard Charles
Gene Tunney
Archie Moore
Michael Spinks
Bob Foster
Harry Greb
Roy Jones Jr.
Harold Johnson
Maxie Rosenbloon
Billy Conn

the machine, the only one of those comments you dug up that I can take back would be Tye fields, the guy is obviously a bum.

So you think Cotto would have absolutely no chance vs Duran? I would give him a chance.

You must be living in denial if you think Duran was faster than Cotto (some of you hint at this).

Don't get me wrong, I still picked Duran, but I did give Cotto a chance.

I'm sure there is a lot of ludicrous crap you have posted, probably stuff like Jack Johnson kicking Lennox Lewis ass or something along the lines of that.

Bernard Hopkins in his Prime would beat Pernel Whitaker. Once again, probably basing Hopkins off his last performance, which he did very well for 43 years old.

Originally Posted by them_apples
i'm one of those young people that has a rabbit dislike for boxing historians.

It's even more annoying when guys like you say that Marciano wouldn't have lasted 30 seconds with Mike Tyson.

Rabbit dislike? What the f**k did Bugs Bunny do to him? Claim Bert Sugar knew more about boxing than 30 them_apples? :D

Poet

them_apples has made more than a few ridiculous statements:



I don't know if this was supposed to be a joke or not.



Close?

lol good finds.

the machine, the only one of those comments you dug up that I can take back would be Tye fields, the guy is obviously a bum.

Indeed he is.

So you think Cotto would have absolutely no chance vs Duran? I would give him a chance.

You must be living in denial if you think Duran was faster than Cotto (some of you hint at this).

Don't get me wrong, I still picked Duran, but I did give Cotto a chance.

I don't have a problem with anything other than comparing Margarito to Duran (both supposedly slow, tough fighters). Trust me, there is no comparison.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0aiuZ5Fh-sk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0aiuZ5Fh-sk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Bernard Hopkins in his Prime would beat Pernel Whitaker. Once again, probably basing Hopkins off his last performance, which he did very well for 43 years old.

Bernard Hopkins certainly beats Pernell Whitaker, but it won't be close. Whitaker was a 5'6 natural lightweight, a small welterweight, Hopkins was a 6'1 huge middleweight, in my opinion a light heavyweight. The only way this match-up makes any sense is in a p4p sense.

Rabbit dislike? What the f**k did Bugs Bunny do to him? Claim Bert Sugar knew more about boxing than 30 them_apples?

when the hell did you quote me, I fixed that spelling error a while back! have you been saving this post or what???

creeps me out

but damn, that spelling error confirms I have no boxing knowledge!

damn spelling errors...you are so smart!

Simply done, going to Boxrec.com and look up best light-heavies of all time. After Rjj retires, he will go atop of that list.

Simply done, going to Boxrec.com and look up best light-heavies of all time. After Rjj retires, he will go atop of that list.

You saying Jones will go to the top of the all time great lightheavy list after he retires shows what little you know of boxing. You saying saying this list was simply done by going to boxrec shows what little you know of me.

1 Archie Moore 185 (131) - 23 (7) - 11
1935-1963 orthodox Benoit, Mississippi, United States

2 Tommy Gibbons 94 (48) - 5 (1) - 3
1911-1925 orthodox Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States

3 Philadelphia Jack O'Brien 132 (54) - 12 (4) - 22
1896-1912 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States

4 Gene Tunney 80 (48) - 2 (0) - 3
1915-1928 orthodox Greenwich, Connecticut, United States

5 Bob Foster 56 (46) - 8 (6) - 1
1961-1978 orthodox Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States

6 Battling Levinsky 196 (31) - 55 (4) - 37
1910-1930 orthodox Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States

7 Tommy Loughran 117 (17) - 29 (3) - 13
1919-1937 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States

8 Bob Fitzsimmons 59 (50) - 8 (7) - 5
1883-1914 orthodox Timaru, New Zealand

9 Dwight Muhammad Qawi 41 (25) - 11 (2) - 1
1978-1998 orthodox Lindenwold, New Jersey, United States

10 Jack Root 47 (27) - 3 (3) - 3
1897-1906 orthodox

There is boxrecs top 10. Sorry, but my research doesn't jibe with theirs.

Ezzard Charles is the greatest Light Heavyweight of all time. I'll do a top 10 later, but the number 1 spot will remain as Charles for me.

Ezzard Charles is the greatest Light Heavyweight of all time. I'll do a top 10 later, but the number 1 spot will remain as Charles for me.

I agree 100% Charles and I don't think it's even close: 6-0 against my #2 Archie Moore!

Poet

With wins over such fighters as Harry Greb, Tiger Flowers, Billy Miske, Gunboat Smith, Battling Siki and some notable heavyweights from his era, where does Kid Norfolk rank amongst the pantheon of great lightheavies?

All time, who ranks higher at 175, Virgil Hill or Antonio Tarver?

All time, who ranks higher at 175, Virgil Hill or Antonio Tarver?

That can't be a serious question. Hill was the most protected World recognized Champion of all time, but damn, he clearly is a hall of famer and will rate over Tarver among the opinions of historians from now until forevermore.

With wins over such fighters as Harry Greb, Tiger Flowers, Billy Miske, Gunboat Smith, Battling Siki and some notable heavyweights from his era, where does Kid Norfolk rank amongst the pantheon of great lightheavies?

Top 50. Maybe top 40.

Top 50. Maybe top 40.

Lightheavyweights!?

That can't be a serious question. Hill was the most protected World recognized Champion of all time, but damn, he clearly is a hall of famer and will rate over Tarver among the opinions of historians from now until forevermore.

I would also rank Hill higher, but Tarver has been getting his props tonight so I was curious what most thought but didn't want to compare him to anybody to strong historicly.

Lightheavyweights!?

Yea Light Heavyweights, problem?

Yea Light Heavyweights, problem?

To each, his own. But I'd be interested in the 40 or 50 lightheavies you have ranked ahead of him.

To each, his own. But I'd be interested in the 40 or 50 lightheavies you have ranked ahead of him.

I didn't count how many people this is, and I'm not saying I'd rate him behind all these guys, and this list most certainly is not in order, but here's a big ass list for you:

Archie Moore
Ezzard Charles
Harold Johnson
Gene Tunney
Michael Spinks
Sam Langford
Bob Foster
Billy Conn
Dwight Muhammad Qawi
Kid McCoy
Tommy Gibbons
Philadelphia Jack O'brie
Bob Fitzsimmons
Tommy Loughran
Maxie Rosenbloom
Battling Levinsky
Young Stribling
John Henry Lewis
Jimmy Bivins
Roy Jones Jr.
Jose Torres
Michael Moorer
Matthew Saad Muhammad
Tiger Jack Fox
Eddie Mustafa Muhammad
Marvin Johnson
Eddie Cotton
Jack Delaney
Dariusz Michalczewski
Virgil Hill
Chad Dawson
Charles Williams
Jack Dillon
Victor Galindez
Joey Maxim
Mauro Mina
Mike McTigue

I didn't count how many people this is, and I'm not saying I'd rate him ahead of all these guys, and this list most certainly is not in order, but here's a big ass list for you:

Archie Moore
Ezzard Charles
Harold Johnson
Gene Tunney
Michael Spinks
Sam Langford
Bob Foster
Billy Conn
Dwight Muhammad Qawi
Kid McCoy
Tommy Gibbons
Philadelphia Jack O'brie
Bob Fitzsimmons
Tommy Loughran
Maxie Rosenbloom
Battling Levinsky
Young Stribling
John Henry Lewis
Jimmy Bivins
Roy Jones Jr.
Jose Torres
Michael Moorer
Matthew Saad Muhammad
Tiger Jack Fox
Eddie Mustafa Muhammad
Marvin Johnson
Eddie Cotton
Jack Delaney
Dariusz Michalczewski
Virgil Hill
Chad Dawson
Charles Williams
Jack Dillon
Victor Galindez
Joey Maxim
Mauro Mina
Mike McTigue

In bold are the fighters I disagree about being ranked higher than Norfolk. Others may be arguable with more research.

In bold are the fighters I disagree about being ranked higher than Norfolk. Others may be arguable with more research.

I don't think you can bold Qawi or McCoy, they regularly make top 10 lists. Fleischer rated McCoy #1 LHW.

The ones you bolded that I might support would be Eddie Cotton & Dariusz M.

I don't think you can bold Qawi or McCoy, they regularly make top 10 lists. Fleischer rated McCoy #1 LHW.

The ones you bolded that I might support would be Eddie Cotton & Dariusz M.

I would rank Norfolk over Qawi based on their respective competition. McCoy I would have to honestly look deeper into.

Looking over the names I bolded again I wouldn't rank him higher than Saad Muhammad. But I still can't find any way to justify Hill, DM, Cotton, Williams Moorer or Torres higher than him.

Im not saying you're wrong, but I am interested in why you would rank these guys higher my friend.

I would rank Norfolk over Qawi based on their respective competition. McCoy I would have to honestly look deeper into.

Looking over the names I bolded again I wouldn't rank him higher than Saad Muhammad. But I still can't find any way to justify Hill, DM, Cotton, Williams Moorer or Torres higher than him.

Im not saying you're wrong, but I am interested in why you would rank these guys higher my friend.

Qawi had excellent competition...and Saad Muhammad is his best win and you just changed your mind about ranking Norfolk higher than Saad.

Hill and DM get in for their title reigns, Moorer gets in because he knocked every LHW out he ever faced and was ducked by all the other champions because he was simply too damn good, Torres gets in for dethroning Fraud Willie Pastrano, and Cotton, well, Cotton in all honesty beat Torres and just so happened to be the 4th best LHW of his era after Moore, Charles, and Johnson.

Also, throw Georges Carpentier on my list of LHWs.

I could give a more serious explanation...but i'm tired and quite busy.

Qawi had excellent competition...and Saad Muhammad is his best win and you just changed your mind about ranking Norfolk higher than Saad.

Qawi's comp wasn't better than Saads or Norfolks in my opinion.

Hill and DM get in for their title reigns,

Come on my man, you know to well that a paper title means little compared to quality of opposition. Niether Hill's nor DM's compare to Norfolks.

Moorer gets in because he knocked every LHW out he ever faced and was ducked by all the other champions because he was simply too damn good,

Nope. Sorry my friend but my criteria must be different than yours. Fighters don't make all time great lists by who they didn't fight regardless of circumstance. If that were trhe case we coul;d probably make a case for Joe Mesi being one of the 25 best heavyweights ever.

Torres gets in for dethroning Fraud Willie Pastrano, and Cotton, well, Cotton in all honesty beat Torres and just so happened to be the 4th best LHW of his era after Moore, Charles, and Johnson.

Doesn't matter if he was 4th best of his era, his best wins and comp don't stack up overall.

Also, throw Georges Carpentier on my list of LHWs.

Gotta disagree again. Carpentier lost to most of the best fighters he faced.

I could give a more serious explanation...but i'm tired and quite busy.

Obama, take your time and get back to me when you can . We're cool.

You're not properly evaluating the losses on Norfolk's record. High level of opposition is great, but when you've also lost to every great fighter you've ever faced, minus Flowers who he outweighed by at least 10 lbs, it doesn't mean a hell of a lot. He also lost to guys that Virgil and Dariusz never would have lost to. Specializing in beating mid level fighters is worth something.

Lastly, not everyone gets the luxary of fighting in a great era.

I won't make any more lists so to avoid getting laughed at by such ignorants as JAB. Who btw thinks that the best fighters are the ones that have been on the ATG lists the longest amount of time!:rolleyes: With such criterias, you are guaranteed a job in any rubbish American magazine.

I wouldn't call Willie Pastrano a fraud. I actually uploaded his title bout with Harold Johnson a day ago:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ammLi0eWvo0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ammLi0eWvo0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/e03m51PhUe4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/e03m51PhUe4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rap338Vz6Lo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rap338Vz6Lo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/J6SeSwehFsw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/J6SeSwehFsw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XPGb3NVRTlY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XPGb3NVRTlY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/D-UPvUWzjkI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/D-UPvUWzjkI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Jose Torres was a terrific fighter for a while but I agree he shouldn't rate too highly on the ATG lists. He himself said that he quickly lost his interest in boxing after capturing the title.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u5CyqzA7AH0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u5CyqzA7AH0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FldIGvKNRPc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FldIGvKNRPc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xoG4-k6DEj0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xoG4-k6DEj0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Kutos to the poster,Most people suck roy jones dick but you know your history man.

Archie Moore my number 1 all time

I agree 100% Charles and I don't think it's even close: 6-0 against my #2 Archie Moore!

Poet
Moore for me archie matured like a fine wine :) will admit to having a blind bias for Moore though!

Moore for me archie matured like a fine wine :) will admit to having a blind bias for Moore though!

Bob Foster for me. Def one of the 5 greatest lightheavies.:)

You're not properly evaluating the losses on Norfolk's record. High level of opposition is great, but when you've also lost to every great fighter you've ever faced, minus Flowers who he outweighed by at least 10 lbs, it doesn't mean a hell of a lot. He also lost to guys that Virgil and Dariusz never would have lost to. Specializing in beating mid level fighters is worth something.

Lastly, not everyone gets the luxary of fighting in a great era.

Kid Norfolk is one of the few fighter's whose record speaks for itself. He was 5-0 against world champions and he beat every good black fighter (who many of the white contenders would not face), of his time. His only un-avenged losses during his prime were against Hall of Famers Sam Langford and Harry Wills. He defeated both Harry Greb and Billy Miske twice and he knocked out George Godfrey in 4 rounds

The above was taken from a boxing historian on another site.

And losing was common place for fighters such as Norfolk who were routinely jobbed because of their color. We could also talk about the other circumstances of the time such as having to fight injured or with little notice.

Sorry Obama, we're gonna disagree on this one. I don't think Norfolk was the best, but I can't rank fighters ahead of him that took on lesser competition under optimum circumstances.

I won't make any more lists so to avoid getting laughed at by such ignorants as JAB. Who btw thinks that the best fighters are the ones that have been on the ATG lists the longest amount of time!:rolleyes: With such criterias, you are guaranteed a job in any rubbish American magazine.

You would be better off not making anymore lists since you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Stick to talking about Lego's and Silly Putty with the other children.

You would be better off not making anymore lists since you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Stick to talking about Lego's and Silly Putty with the other children.

I bet I am older than you. Whatever. I'm sure you'll find some crappy excuse even if you are younger than me. Something like "I am more mature than you anyway".

I bet I am older than you. Whatever. I'm sure you'll find some crappy excuse even if you are younger than me. Something like "I am more mature than you anyway".

I could care less how old you are, your knowledge of boxing history sucks to this point.

I am old enough to have worked out with Steve Collins in 1990, the guy you rank what, 24th all time?

I could care less how old you are, your knowledge of boxing history sucks to this point.

I am old enough to have worked out with Steve Collins in 1990, the guy you rank what, 24th all time?

Lemme check, I'm not too sure but it may be. So how was it, did you piss blood for weeks or?

Yep, Collins is #24 on my list. You got a good memory. Or my list musta made an impression on you!:lol1:

Lemme check, I'm not too sure but it may be. So how was it, did you piss blood for weeks or?

Yep, Collins is #24 on my list. You got a good memory. Or my list musta made an impression on you!:lol1:

Im sure your list made an impression on a few posters here.:

Im sure your list made an impression on a few posters here.:

And it should. It was honest, not after the book like most of the rest! I didn't care what anybody would think of it. Those ARE the guys I think are the best fighters in history. The very order is hard to get right, so I didn't give much damn if I didn't get it 100% correct.

And it should. It was honest, not after the book like most of the rest! I didn't care what anybody would think of it. Those ARE the guys I think are the best fighters in history. The very order is hard to get right, so I didn't give much damn if I didn't get it 100% correct.

Thats fine and I don't have a problem with it being YOUR list. But it does show what little you know of boxing history and that you are immature to take it being criticized so personally.

Thats fine and I don't have a problem with it being YOUR list. But it does show what little you know of boxing history and that you are immature to take it being criticized so personally.

:lol1: Sorry, had to laugh. Have you been on the other parts of this forum?? MOST guys here will react as violently and some even more violently than I did if anybody ridiculed their opinions like you did. You just don't do that.:no:

:lol1: Sorry, had to laugh. Have you been on the other parts of this forum?? MOST guys here will react as violently and some even more violently than I did if anybody ridiculed their opinions like you did. You just don't do that.:no:

This section has its fair share of idiots, but its nothing like the other boards on boxingscene. Most over here have a solid grasp of what they are talking about and can argue points and disagree without it turning into a flame war even if it sometimes gets heated. And if you go back, I never (as far as Im aware) ridiculed your list before you started getting all huffy. I asked if it was your favorites list and I made a comment to another poster, but I never poked fun at it. If you are new to boxing history, try to learn from some of the more knowledgeable posters instead of being so defensive. Thats what I did and what I still do now. There isn't one of us on here that knows everything. There is always room to learn more.

This section has its fair share of idiots, but its nothing like the other boards on boxingscene. Most over here have a solid grasp of what they are talking about and can argue points and disagree without it turning into a flame war even if it sometimes gets heated. And if you go back, I never (as far as Im aware) ridiculed your list before you started getting all huffy. I asked if it was your favorites list and I made a comment to another poster, but I never poked fun at it. If you are new to boxing history, try to learn from some of the more knowledgeable posters instead of being so defensive. Thats what I did and what I still do now. There isn't one of us on here that knows everything. There is always room to learn more.

You said that you just had to sit back, shake your head and laugh at my list...isn't that ridiculing in your opinion??!

You said that you just had to sit back, shake your head and laugh at my list...isn't that ridiculing in your opinion??!

Technically you're right, it is. But nothing to get all upset or in a twist about. No offense, but historically its not a good list and you won't find very many people that will say it is. If your skin isn't thick enough to get criticized and then asked for your opinions to be backed up with logic, maybe you should find a new hobby. Because that is going to happen over and over on this site.

If it makes you feel better I apologize. I didn't realize you would take it so personally.

Technically you're right, it is. But nothing to get all upset or in a twist about. No offense, but historically its not a good list and you won't find very many people that will say it is. If your skin isn't thick enough to get criticized and then asked for your opinions to be backed up with logic, maybe you should find a new hobby. Because that is going to happen over and over on this site.

If it makes you feel better I apologize. I didn't realize you would take it so personally.

Ok. Lets just draw the line over it, as they say here.;) Youre forgiven. I have a short fuse, I'm aware of it.

I'm very surprised Roy Jones Jr. is not on that list. In my opinion, he's an all-time great.

But I guess it's a matter of opinion, in the end.

I'm very surprised Roy Jones Jr. is not on that list. In my opinion, he's an all-time great.

But I guess it's a matter of opinion, in the end.

I made that list a little over a year ago but would probably change it now. Roy may or may not make it in my opinion, its close. I don't hold him as high up as 175 as other do. Sure he was an incredible fighter, but the era was god awful. Than again I guess that could be argued about Fosters era too.

Kid Norfolk is one of the few fighter's whose record speaks for itself. He was 5-0 against world champions and he beat every good black fighter (who many of the white contenders would not face), of his time. His only un-avenged losses during his prime were against Hall of Famers Sam Langford and Harry Wills. He defeated both Harry Greb and Billy Miske twice and he knocked out George Godfrey in 4 rounds


He also didn't avenge his loss to the great Joe Jeannette, who like Langford, was a faded fighter at that point. If he was prime against Langford, he had to be prime against Jeannette.

I made that list a little over a year ago but would probably change it now. Roy may or may not make it in my opinion, its close. I don't hold him as high up as 175 as other do. Sure he was an incredible fighter, but the era was god awful. Than again I guess that could be argued about Fosters era too.

Fosters era was terrible and he lost to 2 of the 5 best LHWs he ever faced.

He also didn't avenge his loss to the great Joe Jeannette, who like Langford, was a faded fighter at that point. If he was prime against Langford, he had to be prime against Jeannette.

Jeanette was a career heavy who was considered one of the top fighters of his era. I won't pretend to know anything of the fight, but according to boxrec some publications considered the fight a draw. Not sure you can really use this against Norfolk but I'm open to arguments.

Fosters era was terrible and he lost to 2 of the 5 best LHWs he ever faced.

Fosters era for sure wasn't the best, but he never lost a fight within the 175 limit as far as I know and he was amazingly dominant with his wins at that weight.

I think he lost to Doug Jones and uh...Mora? at 175.

but that was like 5 or 6 years before he won the title, so I would personally give him(Foster) a pass.

still, Ill admit that Foster had a fairly weak era from what Ive seen. like him though, just nasty power.

Mike Spinks' era was real strong, so even though he didnt fight there long, I think he deserves quite a high ranking.

I dont know much about the older than 70s fighters though, apart from Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore. if I cant find tape of them and their opposition, I dont think its fair for me to rank them.
so guys like Tunney...I know nothing about. lol.

Alright, this is my first actual 175 top 10 that I've put a bit of time into. Its actually alot different than past ones I've put together with fighters I thought I knew about. Tell me what you think, and if you have one yourself, post it. Constructive criticism welcome.

1. Archie Moore -185-23-11(131) More career ko's than any fight in history. Fought such names as durelle, Maxim, Lowry, Lytell, chase, Holman Williams, Marshall, Johnson, satterfield and Johnson.

2. Gene Tunney -81-1-3(48) fought some of the best fighters in history, some multiple times. Has such greats on his resume as Greb, Carpentier, Delaney, Levinski and Loughran. Moved up to heavyweight and beat Jack Dempsey twice.

3. Ezzard charles - 90-25-1(51) In my opinion p4p the best guy on the list. Beat fighters such as Moore, Marshall, Maxim and Bivins. Was also a heavyweight champion.

4. Tommy Gibbons - 94-5-3(48) Fought a who's who of great fighters from the early twentieth century including Kid Norfolk, Tunney, Greb, Carpentier, Miske, Levinski and Meehan.

5. Bob Foster - 56-8-1(46) In my opinion the hardest hitting fighter ever below heavyweight. His comp wasn't as good as most on this list, but he was 15-0 in lightheavy title fights. capeable of beating any fighter on this list IMO.

6. Micheal Spinks - 31-1(21) Won gold at the 1976 olympics. Held the title 4 years before moving up to beat Larry Holmes for the heavyweight championship. Beat top lightheavies John Conteh, Eddie Mustapha Muhammed, Qawi, Lopez and Johnson.

7. Billy Conn - 64-12-1(15) Conn is another fighter I rank relatively high p4p. He was an excellent middleweight before moving up to 175, and almost beat Joe Louis in a bid for the heavyweight title. Fought such notable fighters at 175 as gus Lesnivich, Bettina, Krieger, and Freddie Apostoli.

8. Tommy Loughran - 116-30-13(17) One of the best fighters of the roaring twenties. Fought the great Harry Greb to a draw. Also fough such top fighters from that period Young Stribling, Jimmy Slattery, McTigue, Delaney and Carpentier.

9. Mike McTigue - 108-46-13(52) The only fighter on this list not in the Hall of fame, and still somewhat of a question mark in my mind. But Mctigue fought a who's who of his era with mixed result. Among some of the names are Levinski, Loughran, siki, Stribling, Walker, Flower and Delaney.

10. Philidelphia Jack O'Brien - 134-11-23(54) Another question mark in my opinion, but I have seen him ranked highly by some notable historians. Made his bones against some top fighters from the early 20th century. Marvin Hart, who would go on to win the heavyweight title. Peter Maher and Joe choynski who were both rated fighter at 175b and heavy. And he also fought the great Jack Johnson to a draw while being out weighed by almost 45lbs.
Michael Spinks never fought John Conteh

I think he lost to Doug Jones and uh...Mora? at 175.

but that was like 5 or 6 years before he won the title, so I would personally give him(Foster) a pass.

still, Ill admit that Foster had a fairly weak era from what Ive seen. like him though, just nasty power.

Mike Spinks' era was real strong, so even though he didnt fight there long, I think he deserves quite a high ranking.

I dont know much about the older than 70s fighters though, apart from Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore. if I cant find tape of them and their opposition, I dont think its fair for me to rank them.
so guys like Tunney...I know nothing about. lol.

The Spinks era was jacked, and Micheal was the best of it by far. I use to dislike his herky jerky style, but dude wouldn't be much of an underdog against any great in history.

The Spinks era was jacked, and Micheal was the best of it by far. I use to dislike his herky jerky style, but dude wouldn't be much of an underdog against any great in history.

hahaha, yea, herky jerky is exactly how you would describe it. it was slightly annoying(probably even more so for his opponents), but Spinks had a hell of an arsenal of punches.

Him vs Charles, Moore, and Holyfield would have been some pretty interesting fights, to say the least.

hahaha, yea, herky jerky is exactly how you would describe it. it was slightly annoying(probably even more so for his opponents), but Spinks had a hell of an arsenal of punches.

Him vs Charles, Moore, and Holyfield would have been some pretty interesting fights, to say the least.

I've always thought Spinks vs Tunney or Conn would be interesting too. A fight with Bob foster would be amazing also. Both big lightheavies with power to spare.

I think he lost to Doug Jones and uh...Mora? at 175.

Mina, Mauro Mina, the greatest Peruvian fighter of all time. Mina also beat Eddie Cotton (x2), Henry Hank, Sixto Rodriguez, and Von Clay.

Isn't it funny that Foster gets a pass for all his damn losses? He was either green or up against a decent Heavyweight so it "doesn't count". I give the man a pass for his last 2 losses, the rest matter on some level.

Michael Spinks never fought John Conteh

You're right. My bad.

Mina, Mauro Mina, the greatest Peruvian fighter of all time. Mina also beat Eddie Cotton (x2), Henry Hank, Sixto Rodriguez, and Von Clay.

Isn't it funny that Foster gets a pass for all his damn losses? He was either green or up against a decent Heavyweight so it "doesn't count". I give the man a pass for his last 2 losses, the rest matter on some level.

well, it was 5 years before he became champ and a few years into his pro career, so you could say he was green.

and losing to Frazier and Ali isnt really embarressing either, since theyre top 10 HWs that were near prime.

the thing that brings Foster down to me is his weaker opposition. he beat highly rated guys, but...it wasnt the strongest era, imo.

Deontay Wilder is green, Bob Foster was not. Pre-prime is not green. Green is when you haven't even learned what you're SUPPOSED to do in the ring. This is why you see Wilder fighting bums, while Foster was fighting respectable opposition even before he lost his first 2 fights.

Deontay Wilder is green, Bob Foster was not. Pre-prime is not green. Green is when you haven't even learned what you're SUPPOSED to do in the ring. This is why you see Wilder fighting bums, while Foster was fighting respectable opposition even before he lost his first 2 fights.

Come on my man, we're talking his 9th and 12th pro fights. I always have respect for your opinions, but bot these guys were much more seasoned vets. In comparison Foster was green.

Doug Jones was 19-3-1 at the time. Guess where the 3-1 come from? His last 4 fights leading into the Foster fight. It was the equivalent of Kermit Cintron beating Alfredo Angulo. Experienced guy who couldn't beat anyone special vs a hot prospect. And don't tell me a faded blown up Bobo was someone special.

Now youre ripping on Cintron...what did he ever do to you?:nonono:

Doug Jones was 19-3-1 at the time. Guess where the 3-1 come from? His last 4 fights leading into the Foster fight. It was the equivalent of Kermit Cintron beating Alfredo Angulo. Experienced guy who couldn't beat anyone special vs a hot prospect. And don't tell me a faded blown up Bobo was someone special.
Wasn't the Foster Jones fight at Heavy? I rate Foster hugely as a LHW but his power didn't carry up to heavy so giving him a pretty piss poor record.

Wasn't the Foster Jones fight at Heavy? I rate Foster hugely as a LHW but his power didn't carry up to heavy so giving him a pretty piss poor record.

Jones was 182. It was a non-title fight anyways. Don't be fooled about the weight either. Foster KOed large men. Roy Wallace was 212, Charley Polite was 201, Sonny Moore was 205, Don Quinn was 209, Dave Bailey was 204, Willi Besmanoff was 204, and Richard Benjamin was 205. Know why he could KO them? Because they were not good. Besmanoff was the only one who was once good, but long since faded. Foster made a name for himself by KOing sub par Heavyweights and par Light Heavyweights. Yet some people have the nerve to rate him the greatest LHW of all time. :nonono:

well, Ive never seen the Jones or Mina fights, so I have no idea if Foster was green or not during those fights. if you have and he looked the same, Ill take your word for it

some fighters really can change dramatically within 2 years, let alone 5.

I dont think theres any legitimate argument for calling Foster #1...I would put him behind, Moore, Charles, Spinks ahead of him, for sure. Im not too familiar with Conn or Tunney, so I dont think its fair for me to rate them.

what about Galindez? is he well respected? havent seen many of his fights.

Doug Jones was 19-3-1 at the time. Guess where the 3-1 come from? His last 4 fights leading into the Foster fight. It was the equivalent of Kermit Cintron beating Alfredo Angulo. Experienced guy who couldn't beat anyone special vs a hot prospect. And don't tell me a faded blown up Bobo was someone special.

I think you're judging the 4 fights a bit harshly. After all, look who they were against. Its obvious Jones was much more experienced against a higher caliber of fighter at this time and Foster was simply over matched.

Doug Jones was 19-3-1 at the time. Guess where the 3-1 come from? His last 4 fights leading into the Foster fight. It was the equivalent of Kermit Cintron beating Alfredo Angulo. Experienced guy who couldn't beat anyone special vs a hot prospect. And don't tell me a faded blown up Bobo was someone special.
Wasn't Jones v Foster @ HW?
Wouldn't put a case for Foster @ HW his power didn't go up with him.

Come on my man, we're talking his 9th and 12th pro fights. I always have respect for your opinions, but bot these guys were much more seasoned vets. In comparison Foster was green.

Doug Jones was 19-3-1 at the time. Guess where the 3-1 come from? His last 4 fights leading into the Foster fight. It was the equivalent of Kermit Cintron beating Alfredo Angulo. Experienced guy who couldn't beat anyone special vs a hot prospect. And don't tell me a faded blown up Bobo was someone special.

Doug Jones was 19-3-1 at the time. Guess where the 3-1 come from? His last 4 fights leading into the Foster fight. It was the equivalent of Kermit Cintron beating Alfredo Angulo. Experienced guy who couldn't beat anyone special vs a hot prospect. And don't tell me a faded blown up Bobo was someone special.

I believe that at the time it was viewed as a fairly impressive performance by Bob Foster considering his lack of pro experience and because he had taken the fight on a short notice. He survived some early adversity to make a competitive fight out of it for a couple of rounds.

Jones may have lost his past couple of bouts but he was still highly regarded. Against Folley, he had went to a very close decision against one of the top heavyweight contenders of the day. He later KO'd Folley who was actually supposed to be the original opponent instead of Foster for Jones.

This is a pay-per-view article but it states that Jones was favoured:

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/courant/access/916112862.html?dids=916112862:916112862&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Oct+20%2C+1962&author=&pub=Hartford+Courant&desc=Jones+Favored+To+Top+Foster&pqatl=google

It also states that Foster had 12 professional fights but that must be false.

Doug Jones actually beat Foster in the amateurs.

Foster to me shouldn't be viewed as the dominating force that he is by some. He was more so a fighter who learned the hard way and improved after every loss.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qbD0g3b3VDc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qbD0g3b3VDc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/f6A58l_TFdc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/f6A58l_TFdc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pG--ajwNHVw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pG--ajwNHVw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

1- Ezzard Charles
2-Gene Tunney
3-Archie Moore
4-Roy Jones
5-Billy Conn
6-Bob Foster
7-Sam Langford
8-Harry Greb
9-Spinks
10-Joey Maxim

Chuvalo ko'd Jones, ha!:boxing: Long live mighty George!:)

Chuvalo ko'd Jones, ha!:boxing: Long live mighty George!:)

It was one of Chuvalo's better fights for sure. Both were pressure fighters, Jones perhaps the better technically but Chuvalo was too big, strong and durable.

Few ever beat Chuvalo in a slugging match.

Alright, this is my first actual 175 top 10 that I've put a bit of time into. Its actually alot different than past ones I've put together with fighters I thought I knew about. Tell me what you think, and if you have one yourself, post it. Constructive criticism welcome.

1. Archie Moore -185-23-11(131) More career ko's than any fight in history. Fought such names as durelle, Maxim, Lowry, Lytell, chase, Holman Williams, Marshall, Johnson, satterfield and Johnson.

2. Gene Tunney -81-1-3(48) fought some of the best fighters in history, some multiple times. Has such greats on his resume as Greb, Carpentier, Delaney, Levinski and Loughran. Moved up to heavyweight and beat Jack Dempsey twice.

3. Ezzard charles - 90-25-1(51) In my opinion p4p the best guy on the list. Beat fighters such as Moore, Marshall, Maxim and Bivins. Was also a heavyweight champion.

4. Tommy Gibbons - 94-5-3(48) Fought a who's who of great fighters from the early twentieth century including Kid Norfolk, Tunney, Greb, Carpentier, Miske, Levinski and Meehan.

5. Bob Foster - 56-8-1(46) In my opinion the hardest hitting fighter ever below heavyweight. His comp wasn't as good as most on this list, but he was 15-0 in lightheavy title fights. capeable of beating any fighter on this list IMO.

6. Micheal Spinks - 31-1(21) Won gold at the 1976 olympics. Held the title 4 years before moving up to beat Larry Holmes for the heavyweight championship. Beat top lightheavies John Conteh, Eddie Mustapha Muhammed, Qawi, Lopez and Johnson.

7. Billy Conn - 64-12-1(15) Conn is another fighter I rank relatively high p4p. He was an excellent middleweight before moving up to 175, and almost beat Joe Louis in a bid for the heavyweight title. Fought such notable fighters at 175 as gus Lesnivich, Bettina, Krieger, and Freddie Apostoli.

8. Tommy Loughran - 116-30-13(17) One of the best fighters of the roaring twenties. Fought the great Harry Greb to a draw. Also fough such top fighters from that period Young Stribling, Jimmy Slattery, McTigue, Delaney and Carpentier.

9. Mike McTigue - 108-46-13(52) The only fighter on this list not in the Hall of fame, and still somewhat of a question mark in my mind. But Mctigue fought a who's who of his era with mixed result. Among some of the names are Levinski, Loughran, siki, Stribling, Walker, Flower and Delaney.

10. Philidelphia Jack O'Brien - 134-11-23(54) Another question mark in my opinion, but I have seen him ranked highly by some notable historians. Made his bones against some top fighters from the early 20th century. Marvin Hart, who would go on to win the heavyweight title. Peter Maher and Joe choynski who were both rated fighter at 175b and heavy. And he also fought the great Jack Johnson to a draw while being out weighed by almost 45lbs.

Excellent list. I would have to put Charles first as he defeated Moore three times at 175 pounds. Still don't understand how Ezzard never received a shot at the 175 pound crown. My top ten as follows:

Charles, Tunney, Moore, Foster, Spinks, Gibbons, Roy Jones, Conn, O'Brien, Mctigue.

I don't think Spinks ever fought Conteh. It was Saad Muhammad. And you forgot to mention Jim McDonald, a top contender at the time who also fought Czyz for the IBF title. Tough fellow.

1. Ezzard Charles
2. Archie Moore
3. Bob Foster
4. Michael Moorer
5. Gene Tunney
6. Michael Spinks
7. Virgil Hill
8. Roy Jones
9. Dick Tiger
10. Georges Carpentier
11. Maxi Rosenbloom
12. Fabrice Tiozzo
13. Dwight Muhammad Quawi
14. Billy Conn
15. Tommy Loughran
16. Darius Michaczewski
17. Joey Maxim
18. Mathew Saad Muhammad
19. Henry Maske
20. Bob Fitzsimmons

Others who should possibly be included according to opinion, are Jose Torres, Kid Norfolk, Chad Dawson, Leonzer Barber, Bobby Czyz, Willie Pastrano, Victor Galindez, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Tommy Gibbons, Harold Johnson, Mike McTigue, John Henry Lewis, Jack O'Brien, Mike McCallum, John Conteh, Mate Parlov..

I'm glad someone gives Tiozzo and Michalczewski credit. But I wouldn't rank Tiozzo that much above Dariusz.;)

I'm especially glad to see you too appreciate Virgil Hill as much as I do.:beerchug:

How high would you rank Marvin Johnson?

How high would you rank Marvin Johnson?
I must admit, the thought that I may have underrated Michalczewski did cross my mind, & Tiozzo gets terribly underatted by others.. Both men were very hard to beat on their day.. Virgil Hill was a master boxer at 175, who also doesn't get the recognition he deserves..
I wouldn't hold Marvin Hart to highly.. Beat an over the hill Galindez to win the title, & lost it quite convincingly to Eddie Mustaffa Muhammad in his first defense..

I must admit, the thought that I may have underrated Michalczewski did cross my mind, & Tiozzo gets terribly underatted by others.. Both men were very hard to beat on their day.. Virgil Hill was a master boxer at 175, who also doesn't get the recognition he deserves..
I wouldn't hold Marvin Hart to highly.. Beat an over the hill Galindez to win the title, & lost it quite convincingly to Eddie Mustaffa Muhammad in his first defense..

I agree, Johnson was a blood&guts warrior, but not a great boxer. And Hill doesn't get enough recognition, he gets almost none these days!:nonono: Five time champion at two different divisions who beat some of the best fighters of his time at 175. The only man to beat Tiozzo-twice!

I agree, Johnson was a blood&guts warrior, but not a great boxer. And Hill doesn't get enough recognition, he gets almost none these days!:nonono: Five time champion at two different divisions who beat some of the best fighters of his time at 175. The only man to beat Tiozzo-twice!
The only man to beat Tiozzo period...

1. Ezzard Charles
2. Archie Moore
3. Bob Foster
4. Michael Moorer
5. Gene Tunney
6. Michael Spinks
7. Virgil Hill
8. Roy Jones
9. Dick Tiger
10. Georges Carpentier
11. Maxi Rosenbloom
12. Fabrice Tiozzo
13. Dwight Muhammad Quawi
14. Billy Conn
15. Tommy Loughran
16. Darius Michaczewski
17. Joey Maxim
18. Mathew Saad Muhammad
19. Henry Maske
20. Bob Fitzsimmons

Others who should possibly be included according to opinion, are Jose Torres, Kid Norfolk, Chad Dawson, Leonzer Barber, Bobby Czyz, Willie Pastrano, Victor Galindez, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Tommy Gibbons, Harold Johnson, Mike McTigue, John Henry Lewis, Jack O'Brien, Mike McCallum, John Conteh, Mate Parlov..


Conn and Loughran are a bit low Mickey?

If Roy Jones had retired following the Ruiz fight, he would be on most people's p4p all-time top-10 list today!!

Conn and Loughran are a bit low Mickey?
Both powder puff punchers though.. Hate to admit to it, but non bangers never do that well on my lists..

Both powder puff punchers though.. Hate to admit to it, but non bangers never do that well on my lists..
Tsk tsk no culture Mickey ;)

The only man to beat Tiozzo period...

And the only man to engage in a chessmatch with Hearns and not get embarrassed!;)

where do you guys rate Dariusz Michalczewski?

where do you guys rate Dariusz Michalczewski?

I think he qualifies for the top 10 easily. Furthermore, in his prime I think he'd beat pretty much every other ATG except for Spinks and maybe Saad and Qawi.

I think he qualifies for the top 10 easily. Furthermore, in his prime I think he'd beat pretty much every other ATG except for Spinks and maybe Saad and Qawi.

:nonono:

More like top 50.

if we forget talent and potential,DMs' resume ain't far behind from RJJs' LHW resume

:nonono:

More like top 50.

Whatever YOU think of him, his achievements can't be ignored. 48-2 with 23 title defences. Show me another great lhw with the same record!

I dont give a damn about the # of title defenses Darius made.

top ten fighters Darius beat:
Leeonzer Barber#5, Virgill Hill#1, Montell Griffin#7, Graciano Rocchigiani#5.

top ten fighters that Roy Jones beat a LHW:
Mike McCallum#6, Montell Griffin#3?, Virgil Hill#4?, Lou De Valle#5, Reggie Johnson#3, David Telesco#10, Eric Harding#7, Derrick Harmon#10, Julio Cesar Gonzalez#6?, Clinton Woods#9.

does that put it into perspective? It wasnt the best era ever, no, but theres a gap between Darius and Roy at LHW.
I wouldnt put Darius THAT low at LHW though.

on the other hand, look at Mike Spinks' top ten wins at LHW...
Yanqui Lopez#5, Marvin Johnson #5, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad#1-3, Murray Sutherland#7, Jerry Celestine#8, John Davis#6, Dwight Muhammad Qawi #1, Eddie Davis #3, David Sears#6, Jim MacDonald#10.

and this was a strong era too.

Dariusz also beat Harmon! And Richard Hall. Both by tko.

It wasnt the best era ever, no, but theres a gap between Darius and Roy at LHW.
I wouldnt put Darius THAT low at LHW though.

top 25? :boxing::boxing:

Whatever YOU think of him, his achievements can't be ignored. 48-2 with 23 title defences. Show me another great lhw with the same record!

You act like the WBO was recognized for all those title defenses.

You act like the WBO was recognized for all those title defenses.

As far as I know, WBO is a recognized body/organisation. Not as "fancy" as WBA or WBC, but still recognized as the fourth major belt.

As far as I know, WBO is a recognized body/organisation. Not as "fancy" as WBA or WBC, but still recognized as the fourth major belt.

When was it recognized? Damn sure not when it was begun. More like a decade after that. I wrote an article on the history of the soup organizations a while back:

Although boxing has existed as far back as the 16th century, the World Title didn't emerge until the end of the 19th century when Jim Corbett won it by defeating American Champion John L. Sullivan. This ushered out the era of bare knuckle fighting and ushered in the era of the Queensberry rules. Nonetheless, not until 1920 would boxing even become an officially sanctioned sport as the NYSAC (New York State Athletic Commission) was formed. The Walker Law happened to be passed this year which regulated boxing in NY. Sadly, from the very onset of sanctioning boxing, there was division. The NBA (National Boxing Association) emerged in other states in 1921 to counter the NYSAC's influence. From 1927 to 1940, the two organizations often had different Champions. Only when people held recognition from both organizations were they considered World Champion. In 1962 the NBA became the WBA (World Boxing Association), and in 1963 the NYSAC supported the formation of the WBC (World Boxing Council). Not until 1984 would another sanctioning body emerge in the IBF, which was a direct result of division in the WBA. The IBF was recognized nearly immediately as legitimate. It's likely to be due to the fact that Larry Holmes (lineal Heavyweight Champion at the time) relinquished his WBC title when he was awarded the belt. Four years later (1988) the WBA would experience division yet again, leading to the formation of the WBO. Unlike the IBF however, the boxing world was not quick to recognize the WBO as legitimate. I can't seem to find when exactly they gained recognition, but it had to of taken around a decade. They didn't just hand out their title to the most established Champions out there. They made their own vacant title bouts between lesser qualified candidates. Francesco Damiani was their first Heavyweight Champion, and he's probably the least known "World Heavyweight Champion" of all time. The guy he beat to win the title wasn't exactly well known either (Johnny DuPlooy). The most recently established worldwide boxing organization that has attained some form of credibility is the IBO (International Boxing Organization), which has yet to be universally recognized. Unlike the IBF and WBO however, it didn't spawn from the WBA. It didn't spawn from any previously established organization. Although many people doubt the IBO will ever achieve recognition, I'm not so sure. The organization currently has as many Ring Champions or #1 contenders to a vacant title as half of the other recognized organizations do with a whopping total of 4:


Heavyweight - Wladimir Klitschko
*Light Heavyweight - Chad Dawson (Considering Bernard Hopkins is inactive)
Junior Welterweight - Manny Pacquiao
Flyweight - Nonito Donaire


Those are four promising fighters with a future. Two are top 10 p4p, and the two others seem to be on there way there. The legitimacy of this organization now rests in their hands.

Fighters make the titles worthy, not the other way around.;) Would you say Ruiz is a better fighter than Ray Mercer because he held the WBA belt and Mercer only the WBO belt??:rolleyes: Guess not.

top 25? :boxing::boxing:

sure, I have no problem with that. honestly, my boxing knowledge drops off badly before the 50s, so guys like Loughran or even Tunney and Conn I dont know much about. so I would never be able to make a fair top 25 list...but if I did, I probably would put Darius within the top 25.

Darius was a pretty good fighter though, despite having never fought Jones. he foughta lot of limited guys...but he also beat some real good ones too, most notably Virgil Hill(his best win). He wasnt like an Ottke, he was acutually quite a talented guy, with a very good left hand in particular.
I dont give a damn about those 'title' defenses though. its a nice stat, but in the end it doesnt mean jack ****.
Fighters make the titles worthy, not the other way around. Would you say Ruiz is a better fighter than Ray Mercer because he held the WBA belt and Mercer only the WBO belt?? Guess not. any belt is garbage nowadays, but back in the 90s the WBO was looked at as absolute garbage. like moving a dead fighter up spots in their rankings, having terrible champions, etc.
the WBO back then was practicaly looked at then as the WBU is nowadays. if youre going to put stock into title defenses(Which I DONT at all), then the WBO's title defense streak should be the least meaningful of all.

Fighters make the titles worthy, not the other way around.;) Would you say Ruiz is a better fighter than Ray Mercer because he held the WBA belt and Mercer only the WBO belt??:rolleyes: Guess not.

Fighters do make titles worthy. But if you are not the best fighter in the division, the title means little.

And Ruiz was never the champion, but he was a better fighter than Mercer and had a better career.

****ing bull**** not having roy Jones, his talent has yet to be matched.

This is a Biased list of Old time fighter's.

That's funny! I got ripped for ranking Jones number 12 p4p lol.

Poet

Fighters make the titles worthy, not the other way around.;) Would you say Ruiz is a better fighter than Ray Mercer because he held the WBA belt and Mercer only the WBO belt??:rolleyes: Guess not.

Difference is Ray Mercer actually either beat or had controversial losses to the best fighters in his division. The fact that he was also WBO Champ is meaningless. That was a paper accomplishment. Who the hell did Dariusz beat or almost beat that was great? A faded Hill that was over rated in the first place?

Difference is Ray Mercer actually either beat or had controversial losses to the best fighters in his division. The fact that he was also WBO Champ is meaningless. That was a paper accomplishment. Who the hell did Dariusz beat or almost beat that was great? A faded Hill that was over rated in the first place?

Pardon me, but now youre talking crap.:nonono: Hill was not faded or over rated. Had Dariusz been an American, I think you'd consider that a GREAT victory, am I wrong?:rolleyes:

Pardon me, but now youre talking crap.:nonono: Hill was not faded or over rated. Had Dariusz been an American, I think you'd consider that a GREAT victory, am I wrong?:rolleyes:

................

He's definitely over rated. We've gone down that path before, no need to expose Hill again, unless someone really is craving to see it.

He debuted in '84, he fought Dariusz in '97, he was exposed as a hype job in '91, and he had a close fight with Lou Del Valle of all people 2 fights before Dariusz. You see, that's the one thing Hill could always do in his prime that didn't show up in '96 against Valle, beat B level fighters easily.

And please with this American bias crap. Dariusz wasn't even as good as Joe Calzaghe, albeit his level of opposition was slightly better.

I think Charles is the best LHW of all time, how he never got a title shot is criminal.

Am in the process of looking for footage of Ezzard Charles vs Archie Moore, they fought 3 times and Charles beat him all 3.

................

He's definitely over rated. We've gone down that path before, no need to expose Hill again, unless someone really is craving to see it.

He debuted in '84, he fought Dariusz in '97, he was exposed as a hype job in '91, and he had a close fight with Lou Del Valle of all people 2 fights before Dariusz. You see, that's the one thing Hill could always do in his prime that didn't show up in '96 against Valle, beat B level fighters easily.

And please with this American bias crap. Dariusz wasn't even as good as Joe Calzaghe, albeit his level of opposition was slightly better.

You are also somewhat overated as an expert, I see that know!:rolleyes:

You are also somewhat overated as an expert, I see that know!:rolleyes:

Who said I was an expert? :boxing:

I take it as a compliment. Over rated expert > knowledgeable nobody. :werd:

I dont know, I thought Hill was a pretty good fighter. A lot of his title defenses were against fluff, but he did beat guys like Leslie Stewart, Bobby Cysz, Kinchen, Frank Tate, Adolpho Washington, Lou De Vale, Henry Maske and imo his wins over Fabrice Tiozzo were pretty impressive.

not to mention he was still relevant at Cruiserweight in his early 40s.

the guy was pretty good.

I also think he was a pretty good fighter. But he definitely wasn't a great fighter. Him and Dariusz are pretty equal in my ATG LHW Rankings. They exist somewhere between 30 and 40.