Greatest Light-Heavyweights?

[The Old LefHook]

1 Tunney
2 Loughran
3 Greb
4 Rosenbloom
5 Fitz
6 Conn
7 Carpentier

And bringing up the rear:

8 Charles
9 Spinks
10 Moore

Of course I believe Tommy Gibbons would have whipped Charles, and whipped him good.

[billeau2]

1 Tunney
2 Loughran
3 Greb
4 Rosenbloom
5 Fitz
6 Conn
7 Carpentier

And bringing up the rear:

8 Charles
9 Spinks
10 Moore

Of course I believe Tommy Gibbons would have whipped Charles, and whipped him good.

Did Greb fight much at light heavy? If he did he would be on any list... Its tough because someguys have no place and get put in light heavy. Like where does one put Ezzard charles? Conn is another excellent choice. Just seeing who goes on the list that most people did not put on, but belong.

[DeeMoney]

Let me ask you all what weight do you consider Langford to have been fighting at when at his best? I've always felt prime Langford was about a LHW, and if so does he make the list?

In addition, when making these lists I always try to check on generational bias. For certain, their are specific time periods that are the 'best' for a given weight class, but if a significant number of my top 5 or 10 come from within the same decade or so then I probably am showing too much favoritism to that era. For example, the late 60s and early 70s are generally considered the best for heavy, but if I wrote my top 5 heavies of all time were: Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Liston, & Louis- then I might be a little bias.

It wouldnt make sense for one weight class to have one short time frame where all the best came about (unless we are judging solely on the resume) in which case in the above example Louis's abilities and talents would be irrelevant because he never had the opportunity to build as equal a resume.

[Willie Pep 229]

Let me ask you all what weight do you consider Langford to have been fighting at when at his best? I've always felt prime Langford was about a LHW, and if so does he make the list?

In addition, when making these lists I always try to check on generational bias. For certain, their are specific time periods that are the 'best' for a given weight class, but if a significant number of my top 5 or 10 come from within the same decade or so then I probably am showing too much favoritism to that era. For example, the late 60s and early 70s are generally considered the best for heavy, but if I wrote my top 5 heavies of all time were: Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Liston, & Louis- then I might be a little bias.

It wouldnt make sense for one weight class to have one short time frame where all the best came about (unless we are judging solely on the resume) in which case in the above example Louis's abilities and talents would be irrelevant because he never had the opportunity to build as equal a resume.

Maybe not bias . . . in music there have been time periods when great talents have arisen in clusters, Vienna in the late 18th Century, Tin Pan Ally in the early 20th Century, and Liverpool in the the 1960s. Sometimes it's talent motivating and inspiring other talent, other times it the success of some that opens the door of opportunity for others.

Historically speaking it is more likely to have talent clustered in time and location than for it to be evenly distributed across both.

[billeau2]

Let me ask you all what weight do you consider Langford to have been fighting at when at his best? I've always felt prime Langford was about a LHW, and if so does he make the list?

In addition, when making these lists I always try to check on generational bias. For certain, their are specific time periods that are the 'best' for a given weight class, but if a significant number of my top 5 or 10 come from within the same decade or so then I probably am showing too much favoritism to that era. For example, the late 60s and early 70s are generally considered the best for heavy, but if I wrote my top 5 heavies of all time were: Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Liston, & Louis- then I might be a little bias.

It wouldnt make sense for one weight class to have one short time frame where all the best came about (unless we are judging solely on the resume) in which case in the above example Louis's abilities and talents would be irrelevant because he never had the opportunity to build as equal a resume.

Some fighters are hard to categorize... Langford, Fitz could also be a great light heavy I spose, Hopkins even...I tend to not use fighters on my list for this division who are rolling stones and wind up by default as a light heavy. I would put them on a separate list. If I can conceptualize it better will make a thread... Some make the cut... Like Archie Moore because he had so many fights as a light heavy. its a great point you make.

[billeau2]

Maybe not bias . . . in music there have been time periods when great talents have arisen in clusters, Vienna in the late 18th Century, Tin Pan Ally in the early 20th Century, and Liverpool in the the 1960s. Sometimes it's talent motivating and inspiring other talent, other times it the success of some that opens the door of opportunity for others.

Historically speaking it is more likely to have talent clustered in time and location than for it to be evenly distributed across both.

This is also a great point... One has to balance. Freud was perhaps one of the most influental thinkers of his century...and so was Marx and Einstein, all ***s all from the 19th century. Is this measure biased towards European ***s? Rhetorically speaking?

[DeeMoney]

Maybe not bias . . . in music there have been time periods when great talents have arisen in clusters, Vienna in the late 18th Century, Tin Pan Ally in the early 20th Century, and Liverpool in the the 1960s. Sometimes it's talent motivating and inspiring other talent, other times it the success of some that opens the door of opportunity for others.

Historically speaking it is more likely to have talent clustered in time and location than for it to be evenly distributed across both.

Yikes that first try ended up convoluted, allow me to edit.

I'm not writing talent doesnt come in clusters (clearly some eras are better). Rather than within a significant sample size (top 10, 20, etc). Over a long enough period of time (pro boxing has been going on for well over a century). That to have the majority of your top fighters come from a small time frame is probably biased.

I'm not arguing evenly distributed, but to assume that one given weight class has a highly disproportionate amount of the top "X" fighters at one time could indicate bias. Now if you want to argue that societal factors created said growth, or more likely evolution of athletic training that would be fine.

Now you bring up art (music) which is somewhat different. For certain advancements were made, as you listed, and once again said advancements were available to the next generation. However, since it is art (and not competition like boxing where the defined goal of success is the same) people may choose different ways of expressing themselves and may not produce the same quality, at least in your opinion.

Moreover, continuing with the music example, if yuo want to argue 1960s Britain was the best time and place for rock music ever that is fine. If you argue that 8 of the top 10 musical groups of all time came from 1960s Britain, I would say there may be some bias.

[DeeMoney]

This is also a great point... One has to balance. Freud was perhaps one of the most influental thinkers of his century...and so was Marx and Einstein, all ***s all from the 19th century. Is this measure biased towards European ***s? Rhetorically speaking?

This will read similar to what I posted above. My focus was more on choosing one specific time over another, specifically an older generation. Your example focuses on location and culture (European ***s) within a given time period. I would argue that such clusters are far more likely to happen in this instance as societal influences would play a great part in creating said success.

To reiterate, my statement was about time period NOT location or culture.

[DeeMoney]

Some fighters are hard to categorize... Langford, Fitz could also be a great light heavy I spose, Hopkins even...I tend to not use fighters on my list for this division who are rolling stones and wind up by default as a light heavy. I would put them on a separate list. If I can conceptualize it better will make a thread... Some make the cut... Like Archie Moore because he had so many fights as a light heavy. its a great point you make.

Thats a hard one for me to figure as well. At what point do we count someone as having had enough work in a specific division to be counted among that division? Then why that arbitrary point?

[billeau2]

This will read similar to what I posted above. My focus was more on choosing one specific time over another, specifically an older generation. Your example focuses on location and culture (European ***s) within a given time period. I would argue that such clusters are far more likely to happen in this instance as societal influences would play a great part in creating said success.

To reiterate, my statement was about time period NOT location or culture.

Time period in the abstract is a possible bias, unless we can make a case for some causal factor...or even correlation as to why a time period produces a superior fighter. I happen to think one can have a list with different times represented. Light heavies..cruisers whatever they are called usually are there to either rule the division, grab low hanging fruit in the heavy weight division, or just challenge when the division is weak.