Greatest Light Heavyweight ever Charles or Greb?

[RubenSonny]

This is just a really silly comparison of their careers.

[Mikhnienko]

Not all champions are equal and not all champions are better than non-champions, Greb should never be doesn't touch Charles at LHW.

You're correct and Greb beat more all time top 10 Light Heavyweights, more all time top 20 Light Heavyweights and has more wins against both. That's in addition to having twice as many victories when including all Champions so how every you want to measure quality Greb's is greater.

Greb only beat Tunney once.

Both are legends. But for me Charles's victories over Archie Moore alone take him to the top of any light heavyweight listing.

So beating Moore three times is better than having five wins over Tunney and Loughren? If you like Moore that much it's fine but you have have to admit that its personal bias towards him that causes you to disregard boxers who have equal or better achievements.

Greb won their second fight too with over 75% of the reporters ringside scoring it for Greb in Tunney's hometown. Papers were calling for an investigation it was so bad, Bill Muldoon the Chairman of the NYSAC said it was a bad decision and Tunney himself admitted it in his book saying that's why he gave him the 3rd fight. Their 4th was a draw.

[toooooool]

Harry Greb

Harry Greb was the only one to intercept Gene Tunney's quest to go undefeated...This speaks volumes.

[Sugarj]

You're correct and Greb beat more all time top 10 Light Heavyweights, more all time top 20 Light Heavyweights and has more wins against both. That's in addition to having twice as many victories when including all Champions so how every you want to measure quality Greb's is greater.



So beating Moore three times is better than having five wins over Tunney and Loughren? If you like Moore that much it's fine but you have have to admit that its personal bias towards him that causes you to disregard boxers who have equal or better achievements.

Greb won their second fight too with over 75% of the reporters ringside scoring it for Greb in Tunney's hometown. Papers were calling for an investigation it was so bad, Bill Muldoon the Chairman of the NYSAC said it was a bad decision and Tunney himself admitted it in his book saying that's why he gave him the 3rd fight. Their 4th was a draw.

'Personal bias' is a bit harsh considering neither Moore or Charles found their way onto my 10 ten favourite list on Panamaniac's thread. I have no hidden agenda here. But as light heavyweights go, both are certainly two of the greatest at the weight not to mention possible pound for pound all time top 20 contenders.

This is true of Greb too; but I will admit that I do tend to rate fighters whose skills I can evaluate on film a touch higher than those who have no film evidence. Not Greb's fault of course!

I can't knock Greb's record or his victories over Loughran and Tunney in the first fight. I've read varying reports over the second Tunney fight and choose not to make too much of a fuss over the result in the absence of fight film.

[Ham Porter]

Just off the top of my head (without any research), I request permission to drop two names: Bob Foster and Michael Spinks.

Foster's resume is severely lacking in comparison to the genuine greats of that division. It's highly debatable whether he warrants a higher ranking than Saad or Galindez.

[IronDanHamza]

It's Charles. Charles is the greatest Light Heavyweight of all time.

[Barn]

I've always said Greb deserves to be rated very high at LHW. With that being said I think Charles is the clear #1 at that weight.

I also totally agree with Don who stated that Bob Foster isn't in with a shout. His resume doesn't nearly stack up.

[Humean]

The debate should be between Charles or Spinks.

Weaknesses of rating Greb as high as them.

1. No video footage of Greb whatsoever
2. Also very limited video footage of the fighters he beat.
3. Largely the era of newspaper decisions
4. Questionable how good a lot of the best fighters he beat really were. Take one example, how good was Slapsie Maxie even at his best? Even if he really was tremendous, which I doubt, he was unlikely to be so in 1925 less than two years into his profesional career.
5. In light of previous point I'd wager that the mid to late 1940s and definitely the late 1970s and early 1980s were better eras at light heavyweight.

[IronDanHamza]

The debate should be between Charles or Spinks.

Weaknesses of rating Greb as high as them.

1. No video footage of Greb whatsoever
2. Also very limited video footage of the fighters he beat.
3. Largely the era of newspaper decisions
4. Questionable how good a lot of the best fighters he beat really were. Take one example, how good was Slapsie Maxie even at his best? Even if he really was tremendous, which I doubt, he was unlikely to be so in 1925 less than two years into his profesional career.
5. In light of previous point I'd wager that the mid to late 1940s and definitely the late 1970s and early 1980s were better eras at light heavyweight.

Between Charles and Moore, more like.

The two clear #1 and #2 LHW's.

[Humean]

Between Charles and Moore, more like.

The two clear #1 and #2 LHW's.

Charles was better than Moore, their three fights are a large part of the evidence of this although Moore's resume, particularly the length of it, might make him 'greater' than Charles although I tend not to think in that way.

Spinks fought in the greatest light heavyweight era, proved to be the best of the lot, and even managed to step up to become heavyweight champion (like Charles) which gives some extra evidence and indication of his quality.