Greatest Light Heavyweight ever Charles or Greb?

[Welsh Jon]

Light heavy is such a hard division to rank. Before I tried to write my top 20 all time
list I thought of Ezzard Charles, Gene Tunney, Archie Moore, Michael Spinks, Maxie Rosenbloom, Harold Johnson and Harry Greb as "top 5 light heavies" in my head. It was only after I started to actually write it down that I realised that my maths was seriously flawed...

[IronDanHamza]

Light heavy is such a hard division to rank. Before I tried to write my top 20 all time
list I thought of Ezzard Charles, Gene Tunney, Archie Moore, Michael Spinks, Maxie Rosenbloom, Harold Johnson and Harry Greb as "top 5 light heavies" in my head. It was only after I started to actually write it down that I realised that my maths was seriously flawed...

Most people don't consider Johnson a Top 5 LHW (I do, not to much surprise) so it's nice to see he was in the running.

[Welsh Jon]

Most people don't consider Johnson a Top 5 LHW (I do, not to much surprise) so it's nice to see he was in the running.

Think I had him 7th or 8th in the end! Just so much talent in that divison historically. Also I forgot about Billy Conn. He was another "top 5" light heavy in my head!

[IronDanHamza]

Think I had him 7th or 8th in the end! Just so much talent in that divison historically. Also I forgot about Billy Conn. He was another "top 5" light heavy in my head!

He's a funny one because a lot of his fights were officially at HW but were like 176-180 lbs, so I tend to rank those as LHW fights. It's a funny one and peoples views differ.

He's Top 5 for me though.

Billy Conn, great fighter. He might have been in my Top 5, not entirely sure I think he might have been #6.

[crold1]

It is absolutely correct.

Neither Lytell or Booker are ranked highly amongst historians. Booker is not even on the HOF Ballot for crying out loud.

One of the main writers for The Ring Magazine's 1900-2000 issue a few years ago Cliff Rold (Who also posts on this site) for example has Calzaghe in his Top 100 ATG list and certainly doesn't include Lytell or Booker as ATG's in his view.

The chance of Calzaghe getting into the HOF this year is extremely high. The chance of Lytell and Booker getting in is impossible as I don't think either of them are even on the Ballot. I know Booker isn't and I'm unsure on Lytell.

So I'd say once again, the Lytell and Booker Vs Calzaghe example is a poor one.



It doesn't suggest that. Not at least nor at most.

Like I stated earlier, when I say "He beat so and so who is an ATG" that is nothing more than my personal ranking. "Historians" views on who is an ATG has absolutely no influence on who I personally consider an ATG.

I don't see how you can have any impressions. Unless you've been following me closely for a while. As far as I'm aware we've had one discussion on this site outside of this one.



I don't have a certified list but I know I wouldn't have him in my Top 10 at this moment in time. In the past I've had him in my Top 10.

I'd imagine he'd feature somewhere amongst the Top 15-20 on my list.

I'm not positive I'd have Calzaghe that high; haven't done that list. I think one can make a case for him on the back end range (50-100) depending on their view of what dominance at the relatively young 168 line is worth. He'd probably be in the 90s if anywhere.

I need to do that one day.

And Booker should be on the ballot. Problem is that it's hard to get one because no one ever comes off unless they get voted in. Makes it three on, three off ever year.

[crold1]

So the other day i came across Cliff's Top 25 Light Heavyweights All Time list from a few years ago and was initially shocked to see Harry Greb outside the top 10. I decided to compile his accomplishments in the division so i could compare it myself thinking i may be overestimating what he did there. Ezzard Charles was #1 so i used him to see how far Greb was from the greatest ever.

Ezzard Charles significant victories at Light Heavyweight

Moore 3 wins
Bivins 3 wins
Marshall 2 wins
Maxim 2 wins
Christifordis
Smith 2 wins
Yarosz (It was the second last fight of his career)

Victories over four Light Heavyweight Champions/Titlists accounting for 9 wins

* Also faced Light Heavyweight Champions Gus Lesnevich and Harold Johnson but both took place at Heavyweight beating Gus and losing to Harold.

Harry Greb significant victories at Light Heavyweight

Tunney 2 wins
Loughren 4 wins
Gibbons 2 wins (Tommy was 165lbs & 171lbs for these fights)
Rosenbloom
Dillon 2 wins
Levinsky 6 wins
Slatterly
Mctigue 2 wins
Miske 2 wins
Norfolk
Wilson
Delaney 3 wins
Bogash
Wiggins 8 wins (held wins over M.Gibbons, Flowers, Delaney, Risko twice)

Victories over seven Light Heavyweight Champions/Titlists accounting for 18 wins

Number of wins against Light Heavyweights ranked inside the Top 20 All Time

Charles beat three Lightheavyweights ranked inside the top 20 for 8 wins (Moore #3, Bivins #8, Maxin #20)

Greb beat four Lightheavyweights ranked inside the top 20 for 9 wins (Tunney #4, Loughren #6, Rosenbloom #9, Dillon #15)

No matter which valuable category you look to as a measuring stick it appears that Greb's achievements are more numerous and impressive. So Charles has 14 significant wins in the division while for Greb if we only include the Champions/Titlist he holds 18 victories over them.

Aside from his accomplishments take into consideration that he was a 5'8 natural Middleweight that was blind in one eye from late 1921 onwards. He also compiled these victories while fighting in the Middleweight and Heavyweight divisions all at the same time and fighting more than 30 and 40 bouts during a 12 month period for some of these years.

After looking over all of this its impossible to not have Harry Greb inside your top 10, nonsensical to not have him inside your top 5 and personally i don't see any way to rank Charles ahead of him at a Light Heavyweight.

Anyways i did this to satisfy my own curiosity but found it rather interesting so decided to share.

Finally have a chance to get into this. Here's my thinking: Greb could be higher. I'm fine with where I had him. He was a greater Middleweight (the GOAT IMO) and never really proved, as Ezz did, THE best Light Heavy of his time. Charles also had more tools (i.e. power and everything else). I think the nod in Greb's era goes to Tunney. He clearly has more volume than some of the guys ahead of him but I don't think volume is all that matters. Eras are relative.

For instance, Foster's didn't have as many guys to beat, but he also drilled some guys who would have been champs if not for him. Less volume but the greatest reign ever on consecutive defenses. Spinks cleaned out a very tough class. Less volume, but great concentration of wins.

Interestingly, almost no major lists being published 40 years ago or so had either man rated at Light Heavy at all. Their recognition has come with more inspection of resumes.

[RubenSonny]

I'm not positive I'd have Calzaghe that high; haven't done that list. I think one can make a case for him on the back end range (50-100) depending on their view of what dominance at the relatively young 168 line is worth. He'd probably be in the 90s if anywhere.

I need to do that one day.

And Booker should be on the ballot. Problem is that it's hard to get one because no one ever comes off unless they get voted in. Makes it three on, three off ever year.

No you can't he is nowhere near a top 100 list and he is nowhere near being an ATG.

[crold1]

No you can't he is nowhere near a top 100 list and he is nowhere near being an ATG.

I disagree on the latter; might agree on the former. Haven't sat down and gone through it. I don't want to rehash a million JoeCal debates; they all go the same. More than 100 guys across the various divisions who I think proved genuinely great. I see Calzaghe much the same way I do Finito and consider them great for similar reasons.

[Humean]

It depends on the era.

If the Era is weak then obviously the top contenders won't be considered as good as top contenders from a strong era bar one or two.

I'd consider that a pretty strong era.

Well the question is what reason do we have for believing that this era was as strong as people believe it to be? Most of these murderers row contenders were fighting amongst themselves so it is damn hard to judge.

Just completely absurd in my eyes.

Completely unfair to say that about Maxim.

Maxim beat very good fighters, arguable great ones and lost to great fighters but some of them very close fights. To say all of that was based on race is just plain ignorance to me.

To compare to Clinton Woods is ridiculous. Maxim is clearly better and greater historically than Woods who literally beat no one and his biggest feat was pushing Glen Johnson close.

You don't think the three qualities I listed were vitally important for him getting a shot at the light heavyweight championship? In an era where there was often only one champion at each weight class Maxim was not the best light heavyweight even though he was the crowned world champion. Who were the great fighters he beat? I find it hard to give him credit for the Robinson win for the heat clearly beat Robinson and not Maxim's skills. Bivins? Freddie Mills? Clinton Woods was definitely better than Freddie. A version of Lesnevich coming off a Mills defeat? Maxim looks good on paper but when you look closer at his record and film is not nearly as impressive. Woods did beat Johnson for whatever that is worth.



Why does it matter what others think?

How can you critisize someone for using a "Name" fighter and then use Laporte to back up your claim? Pretty obvious hypocrisy isn't it?

And there should be more cachet in beating Maxim than there is Laporte.


It seems this conversation isn't going to go anywhere considering it's abudantly clear you don't consider that era to be a strong one whereas to me it's clear that it's an era full of a lot of talent. So when a fighter beats one of those top fighters from that era you'll say "Well, he's not good he's just a top fighter in an overrated era" (Whilst humourosly touting Laporte as a top class) so it's inevitably going to go in circles.

I was not touting Laporte as top class and Maxim not, I was suggesting Laporte as about the same standard as a guy like Maxim and yet beating Maxim has more cachet than beating Laporte. You agree that it should, my point was it shouldn't, it should have roughly similar cachet. It is not about me thinking that era wasn't strong just that so many people make it seem much stronger than it was and because of that overrating too many fighters of that period get rated to high heaven and more recent fighters get panned for having beaten nobodies. I find it to be completely out of sync with the actual qualities of the respective fighters and eras.

^^^^^above again

[IronDanHamza]

Well the question is what reason do we have for believing that this era was as strong as people believe it to be? Most of these murderers row contenders were fighting amongst themselves so it is damn hard to judge.

To me it's clearly stacked with fighters of high quality.

You don't think the three qualities I listed were vitally important for him getting a shot at the light heavyweight championship? In an era where there was often only one champion at each weight class Maxim was not the best light heavyweight even though he was the crowned world champion. Who were the great fighters he beat? I find it hard to give him credit for the Robinson win for the heat clearly beat Robinson and not Maxim's skills. Bivins? Freddie Mills? Clinton Woods was definitely better than Freddie. A version of Lesnevich coming off a Mills defeat? Maxim looks good on paper but when you look closer at his record and film is not nearly as impressive. Woods did beat Johnson for whatever that is worth.

It would make sense if he lost every time he stepped up.

But, he beat Jersey Joe Walcott, Jimmy Bivins, Floyd Patterson (Green), Lesnevich passed prime but still highly ranked, had close fights with Ezzard Charles and Walcott in good losing efforts.

I think that's pretty decent, abit unfair to say the only reason he was a contender was because of race, considering.

I've never understood why it's seemingly only Robinson that feels heat. Is Maxim's white skin immune to heat? Was it only Robinson that could feel it?

They both were in the same heat and Maxim outlasted him.

He did a hell of a lot more than Clinton Woods. Back to the original point of the comparison, comparing them is just ******.

I was not touting Laporte as top class and Maxim not, I was suggesting Laporte as about the same standard as a guy like Maxim and yet beating Maxim has more cachet than beating Laporte. You agree that it should, my point was it shouldn't, it should have roughly similar cachet. It is not about me thinking that era wasn't strong just that so many people make it seem much stronger than it was and because of that overrating too many fighters of that period get rated to high heaven and more recent fighters get panned for having beaten nobodies. I find it to be completely out of sync with the actual qualities of the respective fighters and eras.

You downplayed Maxim whilst using Laporte as a win.

And even then, they aren't comparable. Laporte didn't beat anyone, he literally lost every time he stepped up in class.

Well that's you. You don't seem to see the quality that most others do. You also seem to think "No one gives credit to modern fighters" when many so.

Perhaps not to the likes of Clinton Woods and Juan Laporte but many others who deserve it.