Best Of These Lhw?

[SABBATH]

What exactly is the criteria for rating a great light-heavyweight? Is it how good a fighter was at 175 or how well he did when he moved up to heavyweight? Different criterias do not always yield the same answers.

[brownpimp88]

What exactly is the criteria for rating a great light-heavyweight? Is it how good a fighter was at 175 or how well he did when he moved up to heavyweight? Different criterias do not always yield the same answers.

can i see ur list sabbath, to me what you did at 175 and heavyweight matters. Accomplishemnts at 160 and below mean nothing.

[SABBATH]

can i see ur list sabbath, to me what you did at 175 and heavyweight matters. Accomplishemnts at 160 and below mean nothing.

I rate them how they fought at 175.

Some fighters have styles and physical dimensions that are more suited to moving up in weight. Fighters that rely on superior strength and punching power at a given weight often don't carry those attributes with them at the higher weight levels making it harder to have success when they move up . Marvin Hagler is an example of a great middleweight who IMO would not have had great success had he moved up to light-heavyweight much less heavyweight, as opposed to James Toney who was able to make the leap. I would however rate Hagler as a better middleweight than Toney despite this.

I'm not too big on ranking fighters since accomplishments and head to head can differ. In any event, I prefer to have seen and studied a guy before getting too subjective. I'm pretty comfortable with guys like Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Sam Langford, Gene Tunney, Bob Foster, Tommy Loughran, Michael Spinks, Billy Conn, and Roy Jones Jr., in no particular order.