My Top Ten ATG LHWs

[Bundana]

All ridiculous lists! Lists must be who beats whom, not based on your fantasies and desires.

Couldn't agree more!

We see too many lists from "historians", based on resumes and old-timer opinions... and not on who would actually beat who, if they could have met in the ring.

[Blue54]

Because LHW seems to never get any attention.

1. Ezzard Charles
2. Micheal Spinks
3. Archie Moore
4. Roy Jones Jr
5. Joey Maxim
6. John Henry Lewis
7. Tommy Lougran
8. Gene Tunney
9. Kid Norfolk
10. Harry Matthews



Did Tunney not ever actually win the LHW world title? I'd have him higher but it seems odd to rate him above title holders based on resume and historian ratings alone.

Not sure Norfolk really counts as a LHW or a MW, but, he took the measure of great men anywhere from MW to HW.

Good list but Bob Foster def has to be there top 7 at least.

[billeau2]

Teach me, I'm not here to argue.

One really puts oneself out there when they make a list... I am going to be Frank with you: I seldom go into a thread like this and make a list... But seeing how you put yourself out there, in a tough division to do so like the Light Heavies, I had to put something together and also put myself out there... I respect you as a poster that much.

The difference is you made it to 10 and I could not even!

[DeeMoney]

Ive always felt Langfords best, wouldve been at a weight that fits in with light heavy. Do we consider him for this list, or just those more modern fighters who competed as listed light heavies

[Anthony342]

Teach me, I'm not here to argue.

I often say the same thing. You'll definitely learn from the more knowledgeable posters here. That is, if they're still around and haven't been sent away from all the petty squabbling we've had lately. I've certainly learned a lot here about boxing history here. Guys like Jab, billeau, Bundana. Bob Foster I somehow managed to forget about myself, even though I've read about him here. Our resident mod here too, Bat. The guy with the **** Tiger avatar who sets us straight on James Toney. Stick with those guys and you should be okay. Probably more I'm forgetting off the top of my head.

[billeau2]

Ive always felt Langfords best, wouldve been at a weight that fits in with light heavy. Do we consider him for this list, or just those more modern fighters who competed as listed light heavies

yup that is a big problem. How many fighters were committed to the division? versus just fought there on and off. I did not put Langford on my list for that very reason.

[billeau2]

I often say the same thing. You'll definitely learn from the more knowledgeable posters here. That is, if they're still around and haven't been sent away from all the petty squabbling we've had lately. I've certainly learned a lot here about boxing history here. Guys like Jab, billeau, Bundana. Bob Foster I somehow managed to forget about myself, even though I've read about him here. Our resident mod here too, Bat. The guy with the **** Tiger avatar who sets us straight on James Toney. Stick with those guys and you should be okay. Probably more I'm forgetting off the top of my head.

You forgot Rusty and Rick Smith... sorry could not resist...

[Marchegiano]

Couldn't agree more!

We see too many lists from "historians", based on resumes and old-timer opinions... and not on who would actually beat who, if they could have met in the ring.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm legitimately confused. Is resume not who beat who?

[billeau2]

Couldn't agree more!

We see too many lists from "historians", based on resumes and old-timer opinions... and not on who would actually beat who, if they could have met in the ring.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm legitimately confused. Is resume not who beat who?

Bundana I am also confused. Could you elaborate on what specifically you mean? And why this criteria should take precedence? It makes sense that objective ability should reign supreme, but staking all that on a hypothetical match? assuming that is what you mean seems to magnify some attributes that are important over other equally important things like: titles held, competition faced at the time, etc.

[Marchegiano]

One really puts oneself out there when they make a list... I am going to be Frank with you: I seldom go into a thread like this and make a list... But seeing how you put yourself out there, in a tough division to do so like the Light Heavies, I had to put something together and also put myself out there... I respect you as a poster that much.

The difference is you made it to 10 and I could not even!

I don't mind being the butt of a joke if the joke is good. I don't mind looking ****** if I learn.

Lists seem to provoke thoughts and opinions from knowledgeable posters who would otherwise keep themselves out of my threads. I've been here a long time but only recently got noticed as a mainstay on the forums. I don't believe my interests are any different, my delivery is though. I no longer ask for knowledge directly which seems to do better than just saying " Hey guys I'm looking into X at the moment, have any of you in the know any direction you reckon is worth mention?" or some such similar nonsense.

I know my knowledge of LHW is weak. I'd call it casual knowledge because I came by it casually. I did not look for it, I did not put in effort, I've picked up or noticed while looking at other things. Louis teaches some Lewis but unless you look at Lewis you won't really know John Henry from Joe's story, you'll know just a bit, which is where I'm at

To provoke who should I be looking at I made my list of who I know. Because when I searched ATG LHWs in various form I pulled crickets and so, two birds with one stone. I need to learn and these great fighters have histories that need sharing more often.