The Top 25 Light Heavyweights of All-Time – 11 to 25

[crold1]

Co-sign. I do think he is top 10 though.

I don't but the Top Ten is very strong so it's not an insult or anything. Roy was a hell of a fighter and this was his most accomplished class. Rating behind who he does is actually pretty strong.

[Estar]

Calzaghe is the best of all times.

[street bully]

Calzaghe is the best of all times.

Sven Ottke is in the top 10 smw's of all time which says a lot.

[Estar]

Sven Ottke is in the top 10 smw's of all time which says a lot.

Sven Ottke is a legend, retired undefeated and never had a questionable decision, he destroyed everyone. He's top 10 all time for me.

[Dave Rado]

Sven Ottke is a legend, retired undefeated and never had a questionable decision, he destroyed everyone. He's top 10 all time for me.

Even better than Zsolt Erdei?

[BennyST]

You fucker! Why you always making good points? I'll be back tomorrow to argue this, can't see the keyboard or think straight right now. You fucker! Lol!

**** man, I forgot about this thread. I'm reading through the rest of it right now though.

[BennyST]

Agreed. It depends on what you go by for being the best. Some say most wins, some say most talented, some say body of work. I say who could beat who. Nobody in the history of lightheavyweight would have stood a chance against Roy Jones. Especially some guy from 1920. (Unless he was 35) No fighter has ever been as dominant as Roy Jones Jr. Period. The most dominant usually means the best ex. Wilt Chamberlin, Micheal Jordan, Usain Bolt, Micheal Phelps. Roy Jones vs. a guy from 1920 would be like Lebron James vs Bob Cousy.

Now, while you may very well be right, why do you say no one in history would stand a chance against him at 175? That's a very definitive statement. You remember when he got badly dropped by Lou De Valle? What makes you think a much, much greater fighter than him couldn't have done the same and actually finished it off?

De Valle wasn't exactly what you would call a top fighter.

Why do you think it wasn't that long after that Tarver, Johnson etc, beat him so badly? Yeah, sure, weight comes into it, but he had shown he could be badly hurt by a mediocre fighter in De Valle, who wasn't good enough to finish him off. He was then put out completely by some half decent fighters later. What this does show is that if hit by a solid punch, it was lights out.

De Valle couldn't finish but better fighters would have been able to. Jones was most definitely beatable at 175.

[IMDAZED]

Now, while you may very well be right, why do you say no one in history would stand a chance against him at 175? That's a very definitive statement. You remember when he got badly dropped by Lou De Valle? What makes you think a much, much greater fighter than him couldn't have done the same and actually finished it off?

De Valle wasn't exactly what you would call a top fighter.

Why do you think it wasn't that long after that Tarver, Johnson etc, beat him so badly? Yeah, sure, weight comes into it, but he had shown he could be badly hurt by a mediocre fighter in De Valle, who wasn't good enough to finish him off. He was then put out completely by some half decent fighters later. What this does show is that if hit by a solid punch, it was lights out.

De Valle couldn't finish but better fighters would have been able to. Jones was most definitely beatable at 175.

Jones wasn't badly hurt by Del Valle. In fact, I'm not sure he was hurt at all. In fact, I'm not even sure the KD would've occured had he not slipped.

[BennyST]

Jones wasn't badly hurt by Del Valle. In fact, I'm not sure he was hurt at all. In fact, I'm not even sure the KD would've occured had he not slipped.

Ok.

..............................

To everyone else that thinks Jones is automatically the top of the pops at 175, why don't you list who you think should be below him and why? Just the top five?

Instead of just spouting off at the mouth at someones list, why not explain your own decision first? It might make more sense, make you look like less of a daft **** and might show that you know what you're talking about and have some knowledge of the history of LHW instead of only having seen and watched one LHW fighter in action, that being Roy Jones of course.

So, instead of showing yourselves to be the ignoramus' you most probably are, try adding something to the discussion instead of just ****ting on the list because you have never seen anyone other than Jones fight at the weight.

Have any of you even seen Foster? Spinks? Moore? Charles? blah blah blah?

The very simple thing you are obviously missing here is that 175 has been one of the most competitive divisions in the history of the sport and has seen some of the most accomplished fighters in it that have fought in some of the greatest eras of LHW's.

Jones' title run might seem impressive, especially when you look at boxrec and see all those title names at LHW, but when you look at the actual opponents and what they all did, it might shed some light on why he is not number one. As Rold already said, you could very easily make a better case for him being lower than he already is instead of higher.

Just as an example: Someone explain why Jones should be ranked higher than a guy that never lost at LHW, unified the division, made fourteen defenses of the title and retired as champ, unbeaten at the weight and fought, arguably, the better competition? Compare that with twelve defenses (from memory, I think it was twelve), unified the titles, got knocked out twice at the weight, beaten three other times at the weight?

Or, what about another guy who was also unbeaten at the weight, also unified the division, made ten defenses of his title and also fought, arguably, the better champions?

Neither of those guys are the best the division has to offer, but just going on stats, why would Jones immediately rank higher than these guys? They both dominated the division with more brutality and more completely than Jones ever did at LHW.