Top Ten Middleweights

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

1. Greb
2. Monzon
3. Hagler
4. Robinson
5. Hopkins
6. Fitzsimmons
7. Ketchell
8. Burley
9. Walker
10. Jones Jr.

A very good list. Suprised to see you rate Robinson as low as four though.

[janitor]

[quote=McGrain]

Originally Posted by janitor

Very well - but do you see your man beating these guys head to head or do you think his achievments at MW are greater than the men mentioned?

I just think that his overall body of work is more impresive and that includes his catchweight fights.

[TBooze]

[quote=janitor]

Absolutely. Clark is one of the greatest pound for pound fighters that ever breathed.

LOL stop winding him up!

[McGrain]

[quote=janitor]

My criteria reward verry heavily for acomplishments at higher weights.

What about the fact that Robinson and Burley are already gatecrashing a higher weight?

And do you make allownaces for the fact that most modern MW's are not under pressure to move up through the weights and if not, do you accept that this is the driving factor in shaping your list?

[janitor]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Hopkins above Burley?

I beleive that Burley was the better fighter but that he never got the chance to really show what he could do.

[brownpimp88]

Originally Posted by janitor

I beleive that Burley was the better fighter but that he never got the chance to really show what he could do.

He was the better fighter based on which fights that you have actually seen, oh yeah i forgot there aren't many.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by McGrain

And do you make allownaces for the fact that most modern MW's are not under pressure to move up through the weights and if not, do you accept that this is the driving factor in shaping your list?

I am sure that this variable dose bias my list in favour of older fighters. At the same time I am not greatly concearned by what motivated these fighters to compile their records.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by brownpimp88

He was the better fighter based on which fights that you have actually seen, oh yeah i forgot there aren't many.

How do you think that Hopkins would fare against Archie Moore then?

[janitor]

[quote=TBooze]

Originally Posted by janitor

LOL stop winding him up!

I can apreciate that what I am saying is going to be hard to swallow for many people but Jeff Clark is honest to god boxings best kept secret.

He is a top 10 all time middleweight and pound for pound great who has virually fallen under the radar of history.

[janitor]

[quote=Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by janitor

This is a MW list, not a P4P list.

When you ask me for a middleweight list I draw a line at 160 lbs and list the greatest fighters who'se prime fighting weight was bellow this figure.

I apreciate that this is different to many peoples aproach.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by janitor

I beleive that Burley was the better fighter but that he never got the chance to really show what he could do.

If you mean because there is no film of him fighting middleweights you are quite right - if you mean he beat fighters of lesser quality than Hopkins, you are quite wrong.

Burley's win against Archie Moore is worth two of any of Hopkins' wins.

[TBooze]

[quote=janitor]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

When you ask me for a middleweight list I draw a line at 160 lbs and list the greatest fighters who'se prime fighting weight was bellow this figure.

I apreciate that this is different to many peoples aproach.

Clarke fought mainly against 175lbers and Heavies. Sure some of these matches may of been catchweight affairs, but come on Clarke may drop of the radar as far as boxing today goes, and he may be a name that deserves a mention in the Langford, McVey, Jeanette era, but that is it, it is mere spin to place him above a Robinson, Burley or Monzon IMO.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by TBooze

Clarke fought mainly against 175lbers and Heavies. Sure some of these matches may of been catchweight affairs,

Clark's prime weight was under 160 lbs. The main reason why he fought so many light heavies and heavies is because he was institutionaly avoided by the middleweights of the day. He was the outstanding challenger for the middleweight title over a verry long period.

but come on Clarke may drop of the radar as far as boxing today goes, and he may be a name that deserves a mention in the Langford, McVey, Jeanette era, but that is it, it is mere spin to place him above a Robinson, Burley or Monzon IMO.

There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that he ranks higher pound for pound than Monzon.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by McGrain

If you mean because there is no film of him fighting middleweights you are quite right - if you mean he beat fighters of lesser quality than Hopkins, you are quite wrong.

I think that he did not get the big fights of the era that a legacy is built on.

Burley's win against Archie Moore is worth two of any of Hopkins' wins.

I have to agree but at the same time you have to consider the circumstances in terms of both Moores career and Burleys career when the fight took place.

Moore was not at his peak physicaly technicaly or financialy. He took Burley as a last minute sub for another opponent.

[Jack]

Marcel Cerdan is overrated. as is Jake LaMotta. I doubt either of these would get in my head to head top 20. Both look average and poor on film respectively. Cerdan had a record full of nobodies and LaMotta's legacy is based on two opponents.

Neither would be champions today. Someone like Hopknis, Wright or even taylor would outpoint them. Tough, strong fighters, but not exactly great.