The Strongest Middleweigt Era and Reevaluating Boxing Dogma

[Vysotsky]

The strongest Middleweight era going by any 10 year period is 1932-1942 in my opinion. Look at the sheer depth of elite and quality Middleweights amongst these 41 names then answer my three question below.

Billy Conn
Freddie Steele
Teddy Yarosz
Holman Williams
Charly Burley
Ezzard Charles
Fred Apostoli
Ken Overlin
Lloyd Marshall
Archie Moore
Tony Zale
Mickey Walker * tail end
Georgie Abrams
Eddie Booker
Billy Soose
Al Hostak
Young Corbett III
Ceferino Garcia
Solly Kreiger
Babe Risko
Vince Dundee
Marcel Thil
Kid Tunero
Cocoa Kid
Jack Chase
Aaron Wade
Erich Seelig
Jock McAvoy

Other notables : Shorty Hogue, Chmielewski, Belloise, Kid Azteca, Brown, Henneberry, Christoforidis, DeJohn, Brouillard, Bolden, Balsamo, Matthews, Gorilla Jones

I have three questions for the Classic

1) If you disagree and think another era was stronger please name the 10 year period, list the boxers so we can compare and state your case.

2) Do you think that the consensus Top 4 ATG Middleweights in Greb, Robinson, Monzon, Hagler would be able to establish a long reign during the years 1932-1942?

3) Reevaluating Boxing Dogma

Virtually none of the Boxers from the 1930's era are routinely listed in Middleweight ATG Top 10 lists, almost all of them are criminally underrated and most shamefully the majority are forgotten and unknown. The biggest reason for this is probably due to their lack of a dominant long Championship reign and holding that against these fighters when looking at the incomprehensible depth of elite talent is utterly irrational and unjustifiable.

When ranking a divisions all time greatest fighters a long reign seems to be the single most significant factor in securing a high rating whether intentional or not. Often times when justifying the high ranking of someone like Hopkins or Monzon it is said that a boxer cannot control which era they fight in and therefore reigning during a weak era should not be held against them, a sentiment that i agree with. BUT at the same time a excellent boxer who fights in a talent rich division like the 1930's cannot choose either and being unable to establish dominance in such an era should not be held against them in the same way.

Looking at a boxers signature wins should be given just as much significance, if not more, than the length of time they reigned. Our examples :

Teddy Yarosz - Archie Moore, Conn (arguably all 3), Overlin, Marshall, Kreiger, Risko, Dundee x3 , Gainer, Latzo, Brouillard

Freddie Steele - Apostoli, Overlin, Garcia x2, Dundee, Lesnevich, Risko x3, Kreiger, Bandit Romero, Gorilla Jones x2, Matthews

Ken Overlin - Ezzard Charles, Apostoli, Hostak, Garcia, Seelig, Belloise, Balsamo, Matthews

Fred Apostoli - Steele, Thil, Corbett, Risko, Kreiger x2, Bettina, Abrams, Brouillard

vs

Hagler - Hearns, Duran, Roldan, Antuofermo, Sibson, Brisco, Mugabi

Monzon - Benvenuti x2, Griffith x2, Napoles, Valdez x2, Brisco, Licata

Hopkins - De La Hoya, Johnson, Trinidad, JD Jackson, Joppy, Allen, Mercado, Holmes

Apostoli who probably has the weakest resume from the 1930 examples is arguably stronger than Monzon or Hagler's while the depth and quality of wins on Yarosz and Steele's completely dwarf all three of the long reigning Champions signature wins. RING magazine recently released their Top 10 ATG Middleweight list with Sturm and Abraham included due to their number of defenses and length of reign. Taken to the extreme this is the type of illogic and absurdity that placing such an emphasis on those factors can spawn.

The question is do you think the boxing community needs a paradigm shift with its ranking dogma and would that enable the legacy and ratings of boxers to be evaluated more accurately?

[Vysotsky]

I meant to post this in the Classic Section, i have now posted it there as well. Perhaps a MOD could delete this or merge the responces with the one in the Classic.

Sorry, thanks.

[Jack]

It's very rare that a good division is dominated by a boxer for any long period of time. For me, competition will always be a far more important than dominance for this reason. A B-class fighter will always dominate a division of D-class opponents, so dominance always has to be put into perspective. Legacies should primarily be built on opposition, and anything else, such as longevity, is merely a bonus.

I agree that a lot of those fighters are underrated. Holman Williams is especially underrated, I think. I'd say he's a better fighter than Hopkins, who often ranks absurdly high in middleweight lists because of his dominance.

[larryx2012]

Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore became heavyweights and Ezzard Charles he champ

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by Vysotsky

The strongest Middleweight era going by any 10 year period is 1932-1942 in my opinion. Look at the sheer depth of elite and quality Middleweights amongst these 41 names.

Billy Conn
Freddie Steele
Teddy Yarosz
Holman Williams
Charly Burley
Ezzard Charles
Fred Apostoli
Ken Overlin
Lloyd Marshall
Archie Moore
Tony Zale
Mickey Walker * tale end
Georgie Abrams
Eddie Booker
Billy Soose
Al Hostak
Young Corbett III
Ceferino Garcia
Solly Kreiger
Babe Risko
Vince Dundee
Marcel Thil
Kid Tunero
Cocoa Kid
Jack Chase
Aaron Wade
Erich Seelig
Jock McAvoy

Other notables : Shorty Hogue, Chmielewski, Belloise, Kid Azteca, Brown, Henneberry, Christoforidis, DeJohn, Brouillard, Bolden, Balsamo, Matthews, Gorilla Jones

I have three questions for the Classic

1) If you disagree and think another era was stronger please name the 10 year period, list the boxers so we can compare and state your case.

2) Do you think that the consensus Top 4 ATG Middleweights in Greb, Robinson, Monzon, Hagler would be able to establish a long reign during the years 1932-1942?

3) Reevaluating Boxing Dogma

Virtually none of the Boxers from the 1930's era are routinely listed in Middleweight ATG Top 10 lists, almost all of them are criminally underrated and most shamefully the majority are forgotten and unknown. The biggest reason for this is probably due to their lack of a dominant long Championship reign and holding that against these fighters when looking at the incomprehensible depth of elite talent is utterly irrational and unjustifiable.

When ranking a divisions all time greatest fighters a long reign seems to be the single most significant factor in securing a high rating whether intentional or not. Often times when justifying the high ranking of someone like Hopkins or Monzon it is said that a boxer cannot control which era they fight in and therefore reigning during a weak era should not be held against them, a sentiment that i agree with. BUT at the same time a excellent boxer who fights in a talent rich division like the 1930's cannot choose either and being unable to establish dominance in such an era should not be held against them in the same way.

Looking at a boxers signature wins should be given just as much significance, if not more, than the length of time they reigned. Our examples :

Teddy Yarosz - Archie Moore, Conn (arguably all 3), Overlin, Marshall, Kreiger, Risko, Dundee x3 , Gainer, Latzo, Brouillard

Freddie Steele - Apostoli, Overlin, Garcia x2, Dundee, Lesnevich, Risko x3, Kreiger, Bandit Romero, Gorilla Jones x2, Matthews

Ken Overlin - Ezzard Charles, Apostoli, Hostak, Garcia, Seelig, Belloise, Balsamo, Matthews

Fred Apostoli - Steele, Thil, Corbett, Risko, Kreiger x2, Bettina, Abrams, Brouillard

vs

Hagler - Hearns, Duran, Roldan, Antuofermo, Sibson, Brisco, Mugabi

Monzon - Benvenuti x2, Griffith, Napoles, Valdez x2, Brisco, Licata

Hopkins - De La Hoya, Johnson, Trinidad, JD Jackson, Joppy, Allen, Mercado, Holmes

Apostoli who probably has the weakest resume from the 1930 examples is arguably stronger than Monzon or Hagler's while the depth and quality of wins on Yarosz and Steele's completely dwarf all three of the long reigning Champions signature wins. RING magazine recently released their Top 10 ATG Middleweight list and Sturm and Abraham were included due to their number of defenses and length of reign. Taken to the extreme this is the type of illogic and absurdity that placing such an emphasis on those factors can spawn.

The question is do you think the boxing community needs a paradigm shift with its ranking dogma and would that enable the legacy and ratings of boxers to be evaluated more accurately?

Well conceived and executed post. Bravo.

There is no way I can disagree. I was a decade of mind-boggling depth.

[Vysotsky]

Originally Posted by larryx2012

Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore became heavyweights

and they fought a significant portion of their career at MW with Charles having over 25 and Moorer 35 fights against top opposition during that MW era being members of Murderers Row.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by GolotaFan

Great post. I also agree it's very rare that a fighter will dominate a single division for a long period of time without putting the divisional era into question.
Could Hopkins have dominated the MW Division that was listed for as long as he did? Any boxer who dominate a single division for a lengthy period of time automatically put the division under scrutiny and guess what?
Once you look at that division more closely.. you realize that the division is sub par.

Yeah, I agree.

In the first post, the OP asked whether Greb, Robinson, Hagler etc., could have been dominant in such a good era. Personally, I think the only one who could have done it would have been Robinson but even then, I don't think he'd have gone undefeated for any long period of time. I think he'd have slipped up on several occasions too. Hagler would have been very tough to beat but again, longevity is tough to pull off in a hard division. Looking at all those names, there are a couple who I think could have beaten Hagler but if he had faced them all, I think he'd have lost to maybe 6 or 7 of those guys, just because the pressure of constantly facing elite opponents wears fighters down. Fighters lose to opponents they're better than when they are continuously in the ring against very good fighters. That's just the nature of the sport, and it's a reflection on how, as the old saying goes, 'styles make fights'.

As for Hopkins, I really don't think he'd have been exceptional in a strong middleweight era. Sacrilege, I know, but his legacy is built around his achievements as an old man rather than his ability at his prime.

[Vysotsky]

Originally Posted by orriray59

Teddy Yarosz gets underrated as well.

Insanely so. He can easily be put in the top 10 based on his wins and basically every loss was when he was either past prime, injured, or a split decision that he arguably won like his 2 Conn losses and coming against elite opposition.

Originally Posted by Jack

Yeah, I agree.

In the first post, the OP asked whether Greb, Robinson, Hagler etc., could have been dominant in such a good era. Personally, I think the only one who could have done it would have been Robinson but even then, I don't think he'd have gone undefeated for any long period of time. I think he'd have slipped up on several occasions too. Hagler would have been very tough to beat but again, longevity is tough to pull off in a hard division. Looking at all those names, there are a couple who I think could have beaten Hagler but if he had faced them all, I think he'd have lost to maybe 6 or 7 of those guys, just because the pressure of constantly facing elite opponents wears fighters down. Fighters lose to opponents they're better than when they are continuously in the ring against very good fighters. That's just the nature of the sport, and it's a reflection on how, as the old saying goes, 'styles make fights'.

As for Hopkins, I really don't think he'd have been exceptional in a strong middleweight era. Sacrilege, I know, but his legacy is built around his achievements as an old man rather than his ability at his prime.

That is another thing, the norm amongst the listed fighters above is well over 100 fight careers, 120, 150, some well over 200. Of course they're going to take losses when fighting that frequently against such strong opposition.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by Vysotsky

That is another thing, the norm amongst the listed fighters above is well over 100 fight careers, 120, 150, some well over 200. Of course they're going to take losses when fighting that frequently against such strong opposition.

Absolutely. If Usain Bolt races 5 times a year, he can perfect his training to fit in with his scheduled races, meaning he never competes in anything but tip-top shape. If he races 50 times a year though, there are going to be days when he has slight strains or he's competing with illness, or he's generally fatigued from over competing, or many other things. This is running too, a sport which has nothing like the intricacies and technical variation of boxing, and yet if Bolt was far more active, he wouldn't dominate with the success percentage he has now.

Mayweather fights once a year and that means he never steps into the ring in anything but perfect shape. In 1938, Henry Armstrong fought 14 times, against excellent opponents too. 14 fights ago for Mayweather was in 2003. Fighting so frequently will mean lesser performances, and therefore more wins, and on the other hand, fighting so infrequently means that a fighter is more likely to maintain a period of dominance.

Frequency of fights should be taken into account when judging a boxers legacy. Even ATGs will slip up when constantly in the ring, so I think it's wrong to judge two losses the same, when one guy is in his 8th fight that year, and the other fighters loss is in his second fight in three years.

[Vysotsky]

Originally Posted by Jack

Absolutely. If Usain Bolt races 5 times a year, he can perfect his training to fit in with his scheduled races, meaning he never competes in anything but tip-top shape. If he races 50 times a year though, there are going to be days when he has slight strains or he's competing with illness, or he's generally fatigued from over competing, or many other things. This is running too, a sport which has nothing like the intricacies and technical variation of boxing, and yet if Bolt was far more active, he wouldn't dominate with the success percentage he has now.

Mayweather fights once a year and that means he never steps into the ring in anything but perfect shape. In 1938, Henry Armstrong fought 14 times, against excellent opponents too. 14 fights ago for Mayweather was in 2003. Fighting so frequently will mean lesser performances, and therefore more wins, and on the other hand, fighting so infrequently means that a fighter is more likely to maintain a period of dominance.

Frequency of fights should be taken into account when judging a boxers legacy. Even ATGs will slip up when constantly in the ring, so I think it's wrong to judge two losses the same, when one guy is in his 8th fight that year, and the other fighters loss is in his second fight in three years.

The immortal Harry Greb for example going 45-0 in the year 1919 alone which included wins over :

Bill Brennan top HW contender............ 4 times
Battling Levinsky future LHW Champ.... 4 times
Mike Mctigue future LHW Champion
Mike Gibbons ATG MW
Bill Miske top HW contender
Meehan HW contender
Jeff Smith Awesome MW
Zulu Kid
Leo Houck ....3 times
Soldier Bartfield

[burt bienstock]

Originally Posted by Vysotsky

The strongest Middleweight era going by any 10 year period is 1932-1942 in my opinion. Look at the sheer depth of elite and quality Middleweights amongst these 41 names.

Billy Conn
Freddie Steele
Teddy Yarosz
Holman Williams
Charly Burley
Ezzard Charles
Fred Apostoli
Ken Overlin
Lloyd Marshall
Archie Moore
Tony Zale
Mickey Walker * tail end
Georgie Abrams
Eddie Booker
Billy Soose
Al Hostak
Young Corbett III
Ceferino Garcia
Solly Kreiger
Babe Risko
Vince Dundee
Marcel Thil
Kid Tunero
Cocoa Kid
Jack Chase
Aaron Wade
Erich Seelig
Jock McAvoy

Other notables : Shorty Hogue, Chmielewski, Belloise, Kid Azteca, Brown, Henneberry, Christoforidis, DeJohn, Brouillard, Bolden, Balsamo, Matthews, Gorilla Jones

I have three questions for the Classic

1) If you disagree and think another era was stronger please name the 10 year period, list the boxers so we can compare and state your case.

2) Do you think that the consensus Top 4 ATG Middleweights in Greb, Robinson, Monzon, Hagler would be able to establish a long reign during the years 1932-1942?

3) Reevaluating Boxing Dogma

Virtually none of the Boxers from the 1930's era are routinely listed in Middleweight ATG Top 10 lists, almost all of them are criminally underrated and most shamefully the majority are forgotten and unknown. The biggest reason for this is probably due to their lack of a dominant long Championship reign and holding that against these fighters when looking at the incomprehensible depth of elite talent is utterly irrational and unjustifiable.

When ranking a divisions all time greatest fighters a long reign seems to be the single most significant factor in securing a high rating whether intentional or not. Often times when justifying the high ranking of someone like Hopkins or Monzon it is said that a boxer cannot control which era they fight in and therefore reigning during a weak era should not be held against them, a sentiment that i agree with. BUT at the same time a excellent boxer who fights in a talent rich division like the 1930's cannot choose either and being unable to establish dominance in such an era should not be held against them in the same way.

Looking at a boxers signature wins should be given just as much significance, if not more, than the length of time they reigned. Our examples :

Teddy Yarosz - Archie Moore, Conn (arguably all 3), Overlin, Marshall, Kreiger, Risko, Dundee x3 , Gainer, Latzo, Brouillard

Freddie Steele - Apostoli, Overlin, Garcia x2, Dundee, Lesnevich, Risko x3, Kreiger, Bandit Romero, Gorilla Jones x2, Matthews

Ken Overlin - Ezzard Charles, Apostoli, Hostak, Garcia, Seelig, Belloise, Balsamo, Matthews

Fred Apostoli - Steele, Thil, Corbett, Risko, Kreiger x2, Bettina, Abrams, Brouillard

vs

Hagler - Hearns, Duran, Roldan, Antuofermo, Sibson, Brisco, Mugabi

Monzon - Benvenuti x2, Griffith, Napoles, Valdez x2, Brisco, Licata

Hopkins - De La Hoya, Johnson, Trinidad, JD Jackson, Joppy, Allen, Mercado, Holmes

Apostoli who probably has the weakest resume from the 1930 examples is arguably stronger than Monzon or Hagler's while the depth and quality of wins on Yarosz and Steele's completely dwarf all three of the long reigning Champions signature wins. RING magazine recently released their Top 10 ATG Middleweight list and Sturm and Abraham were included due to their number of defenses and length of reign. Taken to the extreme this is the type of illogic and absurdity that placing such an emphasis on those factors can spawn.

The question is do you think the boxing community needs a paradigm shift with its ranking dogma and would that enable the legacy and ratings of boxers to be evaluated more accurately?

Great list V of as powerful 10 year MW period [1932-1942] as we most likely ever had.
You ask the question would a Harry Greb, Robinson ,Monzon, Hagler rule long against the likes of these guys ? Who can tell ?
But these words from the terrific MW Ken Overlin who was called the "poor man's Harry Greb ",because of his whirlwind style. "We are just a bunch of bums alongside Harry Greb,and the other oldtimers. I think Harry could lick me and my contenders in the same ring the same night with no rest in between ". Pretty heady words about the one and only Harry Greb !

[Surf-Bat]

1909-1919
Harry Greb
Stanley Ketchel
Sam Langford
Mike Gibbons
Jack Dillon
Les Darcy
Frank Klaus
Billy Papke
Tommy Gibbons
Jeff Smith
Jimmy Clabby
Georges Carpentier
Eddie McGoorty
Mike O'Dowd
George Chip
Leo Houck
Mike McTigue

Tiger Flowers was fighting by 1919 as well, but was a bit of a neophyte at that time.

[Vysotsky]

Originally Posted by Surf-Bat

1909-1919
Harry Greb
Stanley Ketchel
Sam Langford
Mike Gibbons
Jack Dillon
Les Darcy
Frank Klaus
Billy Papke
Tommy Gibbons
Jeff Smith
Jimmy Clabby
Georges Carpentier
Eddie McGoorty
Mike O'Dowd
George Chip
Leo Houck
Mike McTigue

Tiger Flowers was fighting by 1919 as well, but was a bit of a neophyte at that time.

Due to my 3 questions and the increased length of the post i didn't include my list of what i consider the 2nd strongest era, 1915-1925. They overlap and by going 1909-1919 you get to include Ketchel, Papke, Langford, Klaus, Darcy but leave out guys like Walker, Loughren, Flowers. After a bit of a review it think your 1909-1919 era is a better decade to go by.

1915-25

Greb
Mike Gibbons
O'Dowd
Walker
Tommy Gibbons
Loughren
Chip
Flowers
Mctigue
Smith
McGoorty
Bartfield (Greb, Gibbons, Lewis 2-2-2)
Houck
Wilson
Battling Ortega


Comparing 1909-1919 to 1932-42 is difficult. If you take the top 5-8 boxers from each era the teens is slightly more elite imo but the 1930's top 5-8 isn't much less and still has over twice the depth with hardly any drop off in quality for over 30 boxers. Depends what you value more i suppose, i wouldn't argue with anyone chosing the teens.

[thistle1]

Originally Posted by Vysotsky

The strongest Middleweight era going by any 10 year period is 1932-1942 in my opinion. Look at the sheer depth of elite and quality Middleweights amongst these 41 names then answer my three question below.

Billy Conn
Freddie Steele
Teddy Yarosz
Holman Williams
Charly Burley
Ezzard Charles
Fred Apostoli
Ken Overlin
Lloyd Marshall
Archie Moore
Tony Zale
Mickey Walker * tail end
Georgie Abrams
Eddie Booker
Billy Soose
Al Hostak
Young Corbett III
Ceferino Garcia
Solly Kreiger
Babe Risko
Vince Dundee
Marcel Thil
Kid Tunero
Cocoa Kid
Jack Chase
Aaron Wade
Erich Seelig
Jock McAvoy

Other notables : Shorty Hogue, Chmielewski, Belloise, Kid Azteca, Brown, Henneberry, Christoforidis, DeJohn, Brouillard, Bolden, Balsamo, Matthews, Gorilla Jones

I have three questions for the Classic

1) If you disagree and think another era was stronger please name the 10 year period, list the boxers so we can compare and state your case.

2) Do you think that the consensus Top 4 ATG Middleweights in Greb, Robinson, Monzon, Hagler would be able to establish a long reign during the years 1932-1942?

3) Reevaluating Boxing Dogma

Virtually none of the Boxers from the 1930's era are routinely listed in Middleweight ATG Top 10 lists, almost all of them are criminally underrated and most shamefully the majority are forgotten and unknown. The biggest reason for this is probably due to their lack of a dominant long Championship reign and holding that against these fighters when looking at the incomprehensible depth of elite talent is utterly irrational and unjustifiable.

When ranking a divisions all time greatest fighters a long reign seems to be the single most significant factor in securing a high rating whether intentional or not. Often times when justifying the high ranking of someone like Hopkins or Monzon it is said that a boxer cannot control which era they fight in and therefore reigning during a weak era should not be held against them, a sentiment that i agree with. BUT at the same time a excellent boxer who fights in a talent rich division like the 1930's cannot choose either and being unable to establish dominance in such an era should not be held against them in the same way.

Looking at a boxers signature wins should be given just as much significance, if not more, than the length of time they reigned. Our examples :

Teddy Yarosz - Archie Moore, Conn (arguably all 3), Overlin, Marshall, Kreiger, Risko, Dundee x3 , Gainer, Latzo, Brouillard

Freddie Steele - Apostoli, Overlin, Garcia x2, Dundee, Lesnevich, Risko x3, Kreiger, Bandit Romero, Gorilla Jones x2, Matthews

Ken Overlin - Ezzard Charles, Apostoli, Hostak, Garcia, Seelig, Belloise, Balsamo, Matthews

Fred Apostoli - Steele, Thil, Corbett, Risko, Kreiger x2, Bettina, Abrams, Brouillard

vs

Hagler - Hearns, Duran, Roldan, Antuofermo, Sibson, Brisco, Mugabi

Monzon - Benvenuti x2, Griffith, Napoles, Valdez x2, Brisco, Licata

Hopkins - De La Hoya, Johnson, Trinidad, JD Jackson, Joppy, Allen, Mercado, Holmes

Apostoli who probably has the weakest resume from the 1930 examples is arguably stronger than Monzon or Hagler's while the depth and quality of wins on Yarosz and Steele's completely dwarf all three of the long reigning Champions signature wins. RING magazine recently released their Top 10 ATG Middleweight list with Sturm and Abraham included due to their number of defenses and length of reign. Taken to the extreme this is the type of illogic and absurdity that placing such an emphasis on those factors can spawn.

The question is do you think the boxing community needs a paradigm shift with its ranking dogma and would that enable the legacy and ratings of boxers to be evaluated more accurately?

even removing the four I've highlighted (was'nt Wade a L-HW?) still the Greatest Era and I few more yet in Ron Richards, Ginger Sadd, Bert Gilroy as well as others I'm sure, Glen Lee was one. Just the greatest time for Boxing in general, ALL weights.

and the part I've italized PERFECT analyses, rating fighters should be ERA's first, followed by COMP - Wins and Losses too can be considered in close or robbed decisions, and Longeviety against such comp & factors.

it's the ONLY way as far as I'm concerned.

[Surf-Bat]

I won't disagree. But the era I just named has quite a bit of depth too:

Jack Twin Sullivan
Johnny Wilson
Buck Crouse
Gus Christie
Augie Ratner
Jack McCarron
Bob Moha
Joe Borrell
Jimmy Gardner
Willie Lewis
Bryan Downey

Lou Bogash and Jock Malone were fighting as well, but I'm pretty sure they were at welter pre-1920. Either way, that's a rugged buncha dudes