boxing
Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-17-2013, 04:52 AM   #16
Surf-Bat
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,242
vCash: 500
Default Re: The Strongest Middleweigt Era and Reevaluating Boxing Dogma

Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle1 View Post
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 ****yses, 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.
Aaron Wade was definitely a middleweight. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Surf-Bat is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-17-2013, 06:44 AM   #17
Vysotsky
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,409
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The Strongest Middleweigt Era and Reevaluating Boxing Dogma

Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle1 View Post
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 ****yses, 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.
The boxers you highlited all fought at MW during the following years and faced a substantial amount of the MW's from that era

Marshall 1936-42
Moore 1935-44
Charles 1940-42 (faced Burley, Tunero, Yarosz, Overlin, Basora, Christoforidis)
Conn only 1936-1937 but during those 2 years at MW he beat Yarosz x2 (arguably only once), Risko, Corbett, Dundee, Zivic, Chong 2x and in 1938 beat Kreiger 2x and Seelig at SMW

Yeah you should see my all time MW rankings most peoples heads would explode but they're based on alot of the factors you mentioned and are completely justifiable.
Vysotsky is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 06:49 AM   #18
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,926
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The Strongest Middleweigt Era and Reevaluating Boxing Dogma

You make a strong argument.

My only counter observation would be that some of the name fighters listed, were passing through the division en route to establishing their main body of work at light heavy.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 07:14 AM   #19
thistle1
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,207
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The Strongest Middleweigt Era and Reevaluating Boxing Dogma

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vysotsky View Post
The boxers you highlited all fought at MW during the following years and faced a substantial amount of the MW's from that era

Marshall 1936-42
Moore 1935-44
Charles 1940-42 (faced Burley, Tunero, Yarosz, Overlin, Basora, Christoforidis)
Conn only 1936-1937 but during those 2 years at MW he beat Yarosz x2 (arguably only once), Risko, Corbett, Dundee, Zivic, Chong 2x and in 1938 beat Kreiger 2x and Seelig at SMW

Yeah you should see my all time MW rankings most peoples heads would explode but they're based on alot of the factors you mentioned and are completely justifiable.
yeah those fighters fought at MW and so did Len Harvey with tremendous credentials, but I rate those types at the next division as they were merely passing through as 'young' fighters and leveled off in this case at L-HW. Their wins are still valid though as are their wins and defeats at HW equally and more so give validity to their overall ranking at L-HW. You see what I mean, fighters should really only be rated at their one true weight with the other divisions as I said adding to their excellence.

I'd love to see your list, it's nice to see someone not being mislead by todays hype and achievements alone thinking when the truth is most of the type of fighters you mention are blatantly better than the ones you set them against for examples. They deserve that honest breakdown, ALL fighters do and it also paints a more accurate understanding of Boxing History and puts fighters in more accurate placements respectfully.

and keeping in mind too, the differences at the TOP are in most cases minimal, there are hundreds of great fighters hundreds.
thistle1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 12:17 PM   #20
Colonel Sanders
NSB defector
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,748
vCash: 500
Default Re: The Strongest Middleweigt Era and Reevaluating Boxing Dogma

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vysotsky View Post

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?
[/color][/font]

[/font][/color]
very important word here

and you picked 10 wins for the first 2 fighters of the tirthies, than 8 for the other 2, while you picked 7, 6 and 8 for the other crop

I would add to their ledger :

Monzon = Bouttier X2
Hagler = Hamsho, Minter
Hopkins = Echols, Eastman

Also, it seems to me you focus on the names, and not really on the quality of the wins at the time they were scored. How significant were Yarosz and Steele wins at the time they were scored ? I can't answer that question without making some research. But it seems to me this factor may have been overlooked here.

Hagler didn't beat the best, prime version of Brisoe. For that reason, I would put his Hamsho wins over his Brisoe win, even though Briscoe is the better fighter prime for prime.


***I do agree with the point of this thread though. Long championship reigns are kinda overated.

Last edited by Colonel Sanders; 02-17-2013 at 12:28 PM.
Colonel Sanders is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 12:55 PM   #21
PowerPuncher
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,726
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The Strongest Middleweigt Era and Reevaluating Boxing Dogma

The best era imo is the late 80s-early 90s, with:

Roy Jones
Toney
McCallum
Kalambay
Hopkins
Benn
Eubank
Michael Watson
McClellan
Nunn
Herol Graham
Reggie Johnson
Steve Collins
Barkley
Leonard
Hearns
Julian Jackson
Duran

You may argue Hopkins, Leonard, Hearns and Duran were not at their best in this period ofcourse
PowerPuncher is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 12:56 PM   #22
lora
Fighting Zapata
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,657
vCash: 500
Default Re: The Strongest Middleweigt Era and Reevaluating Boxing Dogma

Middleweight's been sadly poor since 1995.
lora is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 01:01 PM   #23
Colonel Sanders
NSB defector
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,748
vCash: 500
Default Re: The Strongest Middleweigt Era and Reevaluating Boxing Dogma

Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerPuncher View Post
The best era imo is the late 80s-early 90s, with:

Roy Jones
Toney
McCallum
Kalambay
Hopkins
Benn
Eubank
Michael Watson
McClellan
Nunn
Herol Graham
Reggie Johnson
Steve Collins
Barkley
Leonard
Hearns
Julian Jackson
Duran

You may argue Hopkins, Leonard, Hearns and Duran were not at their best in this period ofcourse
nah
Colonel Sanders is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 02:00 PM   #24
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 23,048
vCash: 75
Default Re: The Strongest Middleweigt Era and Reevaluating Boxing Dogma

Its a good post and fairly well rounded.

1) I can't post my list from phone but I know that in my top 25 or whatever the following are featured.


Freddie Steele
Holman Williams
Charly Burley
Fred Apostoli
Ken Overlin
Lloyd Marshall
Tony Zale
Mickey Walker
Marcel Thil

And the following feature in lists from other divisions.


Billy Conn
Ezzard Charles
Archie Moore
Georgie Abrams
Cocoa Kid

So it is a ridiculously strong era and I reckon I agree with you ranking it so highly.

2) I think an artificially long reign could be had due to the war years (if they fall in this time frame, I can't remember the specific years) in terms of a dominant reign though I think Hagler could manage it as I wouldn't pick many mw's to beat him and he he came through a tough schedule himself. Robinson would be a favourite over everyone on the list but as a mw he wasn't very consistent and in his prime he was a welter so a tough schedule at a higher weight could see him falter at points. Monzon was very consistent and again I think he could replicate his success in almost any era. Greb I can't say as I haven't seen his fights.

3) I rank on a tier system. I give resume and achievement an equal rating so even though these guys have top class resumes it is difficult to measure the worth of their achievements but that definitely holds a lot of those back. Within my tier I split on h2h based first on fight results and second on the eye test.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 07:09 PM   #25
gentleman jim
gentleman jim
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 715
vCash: 500
Default Re: The Strongest Middleweigt Era and Reevaluating Boxing Dogma

Excellent posts. Makes me rethink my take on the greatest MWs of all time. Growing up in the 70's and 80's I was convinced that Hagler was the greatest MW of all time. Learning more about the greats who proceeded him made me change my thinking a bit. I still regard Hagler as top 5 in the MW hierarchy but not necessarily #1...Though that changes with the weather of course. I would like to ask Burt for his top ten MW champs of all time just to see if they match my own picks...I tend to rate fighters on a H2H basis but would like to see a more experienced fan's opinion. If you don't mind Burt.
gentleman jim is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 11:49 PM   #26
burt bienstock
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,993
vCash: 500
Default Re: The Strongest Middleweigt Era and Reevaluating Boxing Dogma

Quote:
Originally Posted by gentleman jim View Post
Excellent posts. Makes me rethink my take on the greatest MWs of all time. Growing up in the 70's and 80's I was convinced that Hagler was the greatest MW of all time. Learning more about the greats who proceeded him made me change my thinking a bit. I still regard Hagler as top 5 in the MW hierarchy but not necessarily #1...Though that changes with the weather of course. I would like to ask Burt for his top ten MW champs of all time just to see if they match my own picks...I tend to rate fighters on a H2H basis but would like to see a more experienced fan's opinion. If you don't mind Burt.
gj. as it is so difficult to choose one best MW champion H2H, to pick 10 best MWs is 10 times harder to do...But I will give it a shot.
Harry Greb- because of his almost surreal record of fighting almost every
12 days,and beating everyone regardless of size, style, colour in a 300 bout career, and the last 5 years with but one eye...Think how Greb would fare if he fought a little less and rested his wounds...He has to be #1.
Bob Fitz-a MW in a heavyweights body
Stanley Ketchel- only 2 film of him, Papke and Jack johnson ,but not 49 kos
Ray Robinson - greater as a WW, but the Robby who kod LaMotta was tops
Mickey Walker- a bulldog who Londeners said would beat Robinson
Freddie Steele- for 10 years almost unbeatable until breastbone injury
Charley Burley-an amazing fighter avoided during the 1940s
Les Darcy- a tragic young death age 22 .Might have been a super fighter ?
Carlos Monzon- great size for a MW.
Kid McCoy-tricky and shrewd. Beat LHs and heavies
Not necessarily in order..
P.S.I included 2 non-champs Darcy and Burley as they were special.
PPS. Of course Marvin Hagler, tough as nails and a southpaw to boot. By far best since Robinson, but never tackled LHs,which would have answered
many questions...Jim I know I have 11 names, but who do I leave out H2H.?
burt bienstock is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 06:06 AM   #27
thistle1
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,207
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The Strongest Middleweigt Era and Reevaluating Boxing Dogma

great list Burt, but 3 points here...

Fitz I would say was a L-HW
Monzon like ALL of todays fighters would have been fighting UP against the greats & great period before him, really a L-HW too.

and Freddie Steele, YES, but not before or without Jock McAvoy - it's blows my mind they never met and Mac too fought the big boys and did better against common opponents.

it's better to just list 50 or more of these guys because there were a ton of them and very little between them.
thistle1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 06:41 AM   #28
Vysotsky
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,409
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The Strongest Middleweigt Era and Reevaluating Boxing Dogma

Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle1 View Post
great list Burt, but 3 points here...

Fitz I would say was a L-HW
Monzon like ALL of todays fighters would have been fighting UP against the greats & great period before him, really a L-HW too.

and Freddie Steele, YES, but not before or without Jock McAvoy - it's blows my mind they never met and Mac too fought the big boys and did better against common opponents.

it's better to just list 50 or more of these guys because there were a ton of them and very little between them.
I agree its a shame they never fought but the only real common opponent they had at MW, certainly elite one, was Babe Risko. Am i missing a bunch or something?
Vysotsky is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 06:45 AM   #29
thistle1
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,207
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The Strongest Middleweigt Era and Reevaluating Boxing Dogma

No it's Risko but Steele fought him twice and McAvoy destroyed him as well as beat 4 other Americans including the Top L-HW cum HW contender Al McCoy who fought Loe Louis and Mac too competed with honour over the full 15 with the great JHL. these are great wins and fights to say nothing of his overall career.
thistle1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 06:53 AM   #30
Vysotsky
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,409
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The Strongest Middleweigt Era and Reevaluating Boxing Dogma

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Sanders View Post
very important word here

and you picked 10 wins for the first 2 fighters of the tirthies, than 8 for the other 2, while you picked 7, 6 and 8 for the other crop

I would add to their ledger :

Monzon = Bouttier X2
Hagler = Hamsho, Minter
Hopkins = Echols, Eastman

Also, it seems to me you focus on the names, and not really on the quality of the wins at the time they were scored. How significant were Yarosz and Steele wins at the time they were scored ? I can't answer that question without making some research. But it seems to me this factor may have been overlooked here.

Hagler didn't beat the best, prime version of Brisoe. For that reason, I would put his Hamsho wins over his Brisoe win, even though Briscoe is the better fighter prime for prime.


***I do agree with the point of this thread though. Long championship reigns are kinda overated.
I do factor in the quality and context of the wins when rating them and Steele and Yarosz's few losses do not diminish their achievements at all. Actually when comparing them to other ATG MW's it actually gives them an edge against some other ATG's.

I have done a in depth comparison with all of these factors for Steele vs Hopkins and when looking at them against eachother the disparity is actually quite shocking. I'll make a thread for it soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
Its a good post and fairly well rounded.

1) I can't post my list from phone but I know that in my top 25 or whatever the following are featured.


Freddie Steele
Holman Williams
Charly Burley
Fred Apostoli
Ken Overlin
Lloyd Marshall
Tony Zale
Mickey Walker
Marcel Thil

And the following feature in lists from other divisions.


Billy Conn
Ezzard Charles
Archie Moore
Georgie Abrams
Cocoa Kid

So it is a ridiculously strong era and I reckon I agree with you ranking it so highly.

2) I think an artificially long reign could be had due to the war years (if they fall in this time frame, I can't remember the specific years) in terms of a dominant reign though I think Hagler could manage it as I wouldn't pick many mw's to beat him and he he came through a tough schedule himself. Robinson would be a favourite over everyone on the list but as a mw he wasn't very consistent and in his prime he was a welter so a tough schedule at a higher weight could see him falter at points. Monzon was very consistent and again I think he could replicate his success in almost any era. Greb I can't say as I haven't seen his fights.

3) I rank on a tier system. I give resume and achievement an equal rating so even though these guys have top class resumes it is difficult to measure the worth of their achievements but that definitely holds a lot of those back. Within my tier I split on h2h based first on fight results and second on the eye test.
Resume vs achievements i'm not too sure what you mean by that and again if achievement essentialy means number of title defenses that can be an extremely meaningless thing at times. I would appreciate if you take a look at the Steele vs Hopkins comparison thread i will post soon and apply it to them after looking over all my information.
Vysotsky is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump






All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2015