Ring Maginzes Top 10 Greatest Middleweights

No 2 to 6 are fine, though in different order, ,the number 1 is much too high ,[he would be outside my top 10,] and 7,8,9 10 don't belong anywhere near there.imo.

 

Was this trolling by the ring? Hopkins at 1? Felix sturm? Arthur abraham?!

 

I didn't read all of it, but I read the parts about Abraham and Sturm, who right away I don't feel belong here.
To me, there is something so wrong about having Robinson just one place in front of Sturm.

I think this is where, to me at least, impressive numbers don't mean much at all. Statistics can be extremely misleading and can create a false picture.

I'm not saying the likes of Abraham and Sturm are bad fighters, far from it, but to carry on about the number of title defences, length of reign etc. all needs to be taken into context.

In this day and age, a well-managed boxer who looks after himself can go on a lengthly run if the competititon is not there to really test him. I don't think that today, boxing is the sport it was back when you had eight divisions and one champ.
It stands to reason the competition was much fiercer then.

To me, greatness is not about impressive numbers. Never was.

 

Sorry, I'll pass on this one.

 

Sturm and Abraham? Absurd! Wow.

Where were the Briscoes on Hopkins' resume? William Joppy or Antwun Echols hardly compare.

 

Sumbu Kalambay's run is streets and streets ahead of any bloody Felix Sturm or Arthur bloody Abraham

 

THIS is why you can't Rate fighters accurately and honestly!

there are a hundred names 'left out' who could arguably make a proper Top 10 and there are a couple of hundred who could fit the bill as World's Greatest Middleweights.

These lists have always done 1 of 2 things,
1) they have allowed people to believe that such fighters are much better than others and
2) that dozens & dozens of True Great fighters get pushed aside, no longer or never considered.

I believe there IS/might be an Elite bunch say 10 - 20,
But all the rest LIGIT TOP fighters aren't very far behind and in and around Par with each other. There are Hundreds of Greats and to exclude them insults them & boxing.

As I've said before it's more accurate to think of True Top fighters, as Great & AMONG the Best!!!

 

I agree with you.
All this list-making convinces people that among the great fighters there exists so many "degrees" or "levels". It simply doesn't exist.

That's a reason - if there is to be lists at all - I prefer to see lots of vastly different lists, rather than this fabricated "consensus" of top 10 greats.

... Or at least some acknowledgement that these lists are really about ordering "favourites", whether personal favourites or popular favourites or favourites of the 'boxing history commnunity'.

Some people seem to believe these lists represent some sort of 'reality of greatness', but they don't.

 

Wow, Lamotta and Tiger have much more reason to be on that list then Strum and Abraham...and wtf is up wit B-Hop at number 1?

 

@ Sturm and Abraham

 

Agreed.

 

going by the individuals criteria, presumably of number of defenses, longevity and pure statistics you could argue that list. i was thinking last night oddly how on paper, sturm looks impressive. 3 reigns, a decent number of defenses, etc. how will furture generations view him.

on this (faulty imo) criteria without context...the list makes some sense