Mike Caseys rankings

He lives in FOLKESTONE.

 

Which illustrates what respect is worth.

 

Hagler at #15 is inexcusable, but I will say Mr. Casey is a very gifted writer.

Everyone has their own career for rankings. Since he does not post here we can only speculate as to why.

My guess? Tunney at #6 can only be that high for someone else who thinks that Dempsey was #1 or #2.

Gerb at #1 for middleweight is fine, and Tunney got the better of him in the series and wanted a 6th fight / Greb said no way to a 6th fight, you're too big and good now. Something like that.

 

He's probably a bit too young for me.lol

 

What a load of geezer horsesh*t.

Gene Tunney fought one lameduck heavy champ and then ex-champ 20 rounds in his entire career. Outside of that, his heavyweight career is ZERO.... yet he ranks levels higher than Lewis who fought 225 rounds at heavyweight, almost a third of which were conducted against current, former or future champs. His list of non champs he fought include the likes of Morrison, Mercer, Mason, Ruddock, Golota, Tua.. dangerous types all.

The only rationalization I can imagine being offered for these rankings is that Dempsey was such a Godhead of such unfathomable abilities and skill that even beating an aged, depleted version of him counts for more than wiping clean an entire decade and a half of the division during one of its few hot eras.

 

Casey is an absolutely outstanding boxing writer, though he has a couple of blind spots.

 

Tunney had 8 fights at heavyweight.Casey is I believe, heavily influenced by his fellow historian Mike Hunnicut and also by Ray Arcel,and Gene Tunney's opinion of Dempsey.

 

This. He's not a historian.

 

I think the title is subjective.What qualifies someone as an "historian ? "
From CBZ
"Mike Casey is a freelance journalist, author, former editor, and boxing historian who has contributed to numerous trade and consumer titles in his 30-year career. He is a former contributor to the oldest boxing weekly, "Boxing News," and has also contributed to many other boxing publications and websites.

A former editor with the Daily Mail Business Group in the UK, Mike is a member of the International Boxing Research Organization (IBRO) and an auxiliary member of the Boxing Writers Association of America. He owns an extensive collection of boxing magazines, photographs, memorabilia, and films and comes from a boxing family. He was born in Woolwich, South-East London, and lives at Romney Marsh in Kent.

Mike edits his own historical website, The Grand Slam Premium Boxing Service.

He also writes on many other subjects and is a PR and media-relations consultant with numerous agencies.

He can be contacted by fellow writers and historians at

This content is protected

"

 

He's a media historian, and a darn good one at that.

 

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that when i last looked on boxrec i was surprised that tunney actually fought quite a few more than 8 Heavyweights. Also, i dont think lack of fights necessarilly disqualifies someone from a hight rating. Where would GGG rate if it was he (instead of Tyson Fury) who beat Wlad Klitchsko twice including once after Wlad had knocked out the top rated young contender (say a prime Tyson Fury?) And he then went on to beat the number one contender say Deontay Wilder or perhaps Joseph parker. And then he retired and stay "Retired". That alone shows his ring smarts and should raise him a few pegs.

 

I usually rate Hagler at 3.

But too many people think there is far too much certainty in rankings, when the reality is that they completely underestimate some of the great fightes of yesteryear. Particularly in the middleweight division.

Of the 14 fighters listed above Hagler, every single one of them would have every chance of beating Hagler regardless of whether or not they started favourite. Some would probably start favourite, even on a survey of this site (perhaps even a survey of guys saying this is indefensible). Most, if not all would be pick em fights and would almost certainly split series with hagler, depending on how many times they fought.

All would probably start favourites against every single fighter Hagler ever beat.

If Hagler has a bad night against any of those above him, he probably loses the fight.

Pesonally, i think the Tunney rating is harder to Justify than the Hagler rating. In fact, i think there is probably a decent argument that Ryan should force him down to 16! If Hagler cant beat Sugar Ray Leonard, you would expect he might struggle with Ryan who was arguably a better welterweight and was far more proven at middleweight.