You guys that are dissing GGG being a top Middleweight are the same guys that worship that Ginger headed, ped's abusing, cherry pickin', anointed one of Vegas & call him P4P #1 & ATG ? ROFL!! Ginger has NEVER Legitimately beaten GGG he knows that himself. So really GGG is still the Undefeated Unified World Middleweight Champ today. While Ginger is a pampered Diva
Oh shoot, I didn't realize I was creating a war in the comment section so apologies on that. About the list, I pretty much agree with McGrain's old list of the 50 Middleweights but I would add a few names here or there like Ezzard Charles instead of Jermain Taylor and I would add Sam Langford around the Top 20. This is just my personal opinion. I have no qualms with anyone else having GGG much higher.
I think you took the wrong turn somewhere. This is Classic. Go back the way you came to get to General.
It is absolutely fair to say GGG would be handful for anyone at MW, and that's almost certainly true. Like Vitali Klitschko at HW, or Rocky Marciano at super-middleweight, these are fighters who have unquestionably got the goods in these weight classes but never delivered on them to the degree where they could make any kind of bid for a top-five legacy type. GGG bagged a swarm of ranked guys - an unusual amount - and i've probably been guilty of underrating his legacy in the past but he is nowhere near top five in this sense. It's impossible.
HOW in the name of GOD do people keep doing this kind of thing... so because of some sort of crazy way of Grading or Ranking Fighters, which changes every moment, we are supposed to accept that Triple G and others are the GREATEST 5, 10, 25 or whatever greatest Middleweight or whatever weight your talking about or in the case of ALLTIME, these 'Proposed' fighters are the Greatest EVER. How the hell can anybody take such lists or grading methods seriously??? I'll answer - NO!!! 150 Years of Boxing Hundreds of Great Middleweight - THOUSANDS of Great Fighters, but these absolutely stupid 'greatests' lists are to be taken serious. Why do some people keep these kind of things going... take Hagler alone and His Contemporaries, you'll find a couple of Dozen of the WORLD's TOP Middleweights who could have beaten GGG or gave him a good run at it, and that is only a 10 year period in History - 5 years either side of Hagler's Peak. Respectfully Guys, I don't get this, I don't understand How & Why people keep suggesting such things... Enlighten me on HOW this possibly works. Seriously.
Sorry mate but i am gonna come out and say no way in heaven is there a couple of dozen middleweights in Hagler's era that could have beaten GGG or run him close. That's 24 fighters. GGG is no-where near that bad.
I DON'T Say he is 'bad' or there are literally 24 MW's who would beat him or run him a good one. It IS A GENERALIZATION, the truth is it could be less, but it might also be more... my point was HOW do these Lists or Grading Methods even make sense, I HONESTLY Don't understand them, seriously. in ALL of Boxing, we are supposed to think that Triple G is among the TOP 5 Middleweights of Alltime... absolutely not!
Look buddy, most of this banter is very light hearted, no need to apologize , your opinion is as good or bad as the guy. keep well.
OK. Well the question was asked per top 5 and obviously just about everyone laughed it off. If it was Hagler or Monzon virtually everyone would have said yes.
I've just NEVER Understood such lists, you've got Hundreds of fighters to choose from in ALL Weights over 150 Years... so as I have said repeatedly, Lists would be at least more objective, if broken down by Eras first, then Leading Boxing Nations - Champions & Contenders, multiple weight jumpers who compete respectfully - strengthens their natural weight prowess, Lineal Titles and Contention, Alphabet Titles, Champs & Contenders Ruled IN or OUT and all such factors. though it would still be IMPOSSIBLE to be 100% accurate, it would most certainly be an All Inclusive more Acceptable Grading Standard to TRY and List Fighters.
Well you certainly vented your spleen on that subject buddy, a tad on the rambling side at times , but we get your gest , as to the GOAT and the top 5 or 10 or what ever, allow me to try and throw some light and perspective on the reasoning and thought process that precedes this outcome. You say there is " some sort of crazy " way of grading / ranking the fighters that are often included in such list's, and you say they should not be taken seriously ! Well I cannot vouch for the other posters, but I have a sort of system where by I evaluate a said fighter, his fight record, his opponents, length of his reign, etc, then I look at, or maybe think about all the other fighters in that division over the decades, and then try to imagine a fight between the two, and hopefully there is an outcome, then repeat with other fighters in that weight class, and I usually ( not always ) arrive at a winner. Let me give you an example, then maybe you can pick a quiet time at home and try this system yourself ? So for my test case I am going to use a MW named Sugar Ray Robinson, or more user friendly SRR, and I have pitted him against Vito Antourfermo, not sure about you ? but I would pick SRR to win , then I would pit him against another MW from maybe another era, say Babe Risko, and again I give some thought on who would win ( in this case, strangely enough its SRR again ) so can you see a pattern forming ? you don't have to use only MW you could for example use WWs,, and pick a fighter like Henry Armstrong and put him up against say, Billy Backus, now I would have Armstrong winning that encounter, and I would then repeat with another WW , and so on. Also you can chose any weight you desire, and any fighters you want, it really is a interesting and topical exercise , which I am sure many other posters employ when rating fighters Tutorial over for today, and I hope my input has made the topic of ranking and rating fighters less opaque. Keep well.
