The ATG middleweights

Fair enough

 

The thing is Bodhi you always pick up on the 'Hopkins wasnt prime' and never do the same for Monzons wins over Griffith, Napoles, Benvenuti all of which were coming off recent losses, something Hops wouldnt suffer for 12more years, a loss you yourself thought was unjust

 

Benvenuti was what 32? Coming off 2 losses in 18months prior and would never win again

I wouldnt dispute Griffith or Benvenuti were good wins, they are but clearly not close to prime.

Wait do you rate the Napoles or Duran win higher, because I thought we had a long argument about that 1?

 

I think Hopkins is at best borderline top 10. At 160, he lost twice to Taylor, drew with Mercado and lost to Jones, Jr. His best victories are John David Jackson, an overweight Trinidad, a used up Joppy and a completely out of his depth DLH. Add a shot, and again out of his weight class Brown, a very green and untested Glen Johnson and a kind of neverwas in Keith Holmes. The number of these victories is impressive and does count but in each case there was some clever match-making involved. I'm on the fence on this one.

 

I do that a lot myself :thumbsup

I'm curious as to which areas you feel that Frank Klaus is lacking. That's interesting to me as I feel he had a pretty solid career against some outstanding opposition.

Speaking of which- Teddy Yarosz:good. Beat Lloyd Marshall and Archie Moore(feats that should already put him high on any list, imho) as well as Billy Conn(and lost controversially to him), Ken Overlin(twice), Vince Dundee(three-zip), Lou Brouillard, Solly Krieger, Al Gainer, Nate Bolden, Babe Risko, Ben Jeby and too many top 10 middleweights to name.

 

Jones shouldn't even be up for discussion here. Vaca, Castro, Hopkins and Tate are solid wins but definitely no where close to a ATG middleweight resume.

As for H2H at middleweight for sure Jones rates up there highly.

 

Jeff Clark should probably be on any list of great middleweights.

He is the middleweight Sam Langford.

 

Be honest bodhi, you sat there thinking of an obscure way to bag on Jones Jr and this elaborate plan is what you came up with. I think you seriously need some councelling with this beef you have with charisma, popularity and personality.

Cheer up you miserable *******. You are seriously the worst case of sociopathy i have ever come across. Everytime i read one of your posts on here and think about what you're actually saying on an emotional level, it makes me think you might be a serial killer.

 

Monzon fought mostly in an era of 1 belt. He ducked no one. Hopkins found a way to avoid McCallum, Collins, R. Johnson, Julian Jackson, Gerald McClellan, James Toney.... Now, I don't expect he could have fought ALL of these but victories at 160 over someone better than JDJ might help his case.

 

Well, "achievements" and "dominance" are relative terms moreso in boxing than probably any other sport. For instance, it's easier to "achieve" on paper more today than it was back in the day because there are more weight divisions and belts, thus more titles and "championships" floating around that appear to carry a lot of glitter but in some instances(not all) are cheap achievements. At least when compared to what fighters in the past had to face.

What if say, I beat up your grandmother 10 times, won a few grand for doing so and in one of those victories even copped the Bodhi world backyard championship belt that someone made up. Conversely, you had to fight my older brother(who is a very large guy, aggressive and a hell of a fighter) 10 times for peanuts. You won 6 bouts, but lost 4. And nobody had a belt they made up to give you after any of your wins. On paper it looks like my "dominance" and "achievements" far outstrip yours, don't they? At least to the uninformed they do. Because I'm 10-0 with 10 knockouts and the backyard champion of the world. You're 6-4 with 2 knockouts and without a belt. An extreme example yes, but I think you read me here.

Another example. The light heavyweight division that Virgil Hill dominated was far less heavy than the one John Henry Lewis or Archie Moore did. But he reigned longer and had more title defenses than both of them, right? Ergo, his achievements and dominance outstrip those of Archie and JHL. Tommy Burns had ELEVEN title defenses.....Sonny Liston had one. Which guy do you rate higher?

Anyway, I hope I'm being clear and not too left-fieldy.

Getting to Teddy Yarosz, I definitely rank him above Bernard Hopkins and Tony Zale. He had many more tough fights against better fighters than both and beat them in most instances. He was a dominant force in the division for many many years; an ironman who was stopped only once in 128 bouts and then only because he'd fractured his kneecap. Ray Arcel had nothing but the highest praise for him.

Just my 3 cents:good

 

????? :huh