***Best 15 middleweights H2H***

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Foreman Hook, Sep 14, 2010.


  1. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,067
    Mar 21, 2007
    I have very little doubt that Burley is as strong or stronger than Griffith. You can see him muscling Oakland Billy Smith who you can see muscling Archie Moore. Burley was freakishly strong IMO. Griffith is a strong ******* too though...you never know I guess.
     
  2. GPater11093

    GPater11093 Barry Full Member

    38,034
    91
    Nov 10, 2008
    I don't see many Welterweight/Middleweights outmuscling Griffith, including Basilio. LMR was very strong and Griffith out muscles him.
     
  3. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,067
    Mar 21, 2007

    He also matched (not muscled) Tiger for spells. I think, that the strongest man either of these fighters handled was Oakland Billy Smith, unless Burley also handled Turner, which I don't think he did.

    I agree with you that nobody out-muscles Griffith at welter though, I just don't see Griffith out-muscling Burley.
     
  4. GPater11093

    GPater11093 Barry Full Member

    38,034
    91
    Nov 10, 2008
    I would say Tiger is the strongest man either has faced. That guy was bullish strong.

    I do think, even if we assume Burley is as strong as Griffith, that Griffith would pressure and get inside, and do the better work inside.
     
  5. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,067
    Mar 21, 2007
    Burley exacts a heavy toll on anyone coming in with very very hard and accurate punches. I also see him in control of every single clinch he initiates on the film. Inside he did good work, but perhaps not as good as Griffith. He's even better balanced though. That does matter, and could be telling. We agree on the outcome here though, so you probably feel this way about a lot of this stuff too.


    Disagree about Tiger. I think that Tiger was likely not as strong as Archie Moore. I'm not saying Burley was but Moore certainly doesn't look stronger than Smith, who, in turn, doesn't look stronger than Burley (at least for the first 5 rounds).

    The bottom line is, Tiger didn't really muscle any light-heavies. Nor did Griffith. Weighing between 155 and 160lbs, we have film of Burley matching a fiercely strong LHW in this department.
     
  6. jaffay

    jaffay New Orleans Hornets Full Member

    3,980
    18
    Jun 24, 2007
    Charles was 20 years old when he licked great Burley twice in a row. I think that should makes him a top 3 on every list (h2h). In a short middleweight career he also beaten Jorge Basora (who beat LaMotta) and former MW champion Yarosh (both were above 160). I think that if he stayed at MW he would be #1 All time and even beat SRR - if he decides to fight Ez. But I'm not so sure that charles could keep below 160 for long. But those wins against Burley make him my #1 h2h at middleweight.
     
    George Crowcroft likes this.
  7. jaffay

    jaffay New Orleans Hornets Full Member

    3,980
    18
    Jun 24, 2007
    I see Hopkins high on many lists...could he beat Monzon, Hagler, SRR, SRL, Charles and other greats?
     
  8. itrymariti

    itrymariti Cañas! Full Member

    13,728
    47
    Sep 6, 2008
    Peak Basilio would have made Griffith his ***** at any weight.
     
  9. GPater11093

    GPater11093 Barry Full Member

    38,034
    91
    Nov 10, 2008
    I definitly agree with Burley exacting a toll on Griffith coming inside. I was thinking of the Archer fight and Burley will be landing much harder punches than Archer, but Griffith showed a good chin. I agree on Burley being good on the inside but Griffith is very impressive on the inside, one of the best I have seen at Welter/Middle. I will definitly need to re-watch the film of Burley soon.


    I will need to re-watch the film but purely at Middleweight Tiger is probably the strongest boxer I have seen at that weight. Also a lot of strength can be down to balance, foot placement and angling (not fishing but creating angles.)

    Smith to me looks strong but crude so Burley can create the illusion he is stronger by using the methods I listed above. Although I will need to re-watch the film to see if this is the case.

    Fair enough. I feel I have addressed these points above.

    One last thing, even if Burley is stronger I do still think Griffith has the upper hand in side, but chances are he could be stopped.
     
  10. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,067
    Mar 21, 2007

    Unless Monzon had beaten him, in which case he's not fit to carry Ricky Hatton's jockstrap.
     
  11. itrymariti

    itrymariti Cañas! Full Member

    13,728
    47
    Sep 6, 2008
    Never thought I'd say this, but I quite like your list, McG. Obviously Monzon is too high for me and Jones too low, but I like the high placement of SRR and Hopkins more.
     
  12. itrymariti

    itrymariti Cañas! Full Member

    13,728
    47
    Sep 6, 2008
    I'm willing to admit that Monzon probably would have beaten Basilio quite handily.
     
  13. GPater11093

    GPater11093 Barry Full Member

    38,034
    91
    Nov 10, 2008
    Fair enough. I'm not comfortable to rate him without the film of him though. But nice interesting pick.

    I think others would think 'yes'.

    I definitely think he could beat anyone I ranked below him.

    Don't talk yap.

    Griffith was immensely strong and proved this with fellow freakishly strong Welterweight Luis Manuel Rodriguez by out-muscling him inside. He also out-muscled many a Middleweight.

    I'm a big advocate of Basilio and think of him as one of the strongest fighters ever at Welterweight, I just can't see him out-muscling Griffith inside - i think they are both fairly even. However, if they engaged inside Basilio would have the upper hand and Griffith (if fighting Basilio) would have to use his more mobile boxing to triumph.
     
  14. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,067
    Mar 21, 2007

    I agree that Smith could be crude, but only when a hammer was the tool he needed (bulling Moore out of his stride). I totally disagree that crude is the right word for him. You and I discussed Smith-Johnson lately. To me, the mos impressive facet of that knockout wasn't the punch that saw Johnson ditched for the only ten count of his career but rather the left handed feint that set the punch up. Smith had culture and skill, even if it's not what he's ended up famous for. History has done him a great dis-service. I hope the Johnson film can help redress the balance that should have been put straight with the Moore film. You just don't get results like those being a crude fighter. But you are right in that he could look crude at times.

    I agree with a lot of the rest of what you said.
     
  15. TheGreatA

    TheGreatA Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,241
    157
    Mar 4, 2009
    Not related to the above posts but I don't see Charles ranked as highly as he is by some head to head at middleweight. Obviously he has the wins over Burley, great wins although against a natural welterweight, but he was just 20 years old, lost a couple of fights at the weight and was beaten handily by Lloyd Marshall who wasn't much more than a super middleweight himself, a loss an improved Charles twice avenged later. In addition there is no footage of him at the weight.