Can I see your MW list? Top 10, 15, 20, whatever?

Its hardly my fault if you are ignorant about these fighters.
I can prove everything I post!

1942
Title Vacant

1. Ken Overlin
2. Tony Zale
3. Billy Soose
4. Archie Moore
5. Steve Belloise
6. Jimmy Bivins
7. Al Hostak
8. Georgie Abrams
9. Tami Mauriello
10. Ernie Vigh

Tony Zale, Champion

1. Georgie Abrams
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Ernie Vigh
4. Coley Welch
5. Ceferino Garcia
6. Steve Belloise
7. Antonio Fernandez
8. Fred Apostoli
9. Ron Richards
10. Ossie Stewart

Tony Zale*, Champion

1. Archie Moore
2. Charley Burley
3. Holman Williams
4. Kid Tunero
5. Jose Basora
6. Jake LaMotta
7. Jack Chase
8. Eddie Booker
9. Harry (Kid) Matthews
10. Antonio Fernandez

NB You will also notice Charles, whom you said was a career heavyweight was number 2 ranked middleweight in 1943

 

He's a career LHW but not top 40!

 

Charles , your" career heavyweight "had a total of 121 fights, 81 of them at either middleweight,what would now be super middle ,or light heavy.

How exactly does that work out?

Moore whom you described as a," natural light heavy," had 75 fights in divisions lower than Light heavy,He didn't weigh in as a light heavy until he was 29years old!

 

Neither Moore or Charles got chances to fight for the middleweight title.You asked for proof they were ranked in the top ten at middleweight I supplied it, you didn't acknowledge that as I knew you wouldn't! You've been proven wrong on every single statement you made on this thread but won't admit it as you never do.Not only are you totally ignorant about this era,butwhen you are corrected on it with irrefutable proof you haven't got the balls, or the common courtesy to admit it! You are a total joke!

 

I too hate rating middleweights, Old timers like Dempsey, Fitz, McCoy, Langford, Papke, Walcott, Ketchell, Clarke, Papke, Ryan gives a list of top ten worthy middles yet still leaves over 100 years to go, some great posts but I'm out of my depth.

 

I posted the Ring ratings for those years why don't you check them and get back to me? We both know you won't!

 

Here you are posted just for you ,you stupid ****!

The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: Middleweight--1940s
From BoxRec


Jump to navigationJump to search
*Title frozen for the duration of World War II

1940 1941 1942
Title Vacant

1. Ken Overlin
2. Tony Zale
3. Billy Soose
4. Archie Moore
5. Steve Belloise
6. Jimmy Bivins
7. Al Hostak
8. Georgie Abrams
9. Tami Mauriello
10. Ernie Vigh

Tony Zale, Champion

1. Georgie Abrams
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Ernie Vigh
4. Coley Welch
5. Ceferino Garcia
6. Steve Belloise
7. Antonio Fernandez
8. Fred Apostoli
9. Ron Richards
10. Ossie Stewart

Tony Zale*, Champion

1. Archie Moore
2. Charley Burley
3. Holman Williams
4. Kid Tunero
5. Jose Basora
6. Jake LaMotta
7. Jack Chase
8. Eddie Booker
9. Harry (Kid) Matthews
10. Antonio Fernandez

 

I remember the contest just fine and I'm not prone to suggestion from boxing commentary.

It was Froch on "auto-pilot", as he cruised to a shutout victory, with next to nothing from Abraham altering the course of the fight.

To be fair to Abraham, he was a solid enough competitor and he had reasonable runs at both 160 and 168. He just wasn't adaptable enough for the top tier and soundly beaten, whenever he ventured beyond the Gevor and Miranda types in the division.

 

The competition was very poor during the war?

The following were ranked at middleweight during the war years.
Overlin
Zale
Charles
Burley
Moore
Tunero
Basora
Bivins
Belloise
Chase
Booker
Lamotta
Richards
Apostoli
Cerdan
Is it your opinion these names above are inferior to the following whom Abraham defended his alphabet title against?
Ikeke
Taylor
Jantua
Miranda
Demers
Gevor
Elcock
Ayala
Marquez
Simon
Oral

Yes?

No?

 

Abraham didn't prove that he was the best Middleweight in the world, at any time. He didn't face Pavlik, Sturm, Wright, Williams (or Taylor at 160, when it might have mattered).

Taylor was shot to oblivion, by the time Abraham got to him at 168, having lost three of his last five bouts, over the previous two years. (And, I don't think outboxing an equally shot Lacy represents any kind of a legendary feat, either.)

Stieglitz was just the type of domestic/Euro-level opponent Abraham enjoyed.

Balzsay was top 3? In which ratings?

And?

No. As previously alluded to, Abraham wasn't even the Middleweight Champion among peers of his own era, because he didn't fight the best of his era.

At Super Middleweight, when he stepped up in class and beat the shell of Taylor (who, himself, made no impression in the class), he was comprehensively beaten by the best fighters of the division.

Top-30? Nope. He doesn't even warrant a place in the Top-50 Greatest Middleweights of All Time. Indeed, in a division with such a deep history, I'd have to wonder if he could make a list of the Top-100.

 

You know you're right,I know you're right ,but this silly prat will never ,ever admit he is wrong!

 

Next to heavyweights, I find the middleweight to be the 2nd most difficult class to rate. I don't see Monzon or Ketchel nearly as great as history has them. I think Cerdan is very underrated. Modern stars like GGG and Roy Jones don't get the respect they deserve, but Hopkins gets too much of it. The inception of the 154 and 168-pound weight class has blurred the lines; without them, the middleweight division would shine brighter. Too often, top middles fight smaller welters or jr welter, and build their legacy on it, or they abandon their legacy at middleweight by moving up to 168.

Rating these guys isn't easy as the best and some of the best are not on film. ( Greb and Williams ) and others are on very grainy films.

My rules. I'm merging accomplishments at 160 and 168 as long as the fighter was champion at 160. I'm going 60% on who beats who, 30% on distinction/fame as a champion, and 10% on longevity. Okay, here I go...

1. Greb - Based on who he beat, and this is a very uncomfortable #1 as there is no film on him to judge.

2. Sugar Ray Robinson. Probably the most skilled. Plenty of power and speed. Durable. Good mobility. Just a little on the small side. Could win by boxing, slugging, or by outworking his opponent. few can boast that.

3 ) Hagler - A long-tenured champion who had some very good wins before becoming champion, he beat some solid competition as champion. Iron chin. Good power, good reach. Ring Generalship, to me was a weakness.

4 ) Fitzsimmons. I don't see many who can take his punch, check that anyone who could take it at 160 pounds for long. Although he didn't spend a lot of time in the divison, and moved up to heavyweight to make more money ( There was no 168, 175, or 190 in Fitzsimmons day ) in his day, he could have made the middleweight limit. From Feb 1890 - July 1904 a 14 year period Fitz was, only beaten by Jeffries, a large heavyweight. If Fitz stayed at middle....forgetaboutit. You could easily argue #1

5 ) Roy Jones. - In some ways, he was more skilled than Robinson! Power, speed, and skills were hard to match, as was his accuracy. A smart fighter. To beat him, you have to knock him out. With easy wins over Hopkins and Toney ( I don't care if Toney was at 168, is simply a weigh-in issue as both are top all time 25 middles ). Don't tell me he didn't beat anyone. A little risk-averse. Some may say Ketchel and Mozon should be rated higher. Please, he'd beat both by a big margin. Chin was not an issue at 160 pounds. The specter of PED abuse, however, makes you want to downgrade him. Not defeated in his prime.

6 ) Golovkin. A lethal mix of a top chin, top power, and the swarming style, with the second option of winning by boxing with one of the best jabs in division history. He could get to the top boxers with his swarming style, or knock out the sluggers. Golovkin was never legitimately outboxed, and you could argue you should still be undefeated, even at his age. Highly avoided before becoming champion, and by top name welters. Probably spent to much time was an amatuer. Level of competition isn't the best, however, he was robbed on the cards vs. Canelo, and he's going to the hall of fame. Impressive longevity. The only man on the list not to be floored by a punch. Had more consecutive title defenses than anyone I can think of.

7 ) Monzon. - Monzon's consistency and amount of title defenses are impressive. His speed, and level of competition, not so much. A griding type with good stamina in the later rounds, Monzon's power would be described as solid. Though he was never stopped, he didn't exactly fight many puncher's. He was a big middle, while many of his opponents were smaller / shorter guys who moved up in class or older. Exited the game at the right time.

8 ) Cerdan - A fighter with an excellent record ( Only 1 clean loss in 114 fights if you omit DQ's and one loss via foul/injury ), who's career was cut short by a fatal plane crash, Cerdan is a bit of an underexposed all time great. On film, you'll see a power hitter with a high guard with a rock chin. An aggressive forward moving type.

9 ) Walker - Had the misfortune of being active the same time Greb was. Spent too much time above Middleweight. A tough guy.

10 ) Burley
11 ) Zale
12 ) Hopkins
13 ) Ryan
14 ) Toney
16 ) Nunn
16 ) LaMotta
17 ) Flowers
18 ) McCoy
19 ) Martinez
20 ) Ketchel

**Not rated at middle Langford, and Leonard, of whom I put on 160 head to head.**

 

I think that's because, in his mind, he genuinely believes he is right and has convinced himself that a good job of presenting his rationale has been done. However, I find the results association method of rating a fighter (e.g. A beat B and B beat C [three times] so he must be great) most often turns into a race to the bottom; as more than demonstrated by references to Stieglitz and Balzsay.

 

I really want to like some of your posts but the logic can be ridiculous.

How in the living f8CK does GGG rank above Monzon? That is just asinine but not as asinine as these...

How even does Fitz? Have you looked at Fitz's resume at 160? Jim Hall is arguably his second best victim. 6 of his 8 career losses happened at that weight. Just because someone is good at a higher weight does not make them better at a lesser weight. I don't even include him in the conversation.

Jones had 1 1/2 excellent wins at 160. Talented as hell. And a great LB4LB speculative guy but no real track record at 160.

Otherwise, not a bad list.

 

How. He hit harder than any man Monzon faced, has a better chin than any man Monzon faced, and a better jab than anyone Monzon faced, though there could be 1-2 exceptions on the last part. Mozon was didn't always look good and could not keep GGG at Bay. Not a chance. He was neither fast nor powerful. Only older age slowed GGG Down, Monzon quit before he became old. That's why. I mixed in 160-168 as the extra weight class took away from middles.

Fitz vs Hall could have been a fixed fight. It was early in Fitz's career anyway and avenged.