Debating my top ten MW list

Where he belongs ,absent!

 

That would be a mis-match. Ketchel has no defense. Nothing close to a jab, a stationary stance, and wild wide swings, some of which would be countered too easily. His offense lacks imagination as well. Power and guts is what he had.

I honestly do not think he'd last more than five rounds with Golovkin.

 

There is a small size difference. There is a huge skill difference on both offense and defense. IMO GGG hits harder and also takes a better punch too.

 

I do, LaMotta for all his excellence could be hit and it's a terrible sign against Fitzsimmons. He also didn't have enough power to beat up Bob, if Maher and Sharkey couldn't.

 

My list as follows, 1. Sugar Ray Robinson ( 5 Time champion) 2. Carlos Monzon ( He retired as champion) 3. Marvelous Marvin Hagler ( He could have retired as champion) 4. Bernard The Executioner Hopkins 5. Stanley Ketchel 6. Mickey Walker 7. Marcel Cerdan 8. Harry Greb 9. Jake La Motta 10. D. Tiger

 

I tend to agree. Golovkin is only a toe-to-toe slugger when he feels the other guy has nothing for him. When he fights somebody with a punch, he uses his superb footwork to create space and his jab to control them. He treated Lemieux like a handgrenade for the first few rounds till he got his measure. I can't see GGG being crazy enough to brawl a killer like Ketchel.

 

GGG has a world class jab, and advances behind it. He doesn't need to make it a shoot out. The jab would score easy, and he can combo behind it or counter one of Ketchel's very wild and wide shots.

Golovkin was never down as a pro or amateur and this limits Ketchel's puncher chance.

 

I think Ketchel is overrated and underrated. To me he is the middleweight Mike Tyson. A slashing dashing fighter who came along when the division was in disarray and slightly weak, cleaned it up, then died right as things were about to get interesting. I think hes underrated by some because he is admittedly crude to the eye but he was exactly what the division needed at that time so he should be rated highly for coming in and filling that vacuum. Hes overrated because while he was blowing everyone away the division was kind of weak at the time. The only other guy who was top quality, in my opinion, was Papke. I see Ketchel and Papke as 1a and 1b. I think those guys would have always traded the title back and forth. I think Ketchel dying young helped his legacy because he didnt have to face all of the talent emerging just after his death: Gibbons, Klaus, Darcy, Carpentier, Chip, Jeff Smith, Clabby, Dillon, Houck, etc. Klaus already beat him and put him in the hospital. I dont see Ketchel running the gauntlet against all of those guys, especially considering the wear and tear on his body due to his wild lifestyle. Had he not died and started losing regularly while still in his 20s (as I suspect he would have) I think we would be remembering him differently.

 

I'm sure I'm in the minority but I like Hopkins in the number one spot. He was big and physical as a middleweight but he also had a ton of versatility and could beat guys multiple ways. Sure he has the loss to Jones early on at 160 but his longevity/title defenses and how he just dominated fighters was impressive as hell to me. Some will question his opponents at 160 but I think a lot of those guys like Holmes, Allen, Joppy, Eastman etc were kind of underrated let alone his performances against Tito and Oscar I know what he did at 175 doesn't count but they way he dominated Tarver,Cloud, Shumenov, Pascal etc. Leads me to believe he could have handled the strongest of middleweights like Hagler, Tiger, Lamotta, Greb etc.

1. Hopkins
2. Hagler
3. Robinson--he was at his best at WW
4.Monzon
5.Jones-- didn't stay long enough.
6. Lamotta
7. Tiger
8. Giardello
9. Greb---hate that we don't have film.
10. Toney-- didn't stay long but wins over Nunn and McCallum were impressive as hell.

 

so you favor Hopkins to beat Hearns?

SRL had a hard time against Hearns and past prime SRL beat Hagler?