Dick Tiger, Bernard Hopkins, Freddie Steele, Tony Zale

Without doubt Freddie Steele had the most impressive record of these men.Consider this :
For the first TEN years Steele was almost unbeatable. He kod Ceferino Garcia twice, vince Dundee,the rugged Gus Lesnevich,beat Gorilla jones, Babe Risko, Kod tough Ken Overlin,who whipped a young whiz, Ezzard Charles,Solly Krieger,Fred Apostoli ,etc. Then in a bout with Apostoli, Steele suffered a painful fracture of his breastbone,and lost by a tko. The injury was never given time to heal properly and in the last 6 or 7 bouts Steele,a shot fighter lost 3 more times and retired to the movies. So Freddie Steele'had 125 wins,60 by kos and lost but 5 times,[3 after his injury].ESB, just watch the prime Steele destroy the clever Vince Dundee, and the rugged Gus Lesnevich on youtube ! Freddie Steele at his best beats all the others in this thread. His great record proves this IMO...

 

1. Hopkins
2. Tiger
3. Steele
4. Zale

 

1.) Who is greatest-Bernard Hopkins

2.) Greatest Resume-Bernard Hopkins

3.) Who was most dominant-Bernard Hopkins (Steele isn't far behind.)

4.) Not really sure what the differance is between this and 1 and 2.

5.) I think Steele is the most naturally talented and he's every bit as clever as Hopkins. I also think at his peak he outpoints Zale after a furious finish. And I think he outpoints Tiger with a smart gameplan.

I think Zale is stronger, tougher, and smarter than Gene Fullmer and he beats Tiger two out of three, losses to Hopkins in a tough war.

And Hopkins beats Tiger.

 

1. Steele
2. Tiger
3. Hopkins
4. Zale

 

Hopkins
Steele
Tiger
Zale

 

"is this the Sesame Street game?"

3 of these things belong together, 3 of these things are kinda the same, 1 of these thing is NOT like the others, can you guess which one before I finish the song?"

lets see, Hopkins!!!

Steele
Tiger
Zale





Hopkins.

 

You're right, he's clearly the greatest one.

 

If we're going strictly by resume I'd agree. Hopkins' is dire by comparison. However, there are more things to take into account. Longevity, consistency, success at higher weights, overcoming adversity, etc. I think Hopkins matches up very well in those categories with any of them, if not better in most. Still, he's behind Steele and Tiger for my money. Zale doesn't register on the same level as those two for me, either.

 

A few points :
You say Freddie Steele wasn't able to become champion in his time. WRONG-Steele beat Babe Risko,July ,1936 and became middleweight champion.
Legacy- Hopkins reputation today is predicated on his longevity as a fighter,not on his middleweight legacy.As a 160pounder he lost to Roy Jones, and beat Glen Johnson,and John David Jackson,and later on kod
Felix Trinidad who truly was a WW. Nowhere near the great resume of Freddie Steele,who had TWICE as many fights against better opposition,aside from Roy Jones jr. If you look back,when Hopkins was MW champion,his reputation as an all-time MW great was not there.
When I judge great fighters,it is based on a H to H meeting at their primes, not longevity as a fighter. If longevity was the criteria as a great fighter solely, Sugar Ray Leonard wouldn't hold a candle to the likes of a Jack Britton,[344 bouts],Ted Kid Lewis,[282 bouts], or Kid Gavilan,[143]
fights.Leonard was about shot after 50 or so fights.
So B, based on the fact that Freddie Steele beat a roster of great middleweights,was almost unbeaten in his first ten years until a breastbone fracture,and what films I've seen of Steele koing the canny
veteran Vince Dundee, and flattening a young and rugged Gus Lesnevich,I pick Freddie Steele over Tiger, Hopkins,and Tony Zale in mano,mano
competition, not longevity, past middleweight division. Cheers...

 

achievement is THEE MOST erronious way to rate fighters and we really have to get away from it!!!

there is only one way to rate fighters

Skill/Ability
ERA'S
Competion
Longeviety

this is clear understanding of who beats who, and are better H2H.

the better era's obviously win out - they are proven for alltime!
Weaker era's with fewer top level fighters and fewer fights among top competion are LESSER... these are the ones that need to prove not the other way around.

there is no other way, it's a simple equation!

 

I would question that. Steele may have the best numbers, but the actual quality of his wins his deceptive and debatable. Apostoli, Garcia, and Lesnevich were all very green and well-ahead of their primes at the time that Steele beat them, and Jones, Risko, and Dundee are among the less spectacular fighters to win a piece of the MW title. Once Apostoli was actually a world class fighter, Steele couldn't handle him, and he steadfastly refused to risk his title against him.