Greatest H2H Middleweight of all time (Poll)

It's interesting where people's level lie.

You say these things but you use none of these advantage to do more than watch. I don't mean that as a criticism, this is just a food for thought.

You are not wrong, it's true you'll get more out of video than text and maybe you, personally, do more than watch but I have never seen any other boxing fan put up any maths at all.

You very well could do, it is simple Newtonian physics, but I think probably what prevents folks is thinking it's just simply not necessary. You know, you could time handspeed and come with times instead of descriptions. You could approximate power, you have an aprox weight, a trajectory, and a clock. Could use video to bring more objectivity into boxing discussions but don't feel it's necessary.

Likewise, I do not put much stock in my own jabroni eyes and so for me video isn't really a necessity for judging, or, guessing.

I wonder, outside of matches that actually happened, what H2H isn't guesswork?

Probably if someone brought timed punches and energy transfers in known SI's like second and foot-pounds they'd be doing a little less guessing that you, or at least as much less as you are in regard to myself.


with fans you can never win. Come in with stats and they tell you bring more narrative, come in with all the narrative there is to be had and they'll ask for stats. There is no right, just interesting where these level fall. Personally, I don't put much stock into my opinion and so fairly adaptive to "criteria"

 

Maybe Canelo has had close fights because he's fought at the top level so long. Ketchel looks awful on film and his resume is, imo, lacking for how highly he gets rated. He's not even in the discussion because of how poor he looks on film. You keep bringing up results and wins and losses as your measurements but not the skills displayed in these performances, which is what the heart of H2H discussion is about. Canelo is a very well rounded aggressive counterpuncher with slick defence, fast hands, and inventive combos and counters. That's why he's in the discussion, not because he beat Jacobs, but because of how he looked against Jacobs.

 

Part of H2H is guesswork since it's hypothetical match-ups but the other part is understanding the skills certain fighters employed and the weaknesses they showed against certain styles or tactics. And this is done by watching film, since this is where we get to actually see with our own eyes how fighters fought. No physics equations needed, just simple a posteriori reasoning.

 

I picked Roy Jones Jr.However looking at that list makes you
realise what a superb history the middleweight-division has.
So many greats/ ATGs.

 

This is an unacceptable response.

Let me reword what you just said to me:
I sniff my own farts too often, too deeply, and with too much excitement to care about anything beyond myself.


Now you want to say "nuh-huh" in some form ... but dig:


The written word of some others' eyes is not good enough

The objectivity of facts is too much

My eyes and thoughts are best


I'm not saying you are, but, that is really, really, really stupid. I had thought my last post highlighted how silly that stance is but I guess not.

It's fine, if you think you are the beginning and ending of judgement and your eyes are the best and sole tool you use, cool, but going around telling people who take an academic approach they're wrong to do so is, by definition, stupid, and by motivation, self important.

 

Greb avenged his loss against Bartfield 3 times, I don’t think it reflects much on him at all. The loss was probably a fluke more than anything.

 

Yeah, sure, I'm a self obsessed moron and a filthy casual because I think a fighter's ability is better judged by hours of footage of them, y'know, actually fighting rather than a couple paragraphs written by Victorians. You enjoy your evening mate.

 

A loss is a loss is a loss and I was only using it to highlight how bizarre a stance it was to throw out Canelo and Golovkin for losses but not anyone else.

 

Because they haven't had the opportunities to prove that those nights were off nights, Greb has and proved it decisively on 3 occasions. I personally don't think Bartfield's win matters at all since Greb proved who the better man clearly was.

 

A win over possibly the GOAT closer to his prime than any other time he was beaten while being significantly outweighed doesn't matter?

 

Not if it's decisively avenged on every other occasion they've fought. It just proves that Greb had an off night than anything else.

 

All the other fights were relatively close though iirc and Bartfield even managed a draw too. Bartfield had far more wear and tear on him during the series than Greb did. He was probably past his prime (if he ever really had one) by the time he later fought a Greb in the ascendency. I mean, is Ward's win over Gatti meaningless just because he got beat all the other times they fought, or McCallum's draw with Toney just because he got beat the other three times, or even Duran's win over SRL since he got soundly outboxed the other times they met? Nobody ever goes into the ring 100%, everybody has nagging pains. Greb was a great fighter but he doesn't need any losses excused as meaningless imo. Bartfield was outweighed by 14lbs fighting the GOAT and still outworked a fighter famously known for his stamina. idk, that seems pretty impressive to me.

 

Two of the losses to Greb came 6 months after he beat him. Their third fight was less than a year later in 1919 and in that time he only lost to Britton. No sign of wear and tear here at all. He won all 3 decisively and even though Bartfield gave a decent showing there was no doubt in any account as to who the winner was, some accounts had Greb winning up to 13 rounds out of 15. I don't give much merit to a 6 round draw as draws at the time were very common and anyone could edge a 6 rounder.

I would definitely say Ward's win over Gatti is tainted by losing to him twice afterward, the case is different with Duran because he was drained and basically self destructed before the second fight and was past it by the third. McCallum never beat Toney, but was past it by the third fight so I don't give that much credence to that fight same with the RJJ fight.

If Leonard decisively beat prime Duran 3 times after losing to him in Montreal, I would be saying the same exact thing. There’s just less merit to a victory after it’s ratio’s so many times.

 

I respect GGG immensely like all fighters but 168-172lbs in the ring makes you a LHW before the 80s and never a middleweight - as a professional GGG was always above 160lbs in the ring, GGG was also cutting real weight on top of dehydrating.
Any fighter weighing in the day of the fight cutting 8-10lbs would die in the ring. GGG’s is 0-2-1 in reality but I thought he won the first fight against Canelo, he’s certainly got a lot of successful title defences against…?