Holmes era vs Hagler era?

Kalambay, Nunn, McClellan and Hopkins undoubtly had their best time at MW. And the first three of them peaked during these years as well. And do you mean that a WW was the standout fighter of that era? That's not correct. None of the ones I listed was a WW. Leonard only had one fight at MW, against Hagler. He had no part of the post Hagler era and wanted no part of the likes of Nunn and McCallum.

In that case that is just more applicable to the 40's, which is generally seen as a very strong era, with Robinson. Moore and Charles weren't at their best at MW either, and Burley was a bit like McCallum in that he was very good before he reached MW.

 

You make a convincing point about the 4 men listed as career middleweights.
The welterweight I was referring to was Robinson in 50s not Leonard in 80s.

 

Hopkins as a MW great belonged to a different era I would say due to his late bloom.
Wow! at the run Nunn was on before Toney tuned his lights out, incredible.

 

There's a reason why SRR is considered by the majority of people to be the greatest fighter ever tho. I wouldn't use him being successful at 160 as a reason to doubt the era. He didn't dominate over any period of time.

 

I think I made an assumption that SRR must have been dominant because of how highly he is rated at 160 and because of a few famous, signature wins at the weight.

I think you may have undersold the late 80s-early 90s 160 era when I asked the initial question about the last time the division was considered strong. Although your argument about a lot of the talent campaigning mostly at other weights is undeniably the case, 'Bokai' makes a fair point about the names who were career MWs. Add to these the sometimes brief but nonetheless brilliant runs from Toney, Jones & co and its pretty harsh not to recognise this as a strong era at middleweight.

 

"Bokaj" is a great poster and one to take notice of. Perhaps more were campaining at 160 (vs 168) than i thought. From 87-93 Hearns only had 2 fights there (87 and 88) and was gone. Hopkins hit his straps in 94 and didn't do too much prior beside losing to an up and coming Roy Jones whose only defense was actually in 94 before he exploded at 168. Gerald only had 2 notable fights there in the period and was gathering momentum at the tail end of it, winning the title mid 93.

You can argue it's a strong era, for sure. Nunn was very strong as were guys like McCallum and Kalambay. Jackson, a solid slice of Toney and strong bit players at times. So whilst a few of those named weren't overly in the mix really it is still strong for sure. Toney, Nunn and McCallum are top fighters and Kalambay had his moments too.

 

He peaked several years later, true, but he had almost 30 fights during the period, one of which was for a title.

He wasn't a major player in the division until after he beat Mercado in 95, but he was a contender already in the early 90's.

 

I don't know the 60's era too well, which is considered strong. But if you look at the legendary 40's, say 41-47, the biggest names like Charles, Moore and Robinson also didn't have too many big fights at the weight and did better at other weights. Zale was past it, Graziano mostly hype and Cerdan and Burley came from lower weights.

Still a great era, though.

And in the late 80's early 90's you can also throw in Graham, Duran, Barkley and Collins. A lot of the same points can be made about them, but as MW contenders go they weren't too shabby.

 

For sure mate, agree it's strong. Very solid era when dissected.