Most over- and underrated non-heavyweights on this forum?

These are the key fights for LaMotta I think, with the ranking the fighter had around that time in brackets. I don't have the relevant monthly issues, so this data is tainted and cobbled together but for what it's worth:

Jose Basora (4, ww), Fritzie Zivic (UNRANKED), Coley Welch (3), Vic Dellicurti (10), Bert Lytell (Robbery?), George Kkochan (9), Holman Williams (2), Tony Janiro (10), Robert Villemain (3), Cerdan (Ch.), Tibero Mitri, Laurent Dauthuille (2).

So better than B-Hop:

BERNARD HOPKINS: Howard Eastman (1), Oscar De La Hoya (2), Robert Allen (2), William Joppy (4), Carl Daniels (8), Felix Trinidad (2), Keith Holmes (3), Antwon Echols (5), Robert Allen (7), Joe Lipsey (7), Segundo Mercado (7)

But I think actually slightly behind Hagler:

Hagler:Mike Colbert (1 or 2), Bennie Briscoe (3 or 4), Alan Minter (Ch.), Fulgencio Obelmejias (4), Vito Antuofermo (3), Mustafa Hamsho (2), Don Lee (7), Tony Sibson (7), Wilford Scypion (6), Juan Domingo Roldan (5), Thomas Hearns (1), John Mugabi (1).

Interesting that Hopkins matched only 1 Ring #1 contender and that it was Eastman. Of course, this is a little misleading because he himself was #1 and de-facto champion on a couple of occasions when he met #2 guys, including Felix. Clear water between Hagler and both men. Here is Monzon:


CARLOS MONZON: Rodrigo Valdez (1), Gratien Tonna (2), Tony Licata (5), Tony Mundine (7), Jean Claude Bouttier (4), Emile Griffith (1), Bennie Briscoe (7), Denny Moyer (3), Nino Benvenuti (Ch.) [Andres Antonio Selpa, 119-42-27, Jorge Jose Hernandez 109-6-1]

 

I thin you are using Ring end of year stuff, but perhaps looking at the year listed as opposed to the year published? Or maybe I am!

 

Looking at Hagler, i've given him a benefit of the doubt type list too so I think your list will be nearer the mark in that, for example, mine includes Basora, who was ranked at WW not MW. Mitri though, was definitely ranked at middle in February of 1950, five months before he met LaMotta, but is not listed in the 1949 issue which is bannered under the 1950 issue if you are using Boxrec. WHich can lead to difficulties (you haven't listed him).

 

I think what you are saying isn't desperately unfair relating to guys who fell out of the rankings, but; what are we saying?

Are we saying that because that's happened that scalp isn't valued? Doesn't this then, become, rather an exercise in admin? I ask because, in the case of Hopkins for example, his #10 contender, generaly, won't be worth the #18 in the 1940s. It's hard to think of a worse #1 contender than Eastman, for example.

Williams is the best example of this. Yes, he dropped of the rankings that year - and he might even have been eliminated BEFORE LaMotta got to him because he lost to:

Bert Lytell - a fighter I ranked inside the 30 greatest middles of all time, who was in his absolute prime but who nevertheless got lucky according to some ringside cards (not - I think he desereved the nod in a close fight).

Marcel Cerdan - AP scored this fight a draw. In the mid-rounds, Williams injured (off the top of my head) his right arm and fought on one handed. In the eighth, he injured his leg and finished the fight without his mobilty. He had none of these problems versus LaMotta, in what was another desperately close fight where Williams may have been a little lucky.

Are we really saying, that because Ring ceased to rank him this year, this victory isn't of great signficance - i'll go further. This is a better win than anything Hopkins has outside of Trinidad. And on styles, I might even pick ancient Williams to beat prime Trinidad (Assuming he stays injury free).

But, yeah, LaMotta, because of inconsistency, LaMotta ranks behind Hopkins, Hagler and Monzon clearly in my mind:

02 - Monzon
03 - Hagler
07 - Bernard Hopkins
12 - Jake LaMotta

LaMotta's range is 9-13 IMO. I would, on that basis, reject his being one of the most overrated fighters on the forum. I rarely see him higher than #8 on any list.

An aside - of the top fifty guys I ranked, I had LaMotta beating Williams (10), Robinson (4), Cerdan (38), Lytell (27, controversial).

And Hopkins beating 0. They weren't there for him, but there you have it.

Also, I would credit him with Zivic as he was one of the greatest fighters of all time in my book, despite the size advantage. I do think though, that LaMotta gets the reputation for fearlessness that Zivic deserves. Look at some of the size disparities. Conn, Robinson, LaMotta, wtf.

 

I think he was the best middle in the world for nine years, which gets him into the ten. But I have him below Greb, Gibbons, Ketchel, Hagler, Monzon and Robinson pretty firmly tbh. I can't see any real case for having him any higher than that.

Especially not when you consider that Hagler was probably best in the world for 8 years and Monzon for seven while wrapping up clearly superior scalps.

Maybe you could argue Gibbons but he went 1-1 with Greb and 2-0 with Dillon! So you'd have your work cut out.

 

Tiger at #13, Walker at #18.

Yeah, if you want to tax for pre-prime losses you can certainly handicap these champions back down to Hopkins' level. But when you are learning, losing is ONLY a matter of levels. In other words, before you hit your prime, losing is ONLY about being matched with the wrong man. Winning and losing is about matchmaking, as much as ability.

I, pretty much, don't care if Hagler and Monzon were losing to their Mercado level fighters before they became great. Was Mercardo ranked? If so Hopkins went 0-1-1 against the ranked guys he met in his first 28 fights.

Hagler lost to Willie Monroe and Bobby Watts in his pre-title years (and his 26th and 28th fight). I don't know if they were ranked. I do know that either one would represent some of Hopkins best competition in the 1990s. And if he'd met each of them instead of Mercardo? Well, I think that this non-punching novice who ended up with a 50% win ratio dropping him on the seat of his trunks twice on the way to a draw tells its own story.

 

It's a huge advantage if you are better than a green fighter who is green, too.

To me, the idea that Hagler's superior resume is somehow pegged back by a heavily disputed loss to Watts and a loss Willie Monroe twice avenged by knockout is far too much.