Please Participate--All-Time Middleweight Survey--POLL CLOSED!

Yeah he was just slightly below them, but a bit underrated I reckon. Had a bit of a weight advantage over some of the rest.

 

These are all bouts at the tail end of his career, the Hostak fight right after he'd taken a beating and broken his breastbone against Apostoli. His career was over by this time. Surely you don't think this was Steele at his best?

He'd shown his stuff against world class opposition since the early 30's in his Welterweight days, against the likes of Ceferino Garcia (who he stopped in two rounds), Billy Townsend, Joe Glick, Eddie Ran when he was still a contender, Johnny Romero, a young Fred Apostoli, etc. Sure he took on his share of bums, what fighter in the entire history of the sport could you not say the same for? The bottom line is he had been fighting against world class opposition for about 6 years up until he met Apostoli and Hostak, and was badly damaged by the Hostak fight.

The rematch with Apostoli more or less ruined him. It was considered to be one of the most brutal battles in the Garden's history, a Gatti/Ward type fight on a much higher level. One that Steele was never able to recover from given the stage of his career he was at at the time and the injury he sustained in the bout. I don't put much merit into the loss to Hostak. If you want to for the Apostoli rematch, that's fine. It was a great fight, one that ruined a great fighter. I don't think it takes away from the previous 5-6 years and his 56 fight undefeated streak. He was about as good as it gets during that period.

The fight with Overlin was another grueling battle that took it's toll on Steele. By all accounts, he took more jarring, clean shots in this fight than any other in his career up to that point. This against the man that had decisioned Apostoli about a year prior.

Yes, Steele and Apostoli were the two most highly regarded MW's in the world at the time, obviously, as Steele still had yet to lose. That goes without saying. That doesn't mean he was still at his peak. I think the damage that had accumulated over the years, and particularly in the Overlin fight you just mentioned, were really starting to take their toll on Steele by the time he fought the rematch with Apostoli. After that he was very clearly a damaged fighter, which is why I don't put much into his loss to Hostak.

I disagree. Steele's prime was more consistent and dominant, and against just as good opposition. Apostoli had been in around 30 fights by the time he rematched Steele, while Steele was far more ringworn by that time. He also lost to the same Ken Overlin that Steele KO'd.

I don't think too highly of his KO of a shot Steele (don't see how you do, really), and the rest of your case wasn't too strong. I think you and I both know that Steele was the superior fighter in his prime.

Very underrated fighter in his own right, but Steele had the longer reign at the top and the more impressive resume during his peak. Thil fought a lot more record-padding bums earlier in his career than Steele ever did.

Depending on how you look at the word "accomplishments". I put little acclaim into paper titles, but rather the fighters beat along the way. Steele had the most impressive and consistent prime of any of the men listed. Probably one of the most impressive streaks of all time really, which is why I rate him so highly.

 

1.i can say that he deserves to be here more than hopkins because
his lsd12 to toney is a questioned decision , so are his 2 losses to jorge fernando castro , which both were in castro's homeland argentina. 4 of his 7 losses were split decisions and he has never been stopped DESPITE facing GREAT oposition. he beat steve collins , and sanderline williams who drew with toney. he stopped in 7 rds the ralph ward who narrowly won mcclellan in 8 rouns , even his loss to john david jackson a UD one was in one point in 2 cards and 2 points in the third so stop counting wins-losses blindly.
hopkins is the one that stands out like a 'sore thumb' , you see ?
2. i can also say that i missed someone - maybe : greb , mccallum , kalambay. the problem with those guys is that they weren't stopping their oposition enough at 160 , but so is johnson really.
i am not locked on this choice and it really can change. it's hard to think on each division separately.
weird thing is to compare collins' achievements at 160 - his 3L's to his at 168 - two stoppages of Benn and two victories over eubanks.
i believe that this list has mistakes in it. i didn't have years to think on it also becuase the reason i gave about fighters and divisions.
3 . i can see him beating every other guy in that list. and p4p he did prove himself as having a good chin that held even at 175 against GREAT OPOSITION.

 

1. Hagler
2. Monzon
3. Greb
4. Hopkins
5. Robinson
6. Fitzsimmons
7. Lamotta
8. Tiger
9. Ketchel
10. Walker

 

This was a nice idea, Rumsfeld (didn't have you down as a classic fan). I bet our lists will be much more solid than what those clowns over at IBRO put out.

 

Rums, I will be altering my list, i'm going to get a bit more into one or two fighters as, as of now, my knowledge of them isn't fair to place or leave them out of a list. I'll get it up when i can in the next week.

 

1) SRR
2) Greb
3) Monzon
4) Hagler
5) Ketchel
6)Walker
7)Burley
8) Fitzsimmons
8) Lamotta
9) Tiger
10) Hopkins

 

This is near impossible to rank, because there are so many great middleweights and of those some many that you think are extra great and rise above the field have actually done most of their best work at light heavy or welterweight, when you really analyse their work and some of these have surprisingly often struggled at the middleweight limit.

I know that it makes it easier to count with just a straight list, but there needs to be (from me at least and i dare say 90% of the other guys also) a lot of consideration and bumping and changing of the lists will happen when full thought is given. I hope this thread goes for the full month that the light heavy and heavy threads did, because to be honest it could easily go twice as long and i think most people would still come up with 10 different lists each time they sit down and try to do one.

I am going to do a first draft, but i will expect to change it before the end of the thread.

1. Bob Fitzsimmons - I cant see anyone come close his legacy at the weight is simply better than anyone else's. He was the only Middleweight ever to win the World Heavyweight title and according to the best source) he did it under the middleweight limit. He was the official world middleweight champion for about 4-5 years when he vacated the belt because he won the world Heavyweight championship. But he was the best Middleweight fighter in the world for much, much longer than this. Arguably about 20 years which is a longevity, quite simply, that no other middleweight can match or come close to matching. He Kod virtually every good middleweight that he fought.
2. Carlos Monzon - The longest reigning official middlweight champion. Was very dominant and his reign was really as good as one could ask for. Clearly a great Middleweight.

3. Marvin Hagler - Like Hagler, another great, great champion. Who ruled the roost, once he won the title until he lost his very last fight to Sugar Ray Leonard. Easily the best middleweight of his era despite the loss to Leonard and the draw to Vito Antuofermo. He was actually more dominant than Monzon, but loses the spot because he wasnt quite as consistent and has those few minor blemishes.

4. The Non Pareill Jack Dempsey - He was a little small by modern standards, but his 7 year reign was as long as anyones and he had no problem meeting the middles of his time. If it wasnt for meeting the biggest hitting middleweight of all time, who knows when or if his reign would have ended.

5. Tommy Ryan - It took a great man to claim the title while Fitzsimmons was around and Tommy Ryan was that man. Although he never met Fitz, he claimed the title for 8 years until he vacated it, which is fair achievement.

6, Mickey Walker - Won the title and kept it for about 5 years until he vacated to chase the heavyweight title. Very dominant.

7. Bernard Hopkins - Held the title for a very long time, but i think his legacy suffers due to circumstances outside his control, because of the alphabets and added weight divisions, he did not really get to assert dominance over the likes of Jones Jr, Toney, etc so one has to question how dominant his reign was compared to others.

8. Charlie Burley - Probably the best middleweight never to win the title, it is hard to fathom how the likes of Sugar Ray and others ducked this guy without receiving any criticism. Burley probably was a little unproven though, due to to circumstances outside his control.

9. Tony Zale - A long serving champion, who wasnt as dominant as the others but did hold the title long enough to establish a good legacy, although he doesnt seem to have much of a following today.

10 Sugar Ray Robinson - He was the champion for a long time, despite being a far better welterweight, struggling at the weight and losing the title often, he did have the heart and skills to win it back each time. I am a little undecided and i think that in time i might raise him in the standings, but then again i might go the other way also, as there are so many greats like Ketchell, Greb, Toney etc that havent even made the top 10. I fighter who i think might also be worth considering and he hasnt been mentioned, is Vito Antuofermo. But i will need to consider theres and other records before finalising the list

 

1. Carlos Monzon
2. Harry Greb
3. Sugar Ray Robinson
4. Marvin Hagler
5. Mickey Walker
6. Bob Fitzsimmons
7. Bernard Hopkins
8. Stanley Ketchal
9. Emile Griffith
10. Dick Tiger