The Strongest Middleweigt Era and Reevaluating Boxing Dogma

It's very rare that a good division is dominated by a boxer for any long period of time. For me, competition will always be a far more important than dominance for this reason. A B-class fighter will always dominate a division of D-class opponents, so dominance always has to be put into perspective. Legacies should primarily be built on opposition, and anything else, such as longevity, is merely a bonus.

I agree that a lot of those fighters are underrated. Holman Williams is especially underrated, I think. I'd say he's a better fighter than Hopkins, who often ranks absurdly high in middleweight lists because of his dominance.

 

Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore became heavyweights and Ezzard Charles he champ

 

Well conceived and executed post. Bravo.

There is no way I can disagree. I was a decade of mind-boggling depth.

 

Yeah, I agree.

In the first post, the OP asked whether Greb, Robinson, Hagler etc., could have been dominant in such a good era. Personally, I think the only one who could have done it would have been Robinson but even then, I don't think he'd have gone undefeated for any long period of time. I think he'd have slipped up on several occasions too. Hagler would have been very tough to beat but again, longevity is tough to pull off in a hard division. Looking at all those names, there are a couple who I think could have beaten Hagler but if he had faced them all, I think he'd have lost to maybe 6 or 7 of those guys, just because the pressure of constantly facing elite opponents wears fighters down. Fighters lose to opponents they're better than when they are continuously in the ring against very good fighters. That's just the nature of the sport, and it's a reflection on how, as the old saying goes, 'styles make fights'.

As for Hopkins, I really don't think he'd have been exceptional in a strong middleweight era. Sacrilege, I know, but his legacy is built around his achievements as an old man rather than his ability at his prime.

 

Absolutely. If Usain Bolt races 5 times a year, he can perfect his training to fit in with his scheduled races, meaning he never competes in anything but tip-top shape. If he races 50 times a year though, there are going to be days when he has slight strains or he's competing with illness, or he's generally fatigued from over competing, or many other things. This is running too, a sport which has nothing like the intricacies and technical variation of boxing, and yet if Bolt was far more active, he wouldn't dominate with the success percentage he has now.

Mayweather fights once a year and that means he never steps into the ring in anything but perfect shape. In 1938, Henry Armstrong fought 14 times, against excellent opponents too. 14 fights ago for Mayweather was in 2003. Fighting so frequently will mean lesser performances, and therefore more wins, and on the other hand, fighting so infrequently means that a fighter is more likely to maintain a period of dominance.

Frequency of fights should be taken into account when judging a boxers legacy. Even ATGs will slip up when constantly in the ring, so I think it's wrong to judge two losses the same, when one guy is in his 8th fight that year, and the other fighters loss is in his second fight in three years.

 

Great list V of as powerful 10 year MW period [1932-1942] as we most likely ever had.
You ask the question would a Harry Greb, Robinson ,Monzon, Hagler rule long against the likes of these guys ? Who can tell ?
But these words from the terrific MW Ken Overlin who was called the "poor man's Harry Greb ",because of his whirlwind style. "We are just a bunch of bums alongside Harry Greb,and the other oldtimers. I think Harry could lick me and my contenders in the same ring the same night with no rest in between ". Pretty heady words about the one and only Harry Greb !

 

1909-1919
Harry Greb
Stanley Ketchel
Sam Langford
Mike Gibbons
Jack Dillon
Les Darcy
Frank Klaus
Billy Papke
Tommy Gibbons
Jeff Smith
Jimmy Clabby
Georges Carpentier
Eddie McGoorty
Mike O'Dowd
George Chip
Leo Houck
Mike McTigue

Tiger Flowers was fighting by 1919 as well, but was a bit of a neophyte at that time.

 

even removing the four I've highlighted (was'nt Wade a L-HW?) still the Greatest Era and I few more yet in Ron Richards, Ginger Sadd, Bert Gilroy as well as others I'm sure, Glen Lee was one. Just the greatest time for Boxing in general, ALL weights.

and the part I've italized PERFECT analyses, rating fighters should be ERA's first, followed by COMP - Wins and Losses too can be considered in close or robbed decisions, and Longeviety against such comp & factors.

it's the ONLY way as far as I'm concerned.

 

I won't disagree. But the era I just named has quite a bit of depth too:

Jack Twin Sullivan
Johnny Wilson
Buck Crouse
Gus Christie
Augie Ratner
Jack McCarron
Bob Moha
Joe Borrell
Jimmy Gardner
Willie Lewis
Bryan Downey

Lou Bogash and Jock Malone were fighting as well, but I'm pretty sure they were at welter pre-1920. Either way, that's a rugged buncha dudes