The Top 10 Middleweights since 2000.

If you put Saunders over Sturm, know that you're just wrong. (yeah, I know it's an opinion thing)

Nothing like livin' in the moment.

 

Only because it seems to bother you, chap.

This is since 2000, not "what has he done the last 6 or 7 years."

Sturm is certainly above Canelo and Jacobs as well, obviously.

And I didn't even read/see it was H2H. I guess in that case, anything goes and nobody can question anything said here. Rubio #1, Pirog #2, Ishida #3, etc etc.

 

It can be easy H2H, body of work or a combination of both.

 

you realize you're giving props to a fighter who never fought a top MW during his entire career, don't you?
by virtue of that, and considering both canelo and Jacobs have already achieved what sturm never had any intention of doing, there's no way sturm ranks ahead of either fighter

 

He stopped Cherife too didn't he? Cherife was a top 10 middle at the time. Why is Winky getting no love? He beat Taylor clearly in my opinion. He was better than Sturm, and Abraham. Hell, Williams would have smacked Sturm around for 12 rounds.

 

Lol some truth to what you said, if Saunders looks bad in his next fight against a nobody, people's lists will need revising. He's definitely riding high of the Lemieux win and Lemieux is no better than some of the fighters Sturm beat.

I think Sturm gets no love as he was seen as bit of a paper champion. The losses to Geale and Soliman, the fight with Macklin also should of been a loss too. He's like the modern day Ottke, people knew there was a far better fighter in the division that Sturm avoided and so is dismissed as a paper champion.

 

Sturm beat more top 10 rankers than Jacobs.

Sturm>> Jacobs and Canelo.

 

He also lost to more as well, which is probably why he isn't on a lot of peoples lists.

Jacobs close fight with GGG is better than anything Sturm has done even in winning. Plus the Truax win doesn't look so bad now that he beat DeGale. Jacobs might every well be overrated time will tell, hopefully he gets some good fights come his way.

 

Consistency and longevity can't be overlooked though. To stay at the top as long as Sturm did you have to be doing something right.

It's laughable to elevate Saunders above Sturm based on one single admittedly impressive performance against Lemieux.

 

He had longevity but consistency? Maybe when facing guys like Ronald Hearns but lost to Castillejo, drew with Griffin, lucky to beat Macklin, drew with Murray, losses to Geale and Soliman.

He was losing and drawing with guys GGG and Martinz were beating with ease, he never really had a stand out win that obviously separated him from that lower level of world class fighter.

Saunders is probably rated higher due to his potential. His resume is no better despite being undefeated but he looks like a more skilled and talented fighter to me. I'd favour him over any version of Sturm which is why some will rate him higher.

 

15-4-2 in MW world title fights
8-4-0-1 vs. titlists in MW fights
Was ranked for literally 10 years of the 17 in question.

Most everybody had Sturm beating Oscar. IIRC: most had him beating Soliman first time around, good bit had him beating Murray, some had him beating Geale; I could be wrong there. I had him losing to Macklin 118-110 for the record. But Barker, Zbik, Sylvester, 1-1 with Castillejo, I mean those all add up.

It should be easier to come up with clear notables over Eubank. I get it. But lets not go crazy over Eubank. Hasn't Saunders had a couple close calls himself, including against Eubank? Give him a few years.

H2H I can actually see someone hating on Sturm much more in this discussion (as I said in my second post here, not realizing/thinking that was part of the discussion in my first post). Hey, I've never been a fan of the guy so I'm not upset at all. He had "political" support behind his career as much as anybody could. But he deserves some more respect in the conversation on accomplishment, I do believe.