This is one of the few divisions that I feel pretty secure with my rankings, this is my list: #1. Carlos Monzon #2. Harry Greb #3. Ray Robinson #4. Marvin Hagler #5. Bernard Hopkins #6. Stanley Ketchel #7. Charley Burley #8. Dick Tiger #9. Jake LaMotta #10. Tiger Flowers With Cerdan, Walker, and Griffith right outside. Note: I don't take into account fighters prior to 1900 when making divisional ratings, so no Fitz or Nonpereil Dempsey or Ryan. Disagreements?
Last time I did my list, I believe it looked something like this: 1) Robinson 2) Greb 3) Monzon 4) Hagler 5) Dick Tiger 6) Charley Burley 7) Roy Jones 8) Hopkins 9) Bob Fitzsimmons 10) Tiger Flowers 11) Mickey Walker 12) Ketchel 13) Lloyd Marshall 14) Zale 9-14 are all fairly interchangeable IMO. Right after that would come (in no particular order): LaMotta Fred Apostoli Freddie Steele Benvenuti Griffith Giardello Frank Klaus It's hard for me to rate Cerdan, as he competed in so few big fights in his career. He looked great against Zale (but Zale was 35 by then), and then he was stopped by LaMotta (whatever the reasons).
Great list. All placements can bu justified. I would suggest NP Jack Dempsey or Fitzsimmons deserve a mention, and if you're interested in resume, Holman Williams deserves a placement. But I have no problem with this list at all.
I take it the justification for this is head to head? I don't think Jones belongs on a MW list, personally.
That, and owning James Toney just a year or two later, who had been considered a great or near-great middleweight champ himself not too long before.
I think Toney was a cracking MW champ, but if we're boxing over the MW limit Marshall should be right in the top half your list, as should Fitzsimmons.
I left it out in my first post but just edited it, I don't take into consideration fighters before 1900 when making these divisional ratings, there's not much reason as to why, but when I started ranking fighters I decided to make 1900 a cut-off date. One of the main reasons I made this thread was to clear a few things up, and you've always appeared to be one of the more knowledgable posters on this topic, so I'll ask you. I don't know which fights Burley or Williams had at 160 and which fights were either above the weight or at welter. If I knew which fights were contested inside the division's limits it would be very beneficial for me to rate both at the weight. Do you know which fights each man had that were inside the middleweight limits?
You want Boxrec for that chum, but it is a hard one. If one of the fighters weight 161, is that fight now being conducted at LHW or is it now an over the limit 160 fight? Should it count? Sure, it's just a pound, but that last pound can hurt in weight making...
Basically just a judgement call, considering the times, I'll say anything from 163 down should be good for me. It doesn't seem to come into much play when looking at Burley's career as according to Boxrec he hardly ever weighed in over 160lbs, even if his opponents did. Looking at this, I'll move him up. Possibly right behind Robinson. I don't know if I can move anyone out to make room for Williams, I'll look closer at his career overall at the weight with Flowers' and LaMotta's. How do you rank the middleweights McGrain?
With great difficulty chum. But I like your list very much. I think i'd go with Robinson at one. That's not a very popular view on this board but I just think he did it better. I think at his very best he was that good, and he has a cracking resume, and he is a multiple MW champ. On his best nights I think he was better than anyone else on that list. Second would be Monzon or Greb, probably I would have Greb edging it. I've recently had Hopkins as high as four, but now I would have Hagler at four and probably have Hopkins at five. After that it gets a littls spongey, but I think Ketchel, Burley, Tiger, LaMotta, Flowers is very defendable, nothing wrong with that. I would be tempted to bring Williams or Dempsey in at 10, I think, but nothing wrong with having Flowers there, those dual wins over a past-peak Greb are priceless.
Hopkins is too high,Flowers doesn't belong there,rating just the Champs ,I would have Walker in there instead of Burley, rating all who competed at 160 ,Langford MUST BE IN.But your list is as good as anyone's ,including mine.