Top 15 middleweights of all time. Whats yours?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by SuzieQ49, Apr 5, 2010.


Page 3 of 3
  1. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005
    You could say the same for both really. I don't think either was stronger than the other. I don't think either had more stamina. perhaps neither had the better chin. Very even fight.

    Lamotta was pretty much shot when he fought Bob Murphy(whom I believe he did defeat).. Lamotta really started to lose it physically and mentally after he won the title from Cerdan. His hunger was gone, he let his weight balloon again, with his style he didn't age well at all.

    I would also say Lamotta was not even in his prime when he fought Villemain. Lamotta's prime was clearly during the years 1943-46. In any event.. Villemain was a tough cookie. Marcel Cerdan would not fight him.


     
    SuzieQ49, Apr 6, 2010
    SuzieQ49, Apr 6, 2010
    #31
  2. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005
    Lamotta did not age well due to his style, so this cannot be held against him upon his movement into the the lightheavyweight divison while well past his prime in the 1950s. Tiger had a style more suited for longevity.


    I think there win resumes are pretty close


    Jake Lamotta beat

    Sugar Ray Robinson- HOF ATG
    Marcel Cerdan- HOF ATG
    Holman Williams
    Bert Lytell
    Tiberio Mitri
    Laurent Dauthille
    Robert Villemain
    Fritzie Zivic 3x- HOF
    Tony Janiro
    Anton Raadick
    Irish Bob Murphy



    Tiger beat


    Gene Fullmer 2x- HOF
    Joey Giardello- HOF
    Nino Benvenuti- HOF
    Jose Torres- 2x- HOF
    Hurricane Carter
    Florentino Fernandez
    Spider Webb
    Henry Hank
    Jose Gonzales
    Peter Mueller
    Roger Rouse
    Wilf Greaves
    Holly Mimms

    Also Tiger was robbed in the first Emile Griffith fight, and the Joey Archer fight.


    Very Close. I would give Tiger the clear edge in quantity, with lamotta the slight edge in quality. Overall..I would probably favor Tiger's resume. Had he been given the decision in the Griffith fight, it would not even be a debate.
     
    SuzieQ49, Apr 6, 2010
    SuzieQ49, Apr 6, 2010
    #32
  3. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    I love that you included Müller :lol:

    Factor in their losses against those guys and I think Tiger comes out on top more clearly.
     
    bodhi, Apr 6, 2010
    bodhi, Apr 6, 2010
    #33
  4. My2Sense

    My2Sense Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,935
    92
    Aug 21, 2008
    No you couldn't. Tiger was a great inside technician/counterpuncher who was virtually unbeatable against fighters who came to him or stood in front of him. LaMotta does not have that same sort of proven track record against fighters of Tiger's style.

    Tiger hit much harder and had more all-around skill.

    How would you describe Tiger when he was 40 years old and had terminal cancer?

    So were guys like Gene Fullmer, Ruben Carter, Floro Fernandez, Henry Hank, Jose Gonzales, Rocky Rivero, Roger Rouse, and others, all of whom failed badly at outslugging Tiger.
     
    My2Sense, Apr 6, 2010
    My2Sense, Apr 6, 2010
    #34
  5. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005
    My2Sense, I am not going to argue with you about Dick Tiger. I am just as big a Dick Tiger fan as you are, so your stuck with that.


    I would say Lamotta had the slicker defense and head movement while Tiger had better technique and block ability(nice high gaurd). tiger was the much better technician on the inside, and threw sharper straighter punches. Tiger did hit harder, but Lamotta showed that he could hit harder than his record indicated and was dangerous when he played possumm. I know Tiger is possibly the strongest ever, but I feel Jake can fight in the trenches with any middleweight ever. It will be very hard for tiger to hurt lamotta or outwork him.

    Still good enough to beat Nino Benvenuti! Tiger is something special.


    Absa****inlutely!!!! Dick Tiger is one of the best of all time!


    Yes Sir! Tiger is damm near impossible to beat coming into him.


    No,

    but watch the first round of the Cerdan-Lamotta fight. Cerdan, an ATG himself, both as a technician on the inside and as a puncher..gets manhandled and brutalized in close by Jake.
     
    SuzieQ49, Apr 6, 2010
    SuzieQ49, Apr 6, 2010
    #35
  6. Mendoza

    Mendoza Hrgovic = Next Heavyweight champion of the world. banned Full Member

    55,255
    10,355
    Jun 29, 2007
    Can you post those results here?





    On even older Film, Fitz seems faster handed.

    This one is fair since Nat lived in that time line.

    Silver never saw Ketchel. I do not doubt Ketchel was a big puncher.

    He never saw Ketchel either.

    You are quoting Kellerman??? Might as well add that he thinks Roy Jones beats Joe Frazier.

    I disagree here. We have two films. Even if Ketchel was hurt early, he has the other hand to work with. I fail to see any semblance of skills at all vs. Jack Johnson.


    Charlie Mitchell floored John L Sullivan. Johnson was floored by smaller men. CHoynski, and if you believe Jack's own words also by Langford, who was 156 pounds in that fight.


    I agree here. Johnson was dazed and had to roll over and brace himself to get up. But Johnson did not take the best punch in the world. Yet the ones that landed on him square had a big effect. Ketchel would not rate as a top heavyweight puncher, which is a reason why I think Johnson is wildly over rated in a heavyweight head to head type of thread.


    That is my bad. So essentialy your disagreeing with old time historians here who feel Ketchel was #1, and the the IBRO poll that says Ketchel was #3. Kudos!!!
     
    Mendoza, Apr 7, 2010
    Mendoza, Apr 7, 2010
    #36
  7. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,788
    29,197
    Jun 2, 2006
    This NEVER HAPPENED, AND YOU KNOW IT.
     
    mcvey, Apr 7, 2010
    mcvey, Apr 7, 2010
    #37
  8. sweet_scientist

    sweet_scientist Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,744
    88
    Nov 8, 2004
    6 years and about 60 fights, but who's counting.

    Look, there's no question that Philly Jack was still live when Ketchel beat him, but he WAS past his peak. Not only had he lost a couple of years ago to Tommy Burns, but he had lost to Hugo Kelly as well before that, so the signs were there he was beginning his descent.

    And just to add, it's great that O'Brien was able to keep Jack Johnson to a draw, but really, is 6 rounds really the best gauge for where a fighter's at? I just wouldn't put that much stock in it.
     
    sweet_scientist, Apr 7, 2010
    sweet_scientist, Apr 7, 2010
    #38
  9. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,788
    29,197
    Jun 2, 2006
    In his book Fifty years At Ringside ,Nat Fleischer , rated the top 5 middles .
    1.Ketchel
    2.Ryan
    3.Greb
    4.Walker
    5.Robinson
     
    mcvey, Apr 7, 2010
    mcvey, Apr 7, 2010
    #39
  10. Vockerman

    Vockerman LightJunior SuperFlyweigt Full Member

    908
    85
    May 18, 2006
    Here is 20 since the division is so deep and so many are so very close...

    Harry Greb
    Carlos Monzon
    Marvin Hagler
    Ray Robinson
    Stanley Ketchel
    Mickey Walker
    Jake LaMotta
    Marcel Cerdan
    Dick Tiger
    Tommy Ryan
    Mike Gibbons
    Gene Fullmer
    Charley Burley
    Freddie Steele
    Tony Zale
    Bernard Hopkins
    Les Darcy
    Nino Benvenuti
    John Edward Kelly
    Mike O'Dowd
     
    Vockerman, Apr 8, 2010
    Vockerman, Apr 8, 2010
    #40
  11. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,788
    29,197
    Jun 2, 2006
    Tiger also beat Terry Downes
     
    mcvey, Apr 8, 2010
    mcvey, Apr 8, 2010
    #41
Page 3 of 3