Top 30 Middleweights of all time

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by SuzieQ49, Aug 18, 2018.


  1. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,261
    Sep 5, 2011
    McVey above has posted the boxrec story of the Steele-Apostoli fight. This I find revealing,

    "I was just beginning to get right. It sent a terrific pain all over my lower body. I know Apostoli didn't do it on purpose, but it won the fight for him. After that I was strictly a catcher." Freddie Steele, on the 7th round low blow from Apostoli.

    There is a film on the internet of this fight and this round. The film shows Steele limping around. They replayed the flurry of body punches by Apostoli, and none looked low.

    I think I can explain that. It is what is called radiated pain. One can hurt in places far away from the injury. Nothing unusual. It happened to me with a back injury causing pain in my left leg. There was nothing actually wrong with the leg which healing the back didn't cure. So I think Steele honestly thought he was hit low but it was really pain shooting down his torso and legs from his broken breast-bone.

    But this is all just guesswork, obviously.
     
    mcvey likes this.
  2. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,725
    Sep 14, 2005

    You disagree on Fullmer state why

    I want to hear it...


    Watch Lausse vs Fullmer. Fullmer gets badly exposed


    “Steele”

    Pretty powerful statement saying Apostoli broke his back with a punch...If you don’t have sources then don’t state it. Big difference between Apostoli breaking Steele’s back with a punch vs Steele hurting it a different way

    I will do more research


    “Thil”

    When did he cross paths with Steele?

    “Yarosz”

    Lost to men whom Steele knocked out
     
  3. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,261
    Sep 5, 2011
    I clearly posted several times that it was his breast-bone, (and the statement from box rec was posted on this thread by McVey)

    Look, I was not Steele's physician so I don't claim to know. All I do know is that this is what all kinds of sources, including box rec, but plenty of others, say happened, but they weren't his physician either.

    Whatever happened with Apostoli, Steele lost that fight badly, and later X-rays after the Carmen Barth fight showed he had a broken breast-bone, according to box rec. If he had it before the Apostoli fight, why did he go through with the fight? Anyway, it is kind of hard to buy he wouldn't know about an injury like that and when he got it. Broken bones are generally not subtle.
     
  4. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,725
    Sep 14, 2005
    We need to do more research. Find out what really happened in the Steele-Apostoli Bout. Take a closer look at the films. If Steele hurt his back based on landing or twisting the wrong way, that's much different than getting injured from a punch, in which apsotoli deserves full credit. I don't belive steele hurt his back pre fight.

    You need to be careful just going by Boxrec. For instance you thought Loi got the better of Ortiz based on boxrec reports, but Klompton has the films and made counter statements that Ortiz deserved the decisions against Loi.


    I still think Steele was the more consistent fighter than Apostoli. Has a 1-1 record against apostoli and did better against common opposition


    Please state your case on Gene Fullmer. I would like to hear it.
     
  5. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,261
    Sep 5, 2011
    "If Steele hurt his back"

    When did the back get into this. Steele supposedly suffered a broken breast-bone. I have given you the benefit of the doubt about just reading incorrectly, so did not post outright that the breast-bone is the bone down the front of the chest that the ribs connect with and has nothing to do with the back.

    But I wasn't his physician, so I can't say if the reports are true or not.

    "For instance you thought Loi got the better of Ortiz based on boxrec reports, but Klompton has the films and made counter statements that Ortiz deserved the decisions against Loi."

    Years ago I learned something. Some of my co-workers started speaking in Spanish with our supervisor standing nearby. He was Asian. Sometime later he told me "they must think I don't understand Spanish to say what they did right in front of me." It is always best not to make assumptions.

    Back in the eighties I was put in contact with a source for Italian movies. Most of the ones I bought were giallos and westerns and the like, which were not easily available back then. Fiction movies. But I did also get the 3rd Loi-Ortiz fight.

    In the thread you mentioned it ended with this exchange:

    Kompton--"Loi did score a clean knockdown in the sixth but Ortiz scored a knockdown every bit as clean as Loi's in the fifteenth and it was totally ignored."

    My response--"You sure made a lot of assumptions. The knockdown in the 15th was clean but the referee, who was not that young and not that slim, couldn't get there do do anything because Loi bounced up before a count could start. On the film it takes Loi less than one second to regain his feet and start punching again. The referee just let the two of them go. I thought you said you watched the film. And how do you know the judges didn't count it? Did they say so in an interview?"

    Now I might certainly be wrong in my judgment but I saw a close, competitive fight with Loi having a slight advantage. All three officials saw it the same way. It was a UD. Like I say, I could be wrong, as it is all a judgment call, but Klompton could be wrong also. So if he or you or anyone wants us to buy into this or that decision was bad, put the film on here and let all of us look at it. The only reason not to is that you fear others will not agree with your spin.

    and a comment on that thread is still my bottom line, " Why should I consider you more competent to judge a fight than the actual judges?"
     
  6. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,725
    Sep 14, 2005
    Interesting story about co worker thanks for sharing

    “Yarosz”

    What do you make of him getting battered twice by Risko and Steele dominating Risko?


    “Steele”

    My apologies the breast bone. I am very interested to find out what actually caused the injury. I am sure someone knows.

    “Thil”

    Steele was NBA champion and rated number 1 by ring magazine in 35 and 36.

    The bigger question is why didn’t Thil defend/unify against Steele?


    Do you plan on discussing fullmer? I don’t see the harm in it
     
  7. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,261
    Sep 5, 2011
    "Thil"

    was considered the champion by Ring Magazine from 1932 to 1936. When Thil lost to Apostoli in 1937, Steele suddenly become champion. Figure that one out. But when Apostoli beats Steele in 1938, the title is vacant.

    "why didn't Thil defend/unify against Steele?"

    Isn't the reverse equally true. Why didn't Steele go to Europe to challenge Thil? Interestingly, Apostoli stopped them both in 1937 and 1938 but wasn't recognized as champion. Apostoli had only had six fights and had never been beyond the sixth round when he took on Steele in 1935, getting stopped in the 10th, four rounds further than he had ever gone.

    Yarosz supposedly broke his kneecap in the first fight against Risko. Another of these excuses. He later lost but also won against Risko. I think the depth of his overall record is very impressive.

    "Fullmer, I don't see the harm in it."

    And I don't see the point. Your mind is already made up. If losing to a fighter as good as Lausse "exposes" Fullmer while LaMotta is never exposed despite losing fight after fight to such as Hudson, Dauthuille, and Villemain, there is no sense pointing out that Fullmer was the much more consistently winning fighter.

    "I'm sure someone knows."

    After eighty years? Quite possibly no one is alive who knows what exactly happened.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2018
  8. Loudon

    Loudon Loyal Member Full Member

    40,832
    10,198
    Mar 7, 2012
    Compiling a list like this one is impossible to me. It's so difficult. There's so much to consider.

    I know that generally, people don't like to debate on a H2H basis, as traditionally they like to look at resumes. And I'm okay with that. But personally, I do take fantasy H2H match ups into account when rating guys.

    I personally would have Roy that high. He beat Castro, Hopkins, Malinga and Tate easily, and he had a fractured hand against Hopkins.

    Although Hopkins hadn't beaten a top 10 fighter at the time of their fight, that obviously doesn't mean that he wasn't capable of doing so. It was just his circumstances at the time. He went 12 years undefeated after that loss. And I'm sure that if you took the exact version of Hopkins who fought Roy and then transported him to today's division, he'd no doubt be up there with GG etc as one the best MW's in the world.

    Although Roy didn't spend a lot of time at MW, he went on to beat very good fighters at higher weights, using the exact same attributes he displayed at MW. He fought Toney the same year that he beat Tate, in 1994. So personally, I think that the version who beat Tate at 25, was capable of beating any guy on the list. So while I appreciate that he doesn't have a great MW resume, he would have to rate very highly on a H2H basis.

    This should be a good thread, with the input of some great posters.
     
  9. Loudon

    Loudon Loyal Member Full Member

    40,832
    10,198
    Mar 7, 2012
    I'm a big fan of Mike McCallum's.
     
  10. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    52,452
    43,599
    Apr 27, 2005
    I'm definitely not downplaying Roy but this version of Hopkins was far from the finished article. I don't doubt tho that he still would have beaten good fighters and would sit well right now even pre prime.
     
    Loudon and mcvey like this.
  11. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,725
    Sep 14, 2005
    More of a 154 no?
     
    mcvey likes this.
  12. Loudon

    Loudon Loyal Member Full Member

    40,832
    10,198
    Mar 7, 2012
    No, he fought Graham, Collins, Kalambay, Watson and Toney at MW.

    A great fighter.
     
  13. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,725
    Sep 14, 2005
    Great fighter, but great at 160?

    He lost to Kalambay and Toney. Does McCallum make the top 30 at 160?
     
  14. Loudon

    Loudon Loyal Member Full Member

    40,832
    10,198
    Mar 7, 2012
    Yes, he was a great fighter at 160.

    Did you see those fights?

    Again, it depends what criteria you're using to rank these greats.

    I mentioned him because I saw you had Nunn just in there.

    In my opinion, Mike was a better fighter than a guy like GGG. It's just that he never had a prolonged period at MW because he kept moving up through the divisions.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018